MCU: Phase II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yet every reboot tells the origin story differently, so it's not the same old, and by the third retelling, only 'old people' remember the first version, so it's not watered down for the target audience. Again, a new generation tells its own stories, that's how these characters can go on forever, not by new generations telling the previous generations' stories.

How can "only old people remember the first version," when DVD/BR re-issues and "special editions" frequently coincide with the release of new versions of a franchise; and, more to the point, films are literally immortalized on cable/satellite TV....? My 10-year old son knows as much about movies I watched when I was his age (wayyy back in 1976) because he can watch them on TV.




We're talking about films, so unless you have information about a new Star Wars film being made (you don't) then that must be what I was referring to. If I chose to switch subjects, then none of these series have ended or rebooted, there is always multimedia for the hardcore fan. Again, you rely on non-film examples to inform your film strategy instead of film history. If Star Wars hadn't had the presence of mind to end their stories, to go out on high notes in their trilogies, there wouldn't be any of the things you mentioned. Without an end to Luke's saga in the films... how could anyone possibly write the Thrawn Trilogy? If not for a definite arc for Anakin Skywalker, how could you do Clone Wars with any assurance that you wouldn't conflict with Anakin's unfinished story? Definite and final endings are what allow other media to tell stories that feed into it, all in the same continuity! Star Wars is proof of that. It's also proof that those things are for hardcore fans, not the masses.

But you don't want that for Avengers, you want one long endless continuity, which is a nice dream, but every attempt at doing so has ended in stagnation, decay and rebooting. Bond holds an impressive record, but modern and superheroic attempts at such infinity have been far more brief.

I like how you talk about the superhero film genre like it's some sort of ancient history. With all due respect to Donner and Burton, the superhero genre is still in its infancy. Marvel films, in particular, are less than 15 years old. So where are all these "attempts" at creating a lasting continuity.....? :huh:

Trilogies like Star Wars and LOTR work because they are BUILT to be finite. They are CREATED as larger stories that have a definite beginning, middle and end, and each installment of the trilogy is a continuation of that over-arcing story. There is no reason on God's green earth that the Avengers needs to tell a 3-part story. It's a SERIES, and an open-ended one. It's NOT a story. Avengers 2 will very likely not have a damn thing to do with Avengers 1, story-wise --- it'll be the same characters (plus new ones) in an entirely different story.

Why do you insist on trying to put an over-arcing story to this series? It makes no sense. What the hell does saving the world from Loki and his alien mercenaries have to do with a cosmic battle against universe-destroying Thanos, or time-traveling Kang, or Ultron, or the Masters of Evil, or whoever else the Avengers go up against? There's no common thread there (other than good vs. evil), and trying to generate some grand unified theory that would somehow turn all that into a linear storyline would give audiences major indigestion.
 
How can "only old people remember the first version," when DVD/BR re-issues and "special editions" frequently coincide with the release of new versions of a franchise; and, more to the point, films are literally immortalized on cable/satellite TV....? My 10-year old son knows as much about movies I watched when I was his age (wayyy back in 1976) because he can watch them on TV.

Then your son is unique. He doesn't talk to his friends about Back to the Future and 1970s Batman, that's for sure.


I like how you talk about the superhero film genre like it's some sort of ancient history. With all due respect to Donner and Burton, the superhero genre is still in its infancy. Marvel films, in particular, are less than 15 years old. So where are all these "attempts" at creating a lasting continuity.....? :huh:

Trilogies like Star Wars and LOTR work because they are BUILT to be finite. They are CREATED as larger stories that have a definite beginning, middle and end, and each installment of the trilogy is a continuation of that over-arcing story. There is no reason on God's green earth that the Avengers needs to tell a 3-part story. It's a SERIES, and an open-ended one. It's NOT a story. Avengers 2 will very likely not have a damn thing to do with Avengers 1, story-wise --- it'll be the same characters (plus new ones) in an entirely different story.

