MCU: Phase II

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I try to get out but they keep pulling me back int:t:t:

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Whenever you say "always" for something that "occasionally" happens, that's hyperbole.

Connery --> Lazenby --> Moore --> Dalton --> Brosnan --> reboot with Craig.

Took Bond 4 extra actors before they felt the need to do a "reboot," si? Also, by your logic, we can expect reboots immediately from Hulk, Spider-Man, Star Trek and Superman, since new actors are filling those roles.

To compare this to Marvel, 41 years of loose continuity isn't bad.

Also, Bond has way source material than Marvel, so it is possible. I still wonder if its the best way to do things.

 

[cherokeesam]

Here's a direct quote from Jeremy Latcham, the Senior VP of Development and Production at MS, and his take on this same discussion we're having:

Nrama: You have Iron Man 3 shooting in North Carolina right now. How long can Iron Man "run?" Three is kind of a magic number for movie sequels. Will this end? Or is it James Bond?

Latcham: We like to think that these characters can live forever. I mean, they’ve lived in publishing for 60 years and are still going strong, with thousands upon thousand of stories told. I think in the same way, these characters can live in film for a long, long time. Right now, we’re just the stewards of these characters in film, which is a great, great job, but I really feel that someday, another generation will be able to take them to play with and plan out that next generation of stories. I think these characters can go on for a really, really long time.

http://www.newsarama.com/film/marvel-studios-jeremey-Latcham-talks-Avengers-sequel.html

QED.

 

[DrCosmic]

Whenever you say "always" for something that "occasionally" happens, that's hyperbole.

Connery --> Lazenby --> Moore --> Dalton --> Brosnan --> reboot with Craig.

Took Bond 4 extra actors before they felt the need to do a "reboot," si? Also, by your logic, we can expect reboots immediately from Hulk, Spider-Man, Star Trek and Superman, since new actors are filling those roles.

When does recasting not lead to reboots? Perhaps you should shed light on your objection before calling it hyperbole?

(Edit: I thought about it a bit. Terminator and Star Trek (technically). Whenever time travel is involved, you can restart continuity as part of the story of the previous continuity. Like Heroes Reborn, basically. I'd rather, if they were going to do a Heroes Reborn type story to 'soft' reboot the franchise that they end the first satisfyingly, instead of letting continuity just die off like Trek and Terminator.)

What part of my logic led you to believe the reboots would be immediate?

Look at other more similar (modern superhero) franchises with recasts. Those are more likely to be the results we'll get, as opposed to a franchise with virtually no equal shopped to a less sophisticated (read: cynical) audience.

To compare this to Marvel, 41 years of loose continuity isn't bad.

Also, Bond has way source material than Marvel, so it is possible. I still wonder if its the best way to do things.

This is where I am. It's very possible to create 20 Avengers movies, some of which will suck horribly, some of which will do poorly in the box office, and the whole franchise filled with continuity errors to make the X-Men look like LOTR. Like the Bond franchise. I just don't think that's the best way to go about things, and I'm not sure in the modern age such an approach will be as succesful as it was thirty years ago with Bond.

Here's a direct quote from Jeremy Latcham, the Senior VP of Development and Production at MS, and his take on this same discussion we're having:



http://www.newsarama.com/film/marvel-studios-jeremey-Latcham-talks-Avengers-sequel.html

QED.

Not this discussion. We all agree that the fanchise can go on forever, like Bond and Batman. No one could doubt that the next generation can restart the franchise and tell new stories.

The question is can this all be done in one continuity, with no beginning, middle and ending, but just a film-by-film basis? That's not something he spoke to, even though it was put to him directly, he dodged the question, refusing to compare it directly to Bond, or claim that the stories they're telling now would go on forever. You may want to re-read his statement critically, he makes some good points that you're overlooking.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Bond doesn't really have continuity errors since there's no personal details that stick from movie to movie other than Tracy Bond and past missions from movies.

