MCU: Phase II - Part 1

[cherokeesam]

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.

Where are you getting these wild notions about what does and does not, what can and what can not work in Marvel movies....? Or comics, for that matter? Where do you see "books that aren't attached to the event going on don't do as well?" Which books? Which events? Which "previous CBMs" can you name that had "meaningless cameos/easter eggs in non-shared universes?"

There is more to the Marvel Universe than a single story arc. In fact, major crossover events rarely affect the entire universe; instead, they focus on certain titles that Marvel wants to bootstrap or introduce to readers. And when it's a grand cosmic crossover, the street-level heroes are almost always out of the fray, predictably; your example of Daredevil showing up to battle the Chitauri most certainly *would* have been a "WTF?!?!" moment, since he has no reason to be attached to SHIELD or to the Avengers or to any massive alien invasion launched by a Norse god.

As for making cheaper movies: that, again, is on Marvel Studios' agenda.

http://www.chud.com/23473/exclusive-marvels-exciting-small-movie-plans/

Marvel Studios is currently taking meetings with writers and directors to work on small scale movies based on some of their third tier characters. The movies would cost in the range of 20 to 40 million dollars (very small when we’re talking studio films) and would allow them to take risks with less obvious characters and with interesting talent.

Filmmakers are being offered their pick of characters whose names are only familiar to comic fans. Properties like Dr. Strange, Ka-Zar, Luke Cage, Dazzler and Power Pack are among the many that are being tossed around right now. And the attitude seems to be that Marvel is open to bringing any of their characters to the screen at the right price point.

In a lot of ways this is revolutionary. While superhero movies such as Kick-Ass have been made at a lower price point, the big studio system seems unable to keep costs down (Marvel has been just as guilty of this, by the way. Their films were supposed to be cheaper originally). This plan allows Marvel much more flexibility; a 100 million dollar Dazzler movie makes no sense, but one budgeted at 25 million – done right – could be a moneymaker. And at a lower budget these movies don’t need to be quite so mainstream. A 20 million dollar film can take much bigger risks than one that costs a hundred million more than that.

The Marvel Universe has always been bigger than just the Avengers; to paraphrase Nick Fury: do you *really* think they're the only ones?

 

[TheVileOne]

Nice ideas, but none of the upcoming movies Marvel has planned over the next few years will be low-budget.

 

[terry78]

Dr. Strange would have to be about 100 mil along with the top tier characters.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

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.

Very good points, Doc.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

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.

Agreed. Both The Marvel and DC universes have become unreadable to me. The status quo seems to change every single year.

 

[DrCosmic]

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.

We can bag on Bendis 100 ways, but the New Avengers isn't a kids book on any day of the week. And Brubaker's Cap and JMS' Thor is a perfect example of what Marvel is doing. Individual sub-franchises have self contained stories, but then those stories tie into the big event, and then those events spin back into the sub-franchises' stories. That's what The MCU is doing and I agree, they'll avoid making movies that can't be done in that way.

I also feel the number of movies that can be done in that way is very large. Like the Daredevil example. If he'd had an MCU film... guess who's home is being invaded by aliens? Guess what he's going to do about it? Guess who has to deal with the legal fallout coming from an alien invasion in his own film? I would even argue it's more natural for the stories to run together than for these people to be involved in these epic events (that are dramatically less frequent than they are in comics) as isolated incidents with no repercussions for anyone but them, despite mobile, nearby, powerful, interested parties being nearby, available, and naturally associated by virtue of being inhuman.

Where are you getting these wild notions about what does and does not, what can and what can not work in Marvel movies....? Or comics, for that matter? Where do you see "books that aren't attached to the event going on don't do as well?" Which books? Which events? Which "previous CBMs" can you name that had "meaningless cameos/easter eggs in non-shared universes?"

There is more to the Marvel Universe than a single story arc. In fact, major crossover events rarely affect the entire universe; instead, they focus on certain titles that Marvel wants to bootstrap or introduce to readers. And when it's a grand cosmic crossover, the street-level heroes are almost always out of the fray, predictably; your example of Daredevil showing up to battle the Chitauri most certainly *would* have been a "WTF?!?!" moment, since he has no reason to be attached to SHIELD or to the Avengers or to any massive alien invasion launched by a Norse god.

As for making cheaper movies: that, again, is on Marvel Studios' agenda.

http://www.chud.com/23473/exclusive-marvels-exciting-small-movie-plans/



The Marvel Universe has always been bigger than just the Avengers; to paraphrase Nick Fury: do you *really* think they're the only ones?

