MCU: Phase II - Part 1

[Whiskey Tango]

I think GotG is more meant to set up cosmic Marvel rather than Avengers personally

 

[Chewy]

Yeah Marvel clearly wants to expand into the cosmic arena. It's a different flavor of film and keeps all of their output from being largely the same (which, as much as I love some of the street heroes, a series of Marvel Knights films would mostly be)

But they also want their cosmic property to be able to feed off the success of Avengers just like the Cap and Thor and Iron Man movies have. So they build Guardians around Thanos, and Joss builds the Avengers sequel around Thanos. Everybody wins.

 

[DrCosmic]

You guys are right, GotG was chosen because it expands the universe AND it works with Avengers. I think that's why Dr. Strange and Iron Fist, movies which also expand the the universe and have been mentioned as faves of the production crew for at least that reason, were not chosen. They don't work with the Avengers story in the same way.

But I don't think it's 'feed off of' Avengers so much as it's 'feed into.' There might be some extra interest in GotG because of Thanos end credit thing, but I think there will be a lot more interest drummed up in Avengers 2 once everyone sees how badarse and hardcore Thanos is.

Honestly guys, until Phases stop culminating (their word, not mine) in Avengers movies, Marvel is going to keep building up two tentpole films a year towards a big payoff in Avengers. I don't think they're going to make any films that would work just as well in any phase... or else why make them now over films that only work in the current/next phase? A lack of relevance to the big money maker and prestige maker = deprioritization, and that's what we've seen with Runaways et al.

 

[cherokeesam]

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)

Exactly.
Marvel aren't going to take a $150+ million chance on a movie that's *just* designed to be an Avengers plot point. They fully intend to franchise GOTG; unless the movie crashes and burns Green Lantern-style, there is every reason to believe that they're already storyboarding GOTG2, and the sequel will likely have nothing to do with Avengers or even Thanos, but will carry the adventures of PQ and Company to other parts of the galaxy.

 

[spideymouse]

Exactly.
Marvel aren't going to take a $150+ million chance on a movie that's *just* designed to be an Avengers plot point. They fully intend to franchise GOTG; unless the movie crashes and burns Green Lantern-style, there is every reason to believe that they're already storyboarding GOTG2, and the sequel will likely have nothing to do with Avengers or even Thanos, but will carry the adventures of PQ and Company to other parts of the galaxy.

Do you guys think that they are intending to franchise Ant-Man as well? Many people here think it will be more of just a one-off in order to add Ant-Man (and Wasp) to the Avengers mix.

 

[Dark Raven]

Do you guys think that they are intending to franchise Ant-Man as well? Many people here think it will be more of just a one-off in order to add Ant-Man (and Wasp) to the Avengers mix.

If it does well, then why wouldn't they franchise it? It doesn't matter how it has done in the comics. It's the movies that count.

 

[cherokeesam]

Do you guys think that they are intending to franchise Ant-Man as well? Many people here think it will be more of just a one-off in order to add Ant-Man (and Wasp) to the Avengers mix.

Depends on the budget.
Given Edgar Wright's history of working with smaller budget (but still successful and popular) films, I'm not sure that Marvel is trying to tentpole this one with a megabudget of the usual $150 mil+. But if they *do* throw that kind of cash at it, then yes, I'm sure they'll expect a bona fide franchise in return.

 

[DrCosmic]

Exactly.
Marvel aren't going to take a $150+ million chance on a movie that's *just* designed to be an Avengers plot point. They fully intend to franchise GOTG; unless the movie crashes and burns Green Lantern-style, there is every reason to believe that they're already storyboarding GOTG2, and the sequel will likely have nothing to do with Avengers or even Thanos, but will carry the adventures of PQ and Company to other parts of the galaxy.