Why I ask if it's the right thing to do is because of one question: Do you want a sense of finality in the movies? marvel keeps building up movies, so do you want an endgame eventually? That's something Marvel has to figure out.

 

[Hawkingbird]

Well, listening to the commentry I'm sure that Winter Soldier will come up soon, they pretty much spelt it out for us

 

[Matt Mortem]

Here's my take on Marvel being like Bond. We get a Bond film once every 3-5 years right? We're getting Marvel films every year and we're getting a number of them. It's going to oversaturate the market. If in the future they took to a Bond like model, they'd have to really reign in how many films are released. Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.

 

[Changeling]

When does recasting not lead to reboots? Perhaps you should shed light on your objection before calling it hyperbole?

(Edit: I thought about it a bit. Terminator and Star Trek (technically). Whenever time travel is involved, you can restart continuity as part of the story of the previous continuity. Like Heroes Reborn, basically. I'd rather, if they were going to do a Heroes Reborn type story to 'soft' reboot the franchise that they end the first satisfyingly, instead of letting continuity just die off like Trek and Terminator.)

What part of my logic led you to believe the reboots would be immediate?

Look at other more similar (modern superhero) franchises with recasts. Those are more likely to be the results we'll get, as opposed to a franchise with virtually no equal shopped to a less sophisticated (read: cynical) audience.



This is where I am. It's very possible to create 20 Avengers movies, some of which will suck horribly, some of which will do poorly in the box office, and the whole franchise filled with continuity errors to make the X-Men look like LOTR. Like the Bond franchise. I just don't think that's the best way to go about things, and I'm not sure in the modern age such an approach will be as succesful as it was thirty years ago with Bond.



Not this discussion. We all agree that the fanchise can go on forever, like Bond and Batman. No one could doubt that the next generation can restart the franchise and tell new stories.

The question is can this all be done in one continuity, with no beginning, middle and ending, but just a film-by-film basis? That's not something he spoke to, even though it was put to him directly, he dodged the question, refusing to compare it directly to Bond, or claim that the stories they're telling now would go on forever. You may want to re-read his statement critically, he makes some good points that you're overlooking.

You looka like a peanut

 

[DrCosmic]

Bond doesn't really have continuity errors since there's no personal details that stick from movie to movie other than Tracy Bond and past missions from movies.

Why I ask if it's the right thing to do is because of one question: Do you want a sense of finality in the movies? marvel keeps building up movies, so do you want an endgame eventually? That's something Marvel has to figure out.

Me personally, I want an endgame. After that, you can let the next generation tell its stories, but I've never read/seen/heard a good story that didn't build to a satisfying conclusion. Even in soaps, they understand that you have to end the story for individual characters... even if you bring them back later, their stories must end in order for it to be a story at all.

It reminds me of LOST. Around seasons 3 and 4 you could tell that they didn't know what they were building to, and it sucked, it all felt pointless. Then they realized where they were going (horrible as it was) and boom. Awesomeness. At some point, the reality of storytelling has to enter the equation, so that you ever have a chance to approach the ideal of endless continuity.

You looka like a peanut

Hmmm... I'll have to cut back on the peanut better.

 

[DrCosmic]

You looka like a peanut

Hmmm... I'll have to cut back on the peanut better.

 

[Hawkingbird]

No one else getting excited about Winter Soldier?

 

[DrCosmic]

He's cool... not my fave, I gotta admit, and they didn't really build him up right in Cap's film, imho. And the way they killed him in the comics was a bit shameful, imho. So, all in all not excited.

Good character though. Perhaps he'll come into his own a bit more sharply here. It'd be interesting if they kept his romance with Widow, that'd be a lot of fun.

 

[The Guard]

They can cast great actors (ie Val Kilmer, George Clooney) but you lose something no matter what. The goal is having something to replace what you lost that's of more value to the average casual moviegoer. That gets even harder when you have some spot on casting like RDJ, who buys into the character and embodies them on a personal level, and thus "is" Tony Stark to the masses, and then someone else is supposed to come behind that and make it their own, but in a different way? That's not an easy job - and not necessarily a possible job, and while Kilmer could pull it off more or less, Clooney, an equal actor easily, could not.