Thanks for finding that for me, but that quote was kinda addressed/updated on the page. Daredevil sees aliens on his front doorstep... he fights them. Where's the WTF?

I get my ideas from watching what Marvel does and how well it's working for them instead of talking about what Marvel used to do in a different time and medium and how much I liked it.

As for a specific example... take Black Panther... hovering around 20K issues, then Secret Invasion shows up and it's on the cover of BP: Boom! Over 30K issues. Contrast with The Runaways, 30K going in, stayed unrelated and despite having a new number 1 during the event, stayed at about 30K. Though they did appear in a related book too that did much better.

As for movie examples. The old Batman movies had the occasional mention of Metropolis and its hero. These mentions didn't make the movies better, or any more engrossing or engaging for anyone. Just another meaningless line with no impact on the characters or story whatsoever.

Why are you guys so scared of having one big story? It's gotta be more than "That's not the way it used to be..."

 

[the gael]

The Daredevil in "Avengers" or not is a really stange debate to me. For me, his return to Marvel is a great opportunity to explore the whole MCU because he is what Spiderman also is (but Spiderman being uner Sony control...) : A link between the street level heroes he is part of and the "Avengers".

I don't know why Daredevil fighting chitauri is WTF. In the comics, he recently fought an army of Von Strucker robots (and defeat them the same way he defeats Stiltman)

Yes, Daredevil is far less powerfull that Iron Man, Thor, Thanos and co, but he isn't less powerfull than the Black Widow or Captain America. He may be considered more powerful than hawkeye, due to his super senses.

He has a strong connection with some avengers in the comics (Captain America and the Black Widow). And, due to his lawyer job particulary, he also has a strong connection to half of the MCU.

But, that being said, he choose to stay independant (he refused at least twice to become an avengers, the first one being during the Stan Lee area. But he finally agreed to become one of them in 2011) to fight crime and protect Hell's Kitchen. Yes, it is just a choice. When the Avengers are fighting interstellar villain, he is here to stop human but sometimes powerful street level enemies (Death Stalker, for exemple)

his place in the Marvel world make him mix well with Spiderman, Luke Cage, Danny Rand and so many other street level heroes.

And don't believe that he isn't able to be on Avenger's level. In one issue (DD vol 1 issue 155), he is victim of a skull trauma and fight half of the avengers. He defeated the beast, Cap, Hercules and the Black Widow together...

Yes Daredevil can work in an Avengers movie, if he is what he is in the comic. A guy who helps them, but choose to stay away of them at the end and just concentrate on his small Hell's kitchen protection.

He is more known than Iron Fist or Luke Cage in the GA, and can be use as a good way to introduce them. No, Marvel would be stupid not to use him.

The only guy that will never work in an Avengers movie is the Punisher. He can work in a DD movie, but not really with any other character. He is basically the Paul Kersey of the MCU, the guy who gunned down the mafia and the non powered criminal alone. He will never be a team player.

 

[cherokeesam]

Nice ideas, but none of the upcoming movies Marvel has planned over the next few years will be low-budget.

That they've discussed publicly.
Again, the CHUD article shows that they're shopping around the concept of low-budget character films in addition to the tentpoles. They're not going to sit on all those street-level characters they've got. With Disney looking over their shoulder, it's even *less* likely they're going to stick to the "just two tentpoles a year and nothing else" policy.

Thanks for finding that for me, but that quote was kinda addressed/updated on the page. Daredevil sees aliens on his front doorstep... he fights them. Where's the WTF?

Okay, by extension: your Daredevil joins the MCU version of the (Bendis)Vengers, then, and we sally forth to Avengers 2. The team gathers to travel to the far reaches of the cosmos to battle the Mad Titan Thanos, and.....hey, let's bring a blind guy with a billy club along, because he's *just* the kind of firepower we're gonna need to take on a guy who can wipe out entire solar systems with a wave of his hand. Again: WTF?

I get my ideas from watching what Marvel does and how well it's working for them instead of talking about what Marvel used to do in a different time and medium and how much I liked it.

You get your ideas from what Marvel Comics is doing *now.* What Marvel Comics is doing *now* is struggling to survive in an era where their medium (print) is no longer viable, so they take their cue from whatever the movies are doing. The Studio dictates to the comic; not the other way around.