Of course they aren't goin to take 150M for a movie that's just designed to introduce an Avengers plot point, but so far, they haven't taken 150M to make a movie that's not *also* an Avengers plot point. We can hope/assume/guess that GotG2 won't be related to Avengers in some way, but that has nothing to do with Marvel Studios' track record, announcements, proven successful use and selection of their franchises, or anything other than hope.

Do you guys think that they are intending to franchise Ant-Man as well? Many people here think it will be more of just a one-off in order to add Ant-Man (and Wasp) to the Avengers mix.

Originally Ant-Man was conceived of and developed as a standalone independent of the MCU. As far as we know, it still is, though it's hard to imagine they would actually follow through with such a thing. I suspect there will be some compromise that bring Scott Lang into the MCU, but adding Ant-Man and Wasp is a distant hope, definitely not the reason the movie is being made.

The movie is being made because Edgar Wright wanted to make an Ant-Man movie... if it's successful, they'll make a sequel, likely with another director. If not ala TIH, it won't be a franchise.

 

[Chewy]

Do you guys think that they are intending to franchise Ant-Man as well? Many people here think it will be more of just a one-off in order to add Ant-Man (and Wasp) to the Avengers mix.

I doubt they're even making it to add the Pyms to the Avengers mix, although that's likely how things will play out. The Pyms could be introduced in an Avengers movie without much fanfare.

I imagine they're mostly making it because Edgar Wright wants to make it and has been trying since before Marvel Studios became a big deal. He sought them out to work with them at a time when dozens of writers were turning down working on Iron Man.

 

[chamber-music]

Kevin Feige

"Edgar's still working on that [Ant-Man] project, and it's closer than ever," Feige told Toronto Sun. "But it's been eight years we've been working with him, and we finally decided we couldn't keep putting more people in. If Ant-Man had come out four years ago, it would certainly have been part of the puzzle."

Basically if Ant-Man came out before the avengers like it was supposed to then he probably would of been in the movie.

Unless the Ant-Man script has gone though another draft in the past year we might not see him in Avengers 2 either

Cornish and Wright

“The thing is, the script that I’ve written… the chronology of it or the way it works wouldn’t really fit in with what [The Avengers] do. And my film is very much an introduction to [Ant-Man], and so it wasn’t something where it felt right to introduce him in [Whedon's] film.”

 

[jaykayem]

I doubt even Marvel knows who the line-up for "Avengers 2" is yet. There are bound to be surprises, maybe a few characters showing up specifically for that movie. Don't rule out "Guardians of the Galaxy" as an entry for new members either. Someone like Carol Danvers could show up on screen in addition to the "cosmic set".

 

[cherokeesam]

Of course they aren't goin to take 150M for a movie that's just designed to introduce an Avengers plot point, but so far, they haven't taken 150M to make a movie that's not *also* an Avengers plot point. We can hope/assume/guess that GotG2 won't be related to Avengers in some way, but that has nothing to do with Marvel Studios' track record, announcements, proven successful use and selection of their franchises, or anything other than hope.

Beyond the obvious "Avengers assemble" angle, which was absolutely necessary to introduce the Avengers franchise proper, there were *no* plot points in TIH, IM1, or IM2 that pointed towards Avengers' plot of Loki acquiring the Tesseract and gathering an army of alien mercenaries to invade Earth.

Nor, I'll wager a shiny penny, will the "down to earth" Phase II titles like IM3, CATWS, or Ant-Man introduce or tie-in any plot points about Thanos and Avengers 2.

*Some* Phase I movies tied in to Avengers 1's plotline; but not all. There is no reason to doubt that similarly, *some* Phase II movies will tie in to Avengers 2's plotline; but not all.

 

[Dark Raven]

I'm quite happy for not all of the individual Marvel movies to feed into the bigger plot. What is great about having a team is the idea that its members can answer the call at a moment's notice even when they're not clued up about the threat. Cap or someone else could just say "Ok, I'll be right there" simply out of a sense of duty to help their team mate and to the world, and not because they have a personal stake in the fight themselves. Whoever it is who has dealt with the threat before can fill them in along the way.