It's more along the lines of Robert Downey Jr. doing a take on Iron Man that people like, not so much him embodying the character as its written.

It's fairly obvious that George Clooney didn't step into the cape and cowl as well as Kilmer did because he didn't have good material to work with. BATMAN & ROBIN was largely a comedy. But in the serious moments, and in his role as Bruce Wayne, Clooney was excellent.

 

[DrCosmic]

It's more along the lines of Robert Downey Jr. doing a take on Iron Man that people like, not so much him embodying the character as its written.

It's fairly obvious that George Clooney didn't step into the cape and cowl as well as Kilmer did because he didn't have good material to work with. BATMAN & ROBIN was largely a comedy. But in the serious moments, and in his role as Bruce Wayne, Clooney was excellent.

For most Iron Man fans, RDJ is the *only* take. That, afaik, has the same effect as him embodying the character, since there is nothing to compare it to.

I haven't seen Clooney's performance as an adult, so perhaps it was better than I remember. I suppose we can't use it to judge how well accepted the movie would have been if it were serious.

Another issue, is that this fatigue of a franchise is a natural process of extending a franchise to new directors and new storytellers. That's one of the reasons why that exec was clear that they would tell all their stories, and another generation somewhere down the line would then tell different stories. Having different guys in this generation carry the stories naturally leads to things like overly comedic takes and such.

 

[roach]

actually the comedic take on Batman was a result of parental groups protesting the darker tone of Batman Returns. When Schumacher came on to the project he wanted to do either The Dark Knight Returns or Batman Year One. WB mandated a more lighter movie. Hence Batman Forever. Seeing that a lighter take was profitable Batman and Robin was born. I am not absolving Schumacher of blame but he's not the only one.

 

[cherokeesam]

Not this discussion. We all agree that the fanchise can go on forever, like Bond and Batman. No one could doubt that the next generation can restart the franchise and tell new stories.

The question is can this all be done in one continuity, with no beginning, middle and ending, but just a film-by-film basis? That's not something he spoke to, even though it was put to him directly, he dodged the question, refusing to compare it directly to Bond, or claim that the stories they're telling now would go on forever. You may want to re-read his statement critically, he makes some good points that you're overlooking.

What part of "We like to think that these characters can live forever," "I think in the same way, these characters can live in film for a long, long time," and "I think these characters can go on for a really, really long time" did you not understand......?

 

[AvengeME]

What part of "We like to think that these characters can live forever," "I think in the same way, these characters can live in film for a long, long time," and "I think these characters can go on for a really, really long time" did you not understand......?

I think you are taking the interpretation quite literally here. No one is suggesting a LOTR style presentation, but how exactly do you justifiy Tony Stark living "forever" in this universe? He will get old and die...

Eventually we will get a reboot no question about that. But it will be many years from now when this story is already told. Or they make take a Batman Beyond approach with a completely new take on things. But no, human characters can not live "forever".

I think they will recast Iron Man for IM4 and Avengers 4-6. But that next series of film is probably 15-20 years away and will probably be a reboot to begin with. Something that loosely connects with the old films but is a completely new take on the characters.

 

[marcvader]

Sorry, but fictional characters usually do live forever or am I missing something?

 

[cherokeesam]

Sorry, but fictional characters usually do live forever or am I missing something?

Exactly.
fiction time =/= real time

 

[The Guard]

For most Iron Man fans, RDJ is the *only* take. That, afaik, has the same effect as him embodying the character, since there is nothing to compare it to.

That's true, but that's partially because most Iron Man fans are only Iron Man fans because of Robert Downey Jr.

I think you are taking the interpretation quite literally here. No one is suggesting a LOTR style presentation, but how exactly do you justifiy Tony Stark living "forever" in this universe? He will get old and die...

Merging with and becoming his tech?