As for the Studio, they take their cue from the way the comics used to be. Everyone said that Avengers would fail, *precisely* because it was trying to do in film what the comics did --- maintain separate team and solo franchises. In an era when other studios tried to gritty up their superheroes and bring them down to earth to make them somehow more believable, Marvel Studios went back to the old Stan Lee/Jack Kirby formula and four-colored the whole shebang up and made actual comic book movies. Not kinda-sorta CBMs --- the real deal.

Why are you guys so scared of having one big story? It's gotta be more than "That's not the way it used to be..."

The way it used to be worked for Stan for 50+ years. Feige knows that, and that's why he's following the *old* formula. MS takes their cues from the Bullpen, not from Nolan and Singer and Raimi and the guys who are trying to put their directorial stamp and vision on these projects. Feige makes movies for the fans, not for the filmmakers.

 

[DrCosmic]

That they've discussed publicly.
Again, the CHUD article shows that they're shopping around the concept of low-budget character films in addition to the tentpoles. They're not going to sit on all those street-level characters they've got. With Disney looking over their shoulder, it's even *less* likely they're going to stick to the "just two tentpoles a year and nothing else" policy.

The article Vile posted refers to and is after the chud article. They're not doing that anymore. This idea that Disney wants the same thing from Marvel Studios that you want is simply wishful thinking.

Okay, by extension: your Daredevil joins the MCU version of the (Bendis)Vengers, then, and we sally forth to Avengers 2. The team gathers to travel to the far reaches of the cosmos to battle the Mad Titan Thanos, and.....hey, let's bring a blind guy with a billy club along, because he's *just* the kind of firepower we're gonna need to take on a guy who can wipe out entire solar systems with a wave of his hand. Again: WTF?

Right back atcha. Why would DD join the Avengers in the scenario we're discussing, and how do you explain Hawkeye, then. People don't make decisions based on what powers they have. The only way DD feels forced if you make a dumb 'by extension' or approach the story like a

You get your ideas from what Marvel Comics is doing *now.* What Marvel Comics is doing *now* is struggling to survive in an era where their medium (print) is no longer viable, so they take their cue from whatever the movies are doing. The Studio dictates to the comic; not the other way around.

As for the Studio, they take their cue from the way the comics used to be. Everyone said that Avengers would fail, *precisely* because it was trying to do in film what the comics did --- maintain separate team and solo franchises. In an era when other studios tried to gritty up their superheroes and bring them down to earth to make them somehow more believable, Marvel Studios went back to the old Stan Lee/Jack Kirby formula and four-colored the whole shebang up and made actual comic book movies. Not kinda-sorta CBMs --- the real deal.

The way it used to be worked for Stan for 50+ years. Feige knows that, and that's why he's following the *old* formula. MS takes their cues from the Bullpen, not from Nolan and Singer and Raimi and the guys who are trying to put their directorial stamp and vision on these projects. Feige makes movies for the fans, not for the filmmakers.

Give a clear statement about the relationship between Marvel and the bullpen. You go back and forth a lot.

And there's nothing separate about the Avengers and any of the other MCU films, their stories tie directly into the Avengers story. You can't seriously think these films, dominated by Avengers story points such as the development of Loki (Thor) Cosmic Cube (Captain America) Thanos (Guardians of the Galaxy) SHIELD (Iron Man 2) are separate in the way that early comics were separate, then I pity you for missing out on the great and grand epic story Marvel Studios is telling.

As for what comics they're taking their cues from... should we review Avengers?

• Marketed as a big team-up event, not another separate franchise
• Story is built off of storypoints of the solo Avengers films
• SLJ Fury puts together "Avengers Initiative" via SHIELD
• Modern Costumes
• Subued costumes for those who modern costumes are still 4 color
• Modern characterizations and personalities
• Darker themes: deaths, depression/emotional instability (for males, not just females)
• petty infighting
• heroes motivated by personal experience rather than greater good
• devastating property damage in New York City
• Going forward: Non-Avengers' films tying in strongly to Avengers 2
• No plans for any non-Avengers related movies or non-tentpoles

Where's the four color?

 

[cherokeesam]

The article Vile posted refers to and is after the chud article. They're not doing that anymore. This idea that Disney wants the same thing from Marvel Studios that you want is simply wishful thinking.

Prove it. Until you find some statement that MS has dropped those plans for movies in the 20-40 million budget range, then there's no reason to assume they aren't still in development hell somewhere.