And that's what I liked about team-ups in the Marvel universe - eg in Marvel Team-Up. Spidey could fight someone else's villain. He didn't just say "this doesn't involve me - it's not my enemy." He treated the person as his enemy as well. And that's what was cool about the Avengers movie - seeing Cap or Iron Man fight Loki, who was Thor's enemy, as if it were their own.

 

[DrCosmic]

Beyond the obvious "Avengers assemble" angle, which was absolutely necessary to introduce the Avengers franchise proper, there were *no* plot points in TIH, IM1, or IM2 that pointed towards Avengers' plot of Loki acquiring the Tesseract and gathering an army of alien mercenaries to invade Earth.

Nor, I'll wager a shiny penny, will the "down to earth" Phase II titles like IM3, CATWS, or Ant-Man introduce or tie-in any plot points about Thanos and Avengers 2.

*Some* Phase I movies tied in to Avengers 1's plotline; but not all. There is no reason to doubt that similarly, *some* Phase II movies will tie in to Avengers 2's plotline; but not all.

The obvious tie in is still the tie in. All the films announced so far tie into Avengers in some way or another.

Except maybe Ant-Man. We can debate all day about Edgar Wright's Ant-Man's level of involvement in the MCU, and we have in the past. At the moment, all the information we have is limited, old, infrequent, and leads to the conclusion that he will be separate from the MCU, but that's pretty much unthinkable.

And that's what I liked about team-ups in the Marvel universe - eg in Marvel Team-Up. Spidey could fight someone else's villain. He didn't just say "this doesn't involve me - it's not my enemy." He treated the person as his enemy as well. And that's what was cool about the Avengers movie - seeing Cap or Iron Man fight Loki, who was Thor's enemy, as if it were their own.

That's interesting, as the movie went to great lengths to demonstrate how Loki was their enemy as well. Yes they would have fought anyway, but it's a heckuva lot more interesting when they're fighting for reasons other than "he's a bad guy, I'm a good guy." That's cartoon stuff, you gotta come harder for a billion dollar franchise.

 

[YoungPrime]

I think GotG is more meant to set up cosmic Marvel rather than Avengers personally

And you're correct.

GotG could be a cash cow not to mention the building blocks to something much greater.

 

[Dark Raven]

The obvious tie in is still the tie in. All the films announced so far tie into Avengers in some way or another.

Except maybe Ant-Man. We can debate all day about Edgar Wright's Ant-Man's level of involvement in the MCU, and we have in the past. At the moment, all the information we have is limited, old, infrequent, and leads to the conclusion that he will be separate from the MCU, but that's pretty much unthinkable.



That's interesting, as the movie went to great lengths to demonstrate how Loki was their enemy as well. Yes they would have fought anyway, but it's a heckuva lot more interesting when they're fighting for reasons other than "he's a bad guy, I'm a good guy." That's cartoon stuff, you gotta come harder for a billion dollar franchise.

That's not cartoon stuff. If people are part of a team or army unit, they go where they're sent and support their comrades and fight because they believe it's the right thing to do. I would hope that the Avengers team members would eventually have a similar code like the Marines with their "leave no man behind" and other military codes. If they're just fighting because they have a personal stake in it, what happens when they don't? Do they not care less then?

Or do soldiers also just do cartoon stuff as well?

 

[DrCosmic]

So you want the Avengers to be a military unit in some way? I'd hate that. Thor should go back for Tony because of the relationship they've built over the years, not "Never leave an Avenger behind." Ech. -shivers-

Part of military training, including Marines, is making it personal. Soldiers learn that they are fighting for their families and they are trained to tie their entire identity to their country. The Few. The Proud. Always Earned. Never Given. Semper Fi. Those are statements about the identity of the Marine, not the right thing to do. They make it personal, because that's the only way it works.