Actually the comedic take on Batman was a result of parental groups protesting the darker tone of Batman Returns. When Schumacher came on to the project he wanted to do either The Dark Knight Returns or Batman Year One. WB mandated a more lighter movie. Hence Batman Forever. Seeing that a lighter take was profitable Batman and Robin was born. I am not absolving Schumacher of blame but he's not the only one.

Yup. And it was actually Schumacher who pitched YEAR ONE to WB after BATMAN & ROBIN and BATMAN 5 concepts fizzled.

 

[DrCosmic]

What part of "We like to think that these characters can live forever," "I think in the same way, these characters can live in film for a long, long time," and "I think these characters can go on for a really, really long time" did you not understand......?

The part where character = story. In the world that I live in, character and story are two distinct concepts, so a character going on forever is not the same as a story going on forever. It doesn't help my "understanding" that he was very clear that their stories will end and another generation (sounds like 20 years from now) will tell a different set of stories. To me that sounds like reality instead of a pipe dream of movie continuity mimicking comics continuity in longevity.

That's true, but that's partially because most Iron Man fans are only Iron Man fans because of Robert Downey Jr.

Exactly. All I'm saying is they'll need to get an A-list actor who can capture hearts quickly if they ever want a chance of replacing Tony Stark successfully. The public would also need some other kind of push to let go of RDJ's Stark, either RDJ isn't available, or falls out of public favor or something... not likely really, but maybe just his blessing on his replacement will help... also doesn't sound likely.

Exactly.
fiction time =/= real time

Any movie examples? Outside of the previous James Bond continuity, I don't know any movie franchise that has been able to pull off the sliding timeline that comics do, especially with the lack of a major conflict.

 

[cherokeesam]

The part where character = story. In the world that I live in, character and story are two distinct concepts, so a character going on forever is not the same as a story going on forever. It doesn't help my "understanding" that he was very clear that their stories will end and another generation (sounds like 20 years from now) will tell a different set of stories. To me that sounds like reality instead of a pipe dream of movie continuity mimicking comics continuity in longevity.

Redirect me to the part where he said "20" or ANY number. YOU'RE the one reading into this and making up your own quotes, not me.

Any movie examples? Outside of the previous James Bond continuity, I don't know any movie franchise that has been able to pull off the sliding timeline that comics do, especially with the lack of a major conflict.

M*A*S*H lasted eight years longer than the Korean War it covered, and the characters didn't age at the same scale as their actors. The Happy Days "kids" were teenagers forever. So were the Welcome Back Kotter kids. And 90210 and Dawson's. And Andy Griffith (RIP today, by the way). And Matt Dillon and Miss Kitty in Gunsmoke. Any soap opera. The Simpsons and South Park and King of the Hill. Scooby Doo (oldest frickin' dog in existence). And Bond, of course, despite your continuous refusal to acknowledge 007 as the model for this kind of long-running continuity. The Trek and Star Wars series probably cover less ground in "fictional time" than their actual production time over the decades. Yeah, you're gonna say "but I said FILM series," but what's the freakin' difference? *TV* has pulled off the sliding timeline with DOZENS of shows since the very beginning of TV's existence.

 

[bubbadoom]

They were able to cover new ground because they were reboots, though. If you don't do a reboot, you have to call back to a lot of old ground, which can prohibit certain story angles.

Not to split hairs, but they were able to cover new ground because those aspects of their origin had not been touched on before.
We never got a hint of the back story of Bat Man in the first four movies, nor any info about Bond before he was licensed to kill.

They used to do this sort of thing in prequels, not reboots.

I think I am loosing track of what this has to do with MCU:Phase II...

 

[M-2]

Redirect me to the part where he said "20" or ANY number. YOU'RE the one reading into this and making up your own quotes, not me.