Right back atcha. Why would DD join the Avengers in the scenario we're discussing, and how do you explain Hawkeye, then. People don't make decisions based on what powers they have. The only way DD feels forced if you make a dumb 'by extension' or approach the story like a

Hawkeye is a bona fide SHIELD agent. As is Widow. Daredevil? Nope. Hawkeye and Widow fit not only the story but the canon; Daredevil does neither.

Give a clear statement about the relationship between Marvel and the bullpen. You go back and forth a lot.

And there's nothing separate about the Avengers and any of the other MCU films, their stories tie directly into the Avengers story. You can't seriously think these films, dominated by Avengers story points such as the development of Loki (Thor) Cosmic Cube (Captain America) Thanos (Guardians of the Galaxy) SHIELD (Iron Man 2) are separate in the way that early comics were separate, then I pity you for missing out on the great and grand epic story Marvel Studios is telling.

Explain again what Whiplash has to do with Thor fighting Loki. Or what Hulk and Abomination duking it out in Harlem has to do with Cap fighting HYDRA in WWII. Tell me where Mandarin is supposed to have ties with Thanos, or Winter Soldier, or Malekith or any combination thereof.

And here's a simple question from the business end of it: how successful do you think Marvel Studios would be going forward in trying to hire directors and screenwriters whose *main priority* is to figure out how their story will tie in with this "great and grand epic?"

"Gosh, I had some really great ideas for where to go with Luke Cage, or Daredevil, or The Runaways, but I can't figure out how to tie them into Thanos' Big Master Plan. Oh well, back to the old drawing board."

As for what comics they're taking their cues from... should we review Avengers?

• Marketed as a big team-up event, not another separate franchise
• Story is built off of storypoints of the solo Avengers films
• SLJ Fury puts together "Avengers Initiative" via SHIELD
• Modern Costumes
• Subued costumes for those who modern costumes are still 4 color
• Modern characterizations and personalities
• Darker themes: deaths, depression/emotional instability (for males, not just females)
• petty infighting
• heroes motivated by personal experience rather than greater good
• devastating property damage in New York City
• Going forward: Non-Avengers' films tying in strongly to Avengers 2
• No plans for any non-Avengers related movies or non-tentpoles

Where's the four color?

What the **** is subdued about Cap's suit? Or Iron Patriot? Or ice-cream-colored Iron Man? And where are any of the things you listed absent from four-color comics? There was just as much collateral damage, petty infighting, and modern characterization in Stan Lee's Silver Age as there is in the Bendisverse. In fact, even more so --- the Bendisverse is *far* more cartoony than the comics of the 70s or 80s.

 

[DrCosmic]

Prove it. Until you find some statement that MS has dropped those plans for movies in the 20-40 million budget range, then there's no reason to assume they aren't still in development hell somewhere.

The statements were linked to on the previous page. If you choose not to read it/believe it, then enjoy your parallel reality.

Hawkeye is a bona fide SHIELD agent. As is Widow. Daredevil? Nope. Hawkeye and Widow fit not only the story but the canon; Daredevil does neither.

That still doesn't explain why you would bring Hawkeye and Widow along to deal with Thanos. They're vastly underpowered. Unless... -gasp- perhaps, people don't make decisions based on their powersets. Hmm...

Explain again what Whiplash has to do with Thor fighting Loki. Or what Hulk and Abomination duking it out in Harlem has to do with Cap fighting HYDRA in WWII. Tell me where Mandarin is supposed to have ties with Thanos, or Winter Soldier, or Malekith or any combination thereof.

I explained very clearly how Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Iron Man 3 are all connected to Avengers and Avengers 2, can you respond to that?

And here's a simple question from the business end of it: how successful do you think Marvel Studios would be going forward in trying to hire directors and screenwriters whose *main priority* is to figure out how their story will tie in with this "great and grand epic?"

"Gosh, I had some really great ideas for where to go with Luke Cage, or Daredevil, or The Runaways, but I can't figure out how to tie them into Thanos' Big Master Plan. Oh well, back to the old drawing board."

Who said anything about main priority? All I know is that we've heard nothing official about Daredevil, Runaways and Luke Cage, and plenty about Guardians of the Galaxy... and Marvel's been pretty successful so far, wouldn't you say?

What the **** is subdued about Cap's suit? Or Iron Patriot? Or ice-cream-colored Iron Man? And where are any of the things you listed absent from four-color comics? There was just as much collateral damage, petty infighting, and modern characterization in Stan Lee's Silver Age as there is in the Bendisverse. In fact, even more so --- the Bendisverse is *far* more cartoony than the comics of the 70s or 80s.