Why do you insist on trying to put an over-arcing story to this series? It makes no sense. What the hell does saving the world from Loki and his alien mercenaries have to do with a cosmic battle against universe-destroying Thanos, or time-traveling Kang, or Ultron, or the Masters of Evil, or whoever else the Avengers go up against? There's no common thread there (other than good vs. evil), and trying to generate some grand unified theory that would somehow turn all that into a linear storyline would give audiences major indigestion.

Okay... where are we, Sam?

Avengers 2, with Thanos and the Tesseract will obviously have a lot to do with Thanos indirectly pursuing the Tesseract in Avengers 1. Marvel Studios knows an overarching story creates investment in the characters, and in fact is necessary for continuity anyway, so that's what they're doing. It's worked out pretty well so far. So, there's an overarching story... so is it going to be one that builds to something, thus necessitating a cilmax or ending, or one that goes nowhere and people get tired of?

Also, every major superhero franchise has attempted to create a lasting continuity. They failed, and then rebooted in trilogy mode to increased success. Superman, Batman, X-Men, Spider-Man. (Some are thought of as trilogies, but not designed or intended as such, they just lost too much popularity to continue as planned). Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it, regardless of how recent it is.

Understand, while comic book writers can feel free to write throwaway arcs, and then try again in 6 months, and comic readers can feel free to drop 2.50 on a story they're not sure of, good filmmakers aren't willing to spend 2 years of their life on a story that doesn't matter, that isn't going anywhere, that's just going to be forgotten in two years when the next unrelated installment comes out. Neither are audiences willing to pay $15 IMAX 3D prices for an throwaway sequel (if you miss it, you can see the one after that and not have missed any story points, or just catch up with the heroes in their solo movies).

Edit: Also, the general audience doesn't know that LOTR and Star Wars are built to be finite (that's arguable with Star Wars, it was conceived of as much larger than the film series we ended up with), if they had been based on some sort of endless series, the public wouldn't have been any less thrilled with the results.
 
Last edited:
Waitasec. As someone who was born long after the BTTF trilogy came out, what kid doesn't talk with their friends about those movies? Or Star Wars OT? Or Indiana Jones?
 
Waitasec. As someone who was born long after the BTTF trilogy came out, what kid doesn't talk with their friends about those movies? Or Star Wars OT? Or Indiana Jones?


Don't you know that history resets itself the day each person is born? Everything that happened before you came into existence was suddenly blanked out and all that is is what happened after you were born. So naturally you can't know or care about movies that are older than you are. You just think that you do. [/DrCosmic]
 
Waitasec. As someone who was born long after the BTTF trilogy came out, what kid doesn't talk with their friends about those movies? Or Star Wars OT? Or Indiana Jones?

No-one these days knows what BTTF, Star Wars or Indiana Jones is. I'm sure barely anyone remembers even the first Iron Man. All this is obscure old stuff. Even Thor and CA: TFA is kinda stretching it.
 
Don't you know that history resets itself the day each person is born? Everything that happened before you came into existence was suddenly blanked out and all that is is what happened after you were born. So naturally you can't know or care about movies that are older than you are. You just think that you do. [/DrCosmic]

We live in the DC Universe?
 
Then your son is unique. He doesn't talk to his friends about Back to the Future and 1970s Batman, that's for sure.

I'm glad you think you know what my son does or does not talk about with his friends. Too bad your presumptuousness is completely wrong.

For the record, my son and his friends are avid followers of old-school 1980s cartoons like original Pokemon and DBZ, as well as classic Transformers and GI Joe, and can quote most of the lines from ALL the Star Wars movies (1977 on) and Indiana Jones movies (1981 on). They are just as well-versed in Adam West Batman as they are in Michael Keaton and Christian Bale. And Batman TAS and Batman Beyond, for that matter. They still watch 1990s Spider-Man and even 1980s Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends, and they can sing the first verse and chorus of the original 1960s Spidey cartoon.

In case you missed it, movies and TV shows and cartoons from the distant past are still readily available on TV on literally HUNDREDS of different channels, and play quite often. Boomerang, in particular, keeps cartoons from the 60s-90s in heavy rotation, and kids these days like 'em just as much as I did when I was their age.
 