M*A*S*H lasted eight years longer than the Korean War it covered, and the characters didn't age at the same scale as their actors. The Happy Days "kids" were teenagers forever. So were the Welcome Back Kotter kids. And 90210 and Dawson's. And Andy Griffith (RIP today, by the way). And Matt Dillon and Miss Kitty in Gunsmoke. Any soap opera. The Simpsons and South Park and King of the Hill. Scooby Doo (oldest frickin' dog in existence). And Bond, of course, despite your continuous refusal to acknowledge 007 as the model for this kind of long-running continuity. The Trek and Star Wars series probably cover less ground in "fictional time" than their actual production time over the decades. Yeah, you're gonna say "but I said FILM series," but what's the freakin' difference? *TV* has pulled off the sliding timeline with DOZENS of shows since the very beginning of TV's existence.

I dont oppose recast in MCU, i just think this cast right now should remain the same, until they finish there "Story arc" in Avengers 3 or Maybe Avengers 4...

Then moving forward develop the MCU based on Story arcs like they have been doing in the comics for years!! Where the Next Set of Films will be based on a Particular story arc lets say Avengers Dissembled/House of M, where a new cast will take over, and maybe if some members of the cast want to return they can, but all the individual stories and the "Three BIG EVENT" stories will all be focused on this one story arc...

Essentially, who ever comes in to replace who ever, in this case Downey... If they come in trying to play Downey's version of Tony Stark, thats where they going to get a problem... If you look at the BOND series each Bond actor as there own personal style of Bond. Now if you just replace Downey with another actor and you allow him to put his own signature on the character in this set universe, it could (Not saying it will) disrupt the chemistry the characters had.

 

[cherokeesam]

I dont oppose recast in MCU, i just think this cast right now should remain the same, until they finish there "Story arc" in Avengers 3 or Maybe Avengers 4...

Then moving forward develop the MCU based on Story arcs like they have been doing in the comics for years!! Where the Next Set of Films will be based on a Particular story arc lets say Avengers Dissembled/House of M, where a new cast will take over, and maybe if some members of the cast want to return they can, but all the individual stories and the "Three BIG EVENT" stories will all be focused on this one story arc...

Essentially, who ever comes in to replace who ever, in this case Downey... If they come in trying to play Downey's version of Tony Stark, thats where they going to get a problem... If you look at the BOND series each Bond actor as there own personal style of Bond. Now if you just replace Downey with another actor and you allow him to put his own signature on the character in this set universe, it could (Not saying it will) disrupt the chemistry the characters had.

Sure, a recast *could* alienate the hell out of general audiences to the point that they divest themselves of the franchise entirely....there's no question that *could* happen. The only problem is that you and Dr.Cosmic and one or two others are fretting about *possibilities,* while history shows something completely the opposite. There are *plenty* of occasions where a new actor stepped into a popular character's shoes; and, while fanboys can debate who was the better player from now on, the fact of the matter is that there isn't a single instance of a recast being so poorly received that it killed the franchise. And no, neither George Clooney nor Val Kilmer had a damn thing to do with Batman failing (temporarily), despite what some might want to believe.

Take Batman. Rachel Dawes. James Bond. M, Q and Moneypenny. Superman. Hulk and/or Bruce Banner. Rhodey. Spider-Man. Clarice Starling. Hannibal Lecter. Evie in "The Mummy" series. John Connor. The crew of the Enterprise. Jack Ryan and John Clark. Dumbledore. All of these major roles have seen replacements step in, and fans have never taken up torch and pitchfork against the studios for it. Audiences may not *like* some recasts, but it's a standard practice, and not something out of left field that's never been done before. "Somebody new playing Tony Stark? RDJ's out? Oh well, bummer. Pass the popcorn."

I haven't heard anybody, including me, suggesting that we need to go out and kick RDJ to the curb anytime soon. Far from it. I love RDJ as Tony, and I like most of the rest of the current cast. I'll be happy as a pig in slop if they all gladly reprise their roles for the next 15-20 years. But I don't expect that to happen; but I CERTAINLY don't expect Marvel to close up shop and kill off major characters just so a handful of crybabies don't get their feelings hurt when their favorite actor says goodbye.