Oh, they had SLJ Fury in silver age? I stand corrected then.

But to address your core point: there are things that are common amongst all eras of comics, but there are a lot of things, especially story points, personalities and costumes, that the MCU takes from the modern era. Even Cap's suit - whose 4-colorness was a big story point - lost the mail effect. The only thing they have from Stan and Jack is the spirit of adventure.

What makes you say that the modern Avengers are more cartoony than the Silver Age? It sounds like hate has clouded your mind, young Padawan.

 

[cherokeesam]

Ell oh ****ing ell, Doc.

It's not even worth the futility of trying to make sense of what you spout anymore. In the immortal words of Dr. Bruce D. Banner: "That guy's brain is a bag full of cats. You can smell crazy on him."

All I can say is thank god Marvel Studios has broader vision for the future than the blinders you put on. Marvel Studios is not about shackling the MCU to one villain or one team or one story arc or one vision --- it's about launching and maintaining *numerous* successful franchises that all operate independently of one another.

You know: just like in the comics.

'Nuff said.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I'm looking forward to seeing the quirky, light hearted romantic comedy that is Luke Cage.

 

[cherokeesam]

I'm looking forward to seeing the quirky, light hearted romantic comedy that is Luke Cage.

Power Man and Iron Fist: The Bromance

 

[KangConquers]

Power Man and Iron Fist: The Bromance

Owen Wilson as Iron Fist.

 

[DrCosmic]

Ell oh ****ing ell, Doc.

It's not even worth the futility of trying to make sense of what you spout anymore. In the immortal words of Dr. Bruce D. Banner: "That guy's brain is a bag full of cats. You can smell crazy on him."

All I can say is thank god Marvel Studios has broader vision for the future than the blinders you put on. Marvel Studios is not about shackling the MCU to one villain or one team or one story arc or one vision --- it's about launching and maintaining *numerous* successful franchises that all operate independently of one another.

You know: just like in the comics.

'Nuff said.

Namecalling, cursing, whatever. Just let me know when Marvel Studios releases or announces a film that doesn't tie into Avengers.

 

[Captain Marvel]

Seriously? Of course they will. They just haven't done so yet because their schedule's full with sequels for the Avengers characters, but that'll change in a few years. The Iron Man series has in all probability come to an end for the forseeable future. Captain America and Thor are on the second of what'll likely be their three outings. And while Guardians of the Galaxy may tie into Avengers, its sequels likely won't. Once those series' begin to wrap up they can start putting out other movies which aren't Avengers related. We'll probably see some of those after Avengers 2.

 

[DrCosmic]

Of course... because?
They make more money tieing things into Avengers, and it doesn't (necessarily) hurt the story for the solo movies and it makes the story for Avengers a million times better. Why on Earth would they ever stop?
No one made them tie all their movies into Avengers, it's something they've chosen to do, when they've had opportunity to do it 'just like the comics' the entire time.

 

[cherokeesam]

Namecalling, cursing, whatever. Just let me know when Marvel Studios releases or announces a film that doesn't tie into Avengers.

Other than Dr. Strange, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, the SHIELD TV show, GDT's Hulk TV show, the cancelled TV pilots for Alias Jessica Jones and Mockingbird and Cloak & Dagger, The Runaways, The Inhumans, Power Pack, Dazzler, and Ka-Zar? These titles may be in Development Hell, but the fact that they've got scripts at all means that Marvel Studios have a lot of properties on the backburner that have no visible ties whatsoever to any mythical over-arcing Avengers central plot.

So just let me know whenever you find a quote that says Marvel Studios plans to tie all their movies and TV shows into a central Avenger-centric arc.

As for name-calling: dude. You started it several posts back with "dumb," "enjoy your parallel reality," and asinine Star Wars jokes, "young Padawan." If you wanna drop the maturity level of this conversation, I don't mind one bit...hey, I can be just as big a *****ebag as you.

 

[spideymouse]

Of course... because?
They make more money tieing things into Avengers, and it doesn't (necessarily) hurt the story for the solo movies and it makes the story for Avengers a million times better. Why on Earth would they ever stop?
No one made them tie all their movies into Avengers, it's something they've chosen to do, when they've had opportunity to do it 'just like the comics' the entire time.