We saw in Avengers what happens when the fighters don't have a personal stake in the outcome: a lot of infighting. This is what happens in real life when a group has a goal and it's not personal to all members. The stuff that *is* personal comes up and gets in the way.

The motivation of "good guys fight bad guys" is shallow and cartoonish. It's designed to get character development out of the way so we can get right to the action. Great idea for a 22 minute show who's selling power is in how many fights and cool explosions they can fit in for a target audience with generation-wide ADD. Maybe not the best move when trying to entertain adults as well. Real people don't give up their lives "because that's what good guys do."

 

[cherokeesam]

I don't find the concept of "because that's what good guys do" to be the least bit cartoonish, nor do I see it disproven in real life. People sign up (initially) to be soldiers, cops and firefighters (among other professions that serve the public good) because "they still believe in heroes." Granted, reality can (and does) hit those people hard very early on, and every one of them has walked that razor's edge between good and evil and many find that their ideals don't hold up under pressure. But it's a call of duty, and in a superhero universe like the MCU, the guys in spandex know that better than anybody.

Yes, I agree that good conflict in writing usually works best at a personal level, but at the other extreme, it becomes a real chore to try to find individual personal raisons d'etre for a whole group of heroes to fight a given antagonist(s). The infighting in Avengers is greatly exaggerated; and most of it can be attributed to Loki's mind tricks and Spear O' Rage.

 

[Hawkingbird]

And you're correct.

GotG could be a cash cow not to mention the building blocks to something much greater.

With Star Wars things will shine!

 

[DrCosmic]

I don't find the concept of "because that's what good guys do" to be the least bit cartoonish, nor do I see it disproven in real life. People sign up (initially) to be soldiers, cops and firefighters (among other professions that serve the public good) because "they still believe in heroes." Granted, reality can (and does) hit those people hard very early on, and every one of them has walked that razor's edge between good and evil and many find that their ideals don't hold up under pressure. But it's a call of duty, and in a superhero universe like the MCU, the guys in spandex know that better than anybody.

Yes, I agree that good conflict in writing usually works best at a personal level, but at the other extreme, it becomes a real chore to try to find individual personal raisons d'etre for a whole group of heroes to fight a given antagonist(s). The infighting in Avengers is greatly exaggerated; and most of it can be attributed to Loki's mind tricks and Spear O' Rage.

It sounds like you do see it disproven in real life. You see that the shallow motivation doesn't hold up when it comes to life and death, where people have to find personal reasons to do what they do. In the MCU, these guys *don't* know better than anybody. Other than Steve, they aren't wishful soldiers signing up to do the right thing and learning that their ideals don't hold up. They each have a very different journey to get to their own version of that mentality. That's what makes them each unique and interesting, that while Steve went into it wanting to be that guy, everyone else, Thor and Tony especially, did not.

I don't think it's a chore to make things personal in a team up, any more than it's a chore to write good dialogue or good action sequences, or make things personal in a solo film. You put in the work, you get a better story. And while the infighting was exaggerated by some plot devices, it was necessary to give physical manifestation to something that is usually a very quiet cause-killer.

 

[Dark Raven]

It sounds like you do see it disproven in real life. You see that the shallow motivation doesn't hold up when it comes to taking action and people have to find personal reasons to do what they do. In the MCU, these guys *don't* know better than anybody. Other than Steve, they aren't wannabe soldiers signing up to do the right thing and learning that their ideals don't hold up. They each have a very different journey to get to their own version of that soldier's mentality. That's what makes them each unique and interesting, that while Steve went into it wanting to be that guy, everyone else, Thor and Tony especially, did not.

I don't think it's a chore to make things personal in a team up, any more than it's a chore to write good dialogue or good action sequences, or make things personal in a solo film. You put in the work, you get a better story. And while the infighting was exaggerated by some plot devices, it was necessary to give physical manifestation to something that is usually a very quiet cause-killer.