Of course it made sense story-wise to tie solo Avengers movies to the Avengers movie. Once they start making movies for characters that aren't Avengers, I do think that forcing them into the Avengers narrative (or turning every solo hero into an Avenger) could take away from those non-Avengers characters' individual stories.

 

[DrCosmic]

Other than Dr. Strange, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, the SHIELD TV show, GDT's Hulk TV show, the cancelled TV pilots for Alias Jessica Jones and Mockingbird and Cloak & Dagger, The Runaways, The Inhumans, Power Pack, Dazzler, and Ka-Zar? These titles may be in Development Hell, but the fact that they've got scripts at all means that Marvel Studios have a lot of properties on the backburner that have no visible ties whatsoever to any mythical over-arcing Avengers central plot.

So just let me know whenever you find a quote that says Marvel Studios plans to tie all their movies and TV shows into a central Avenger-centric arc.

As for name-calling: dude. You started it several posts back with "dumb," "enjoy your parallel reality," and asinine Star Wars jokes, "young Padawan." If you wanna drop the maturity level of this conversation, I don't mind one bit...hey, I can be just as big a *****ebag as you.

Whoa there, I explicitly said your idea was dumb not you. Yes, I joke, but I never discredit your mental abilities or dismiss you as a human being. That's a line I don't cross. Apparently you do, so I call you out on it, as I expect you to do me if you feel disrespected. If you want to be a *****ebag, you're on your own, but 'getting me back' and then defending yourself with 'you started it' and accusations of 'immaturity' can't possibly work out for the best.

On the point: none of those properties are announced (though the one not in development hell, the SHIELD TV show, has crossover king Agent Coulson in it). You want a quote to say that Marvel will keep doing what they're doing, even though they have no reason to stop? That's what you're hanging this hope that Marvel will stop their successful effective strategy of movie storytelling 'they didn't say they were going to keep doing it?'

That sounds really... graspy.

As far as I can tell, they're in development hell precisely because they don't have a way to tie them into the overarching Avengers' story, which is only "mythical" to people who didn't realize Loki was in Thor, the Cosmic Cube was in Cap, SHIELD was in IM2 and etc, etc, etc...

Of course it made sense story-wise to tie solo Avengers movies to the Avengers movie. Once they start making movies for characters that aren't Avengers, I do think that forcing them into the Avengers narrative (or turning every solo hero into an Avenger) could take away from those non-Avengers characters' individual stories.

They've already started making movies for characters that aren't Avengers, namely, the Guardians of the Galaxy. It shows that there is at least one way of including these characters in the Avengers' story other than making them Avengers: by having the Avengers face their bad guy, in this case Thanos.

But we kinda already saw that in Thor, except this time, the heroes don't join the Avengers. In future properties, we could very well see something similar to what we saw in with Cap and the Cosmic Cube. Some solo hero has some sort of McGuffin object in their adventure: a magical staff, a sentient ship, a mysterious metal, a dangerous drug compound... and then it becomes part of the story of Avengers, either a weapon used by the bad guy, a power source, a decoy... except for now with non-Avengers, without the hero from the solo film joining the Avengers at all.

You can take this idea as far as you want and bring in not only villains and super-objects, but settings, supporting cast, groups/agencies and more from the non-Avengers' films into the Avengers, making both films indispensable to fans of both. If the stories are connected, now you've "got" to see both to get the full story. More money. Deeper story. Nothing "taken away." Everyone wins. What's not to like? And more specifically: why would Marvel studios do anything different?

 

[Raiden]

Namecalling, cursing, whatever. Just let me know when Marvel Studios releases or announces a film that doesn't tie into Avengers.

They already have their Phase II schedule tied up; let's give them some time to sort it out for Phase III, shall we?

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Just let me know when Marvel Studios releases or announces a film that doesn't tie into Avengers.

You'll know it when it happens.

 

[DrCosmic]

True, and true again. All I'm thinking is: there is absolutely no reason to make GotG over all the myriad of previously mentioned properties - including ones they're excited about like Dr. Strange and Iron Fist - unless there was a strong priority at Marvel Studios to have movies that set up future Avengers films.

 

[Chewy]

Yes there is. Guardians of the Galaxy is a huge space epic, most of the other properties mentioned here are street level heroes who fight street-level villains (mobsters). Enormous commercial potential versus lower risk, lower reward properties.

The exceptions being Dr Strange and Inhumans, which also happen to be the films that are mentioned most often by the Marvel Studios crew (not a coincidence)