You're talking about the first film, and you would be correct there that they had to have a personal stake to make them act. But is that supposed to be the pattern each time? They are always reluctant and don't want to be bothered? If nothing affects them, then they'll just sit back and do nothing?

The impression we were given at the end of the film is that they were now an emergency response team who would agree to show up whenever they were needed, not that they just disbanded, only to be called out of retirement each time. Not only would that get tiring having to see the reformation of the team in every film because of a personal stake (without which there's no motivation for them) but one would hope they would mature past that, otherwise they're never growing but always having the same journey each time.

 

[DrCosmic]

You're talking about the first film, and you would be correct there that they had to have a personal stake to make them act. But is that supposed to be the pattern each time? They are always reluctant and don't want to be bothered? If nothing affects them, then they'll just sit back and do nothing?

The impression we were given at the end of the film is that they were now an emergency response team who would agree to show up whenever they were needed, not that they just disbanded, only to be called out of retirement each time. Not only would that get tiring having to see the reformation of the team in every film because of a personal stake (without which there's no motivation for them) but one would hope they would mature past that, otherwise they're never growing but always having the same journey each time.

If there's no internal conflict, no personal stakes, then the characters are rightfully called "two-dimensional characters." Good writers and filmmakers, especially ones who write franchises, sit down for long meetings to figure out a new way to get new internal conflict into their main characters, new ways to make it personal. Joss Whedon is really good at it.

At the end of Avengers, when Hill mentions they're disbanded, Fury responds by saying they'll respond by some metaphysical means. The only one building 'The Avengers' as an entity is Tony Stark, inviting people to his tower, remodeling it, then every letter in 'Stark' but the Avengers-style 'A' falls off the side as we go to credits. That's great foreshadowing for how the team will rally in the future, and should put to rest your fears that personal = rehash of Avengers 1.

If it were me, I'd have Thanos play puppet master with a heavily modified MoE. That would make it really personal for the heroes by default. Or, even in the laziest writing, Thanos could just blow up so much stuff that it gets personal. Both would be natural ways to make it personal, and thus more riveting, without rehashing Avengers 1.

 

[BatsDC]

After seeing Skyfall, I really wish Marvel had managed to fit in a solo-flick for Hawkeye or Black Widow (or both!) into Phase 2. Would be a great spy/action film. Plus, since neither have superpowers, they wouldn't need to be CG heavy.

 

[Hawkingbird]

After seeing Skyfall, I really wish Marvel had managed to fit in a solo-flick for Hawkeye or Black Widow (or both!) into Phase 2. Would be a great spy/action film. Plus, since neither have superpowers, they wouldn't need to be CG heavy.

But it wouldn't do well in terms of box office. Unfortunately, people would sooner see big names such as Iron Man.

 

[M-2]

But it wouldn't do well in terms of box office. Unfortunately, people would sooner see big names such as Iron Man.

I will have to disagree... Yes the film might not make a billion or even $500 million for the first film, but if it makes $400 million on a budget from $70 - $140 million... I would say that's a success.

Looking at the Bourne, Oceans Eleven series, Mission Impossible series... Hell even Fast Five, they all operated under a Budget of $150 million and all have been very successful.

Box office success must be viewed relative to its budget, and the nature of a Black Widow/Hawkeye film will basically be a spy film.... On steroids....

The premise has to be very solid, but will have to be fun and humorous, something that audiences really responded to with Avengers, Fast Five and MI: Ghost Protocol, all three being team based movies, that generated more revenue in its respective Film Franchises.

The film just has to use the right locations, keep the action realistic, no need to use CGI on characters, powers and fight scenes and give Hawkeye and Black Widow interesting supporting players, bring Clay Quatermain, Task Master and Mockingbird, maybe even Winter Soldier (a Familiar Face for audiences along with the SHIELD usual members)

The movie only needs about two really big action sequences and one big car chase with the rest of film used for them to discover what ever mystery they need to solve.