Touche, that was presumptuous. My bad. Perhaps only kids over here are disinterested in things that they've never heard of or that look old/hokey/corny.

Despite my overzealousness, old iterations aren't as beloved among the new generation as the new ones (or else companies would only sell the old ones and do just as well) Yes, they are available, yes some parents bring their kids into these older properties, but that's not the norm, and even if it was, those older properties are not beloved in a way which dilutes the value and appeal of newer versions. That was the reason we're on this tangent, and your son enjoying the current generation of stories as much as the older generation is proof positive that reboots do not hurt a franchise in the way which you describe.

Waitasec. As someone who was born long after the BTTF trilogy came out, what kid doesn't talk with their friends about those movies? Or Star Wars OT? Or Indiana Jones?

Kids born this century, generally. Unlike SW and IJ, BTTF doesn't have a strong presence in this millenia. No new installments, spinoffs, merchandise... just an old movie. But poll some pre-teens in your area, I could be wrong, maybe they all saw it on Cable one day and loved it. Most likely though, they aren't into it unless their parents who grew up loving it showed it to them. I mean, does anyone have a different story? They just heard about it from peers or saw it on Cable one day and said 'oh wow!' Can we at least admit that current and future generations aren't as into these movies as we are/were? Or are we adamantly proclaiming they love the same movies we do and will be just as put off by new versions?
 
Last edited:
Honestly, no amount of serious comic book movie fans (the users of this forum) being into older sci-fi movies is really going to give credence to the general population having similar tastes. I mean, I a big fan of Ghostbusters, but if I walk up to random kid and ask him about Egon Spengler, or even Slimer, he's gonna go glassy eyed, more than likely - there's a reason Boomerang isn't as big as the other cartoon channels. And your comparison is not at all similar. Mozart was an individual, and not a commercial product (so he can't exactly get rebooted, can he?), and furthermore, I explicitly generalized, so to compare my statement to a specific "No one alive today can..." would be to misrepresent my statement.
 
Last edited:
No. Don't confuse having a good point with having control, or with invalidating the other person's point for that matter.

I also have uncomicked friends that know of the Back to the Future movies. That doesn't mean they've seen it, like it, love it or would be any ways averse to seeing it rebooted.
 
And your comparison is not at all similar. Mozart was an individual, and not a commercial product (so he can't exactly get rebooted, can he?), and furthermore, I explicitly generalized, so to compare my statement to a specific "No one alive today can..." would be to misrepresent my statement.

........ sooooooooo by that logic no one should be a fan of or know of Disney movies pre-Pixar? Or the WIZARD OF OZ? sorry dude but you do not know of what you speak....
 
........ sooooooooo by that logic no one should be a fan of or know of Disney movies pre-Pixar? Or the WIZARD OF OZ? sorry dude but you do not know of what you speak....

Hmmm... you quote me explaining someone the difference between a generality and a specific... to make the same misquote.

Logic does not say 'because most people do X everyone does X' So if I say 'most people do X' (which I have) the idea of 'everyone does X' is not related to my logic at all.
 
Hmmm... you quote me explaining someone the difference between a generality and a specific... to make the same misquote.

Logic does not say 'because most people do X everyone does X' So if I say 'most people do X' (which I have) the idea of 'everyone does X' is not related to my logic at all.
.... Your logic is a mess, and the minority. Thus your points are invalid
 
.... Your logic is a mess, and the minority. Thus your points are invalid

Hmmm... usually points are invalidated by credible counter points, not majority rule. An authority on logic would know this.

Edit: How can logic be a mess? Either it's conflicting or it's not. If I have a conflict, point it out. If not, why not admit you misjudged, like I had to when I made that dumb application of a generalization to Sam's kid.
 
That's true. Many correct people have been destroyed so that the majority can continue in destructive ignorance. Technically, if you're dead or destitute, you don't have much a point anymore.

Edit: I *think* I can still see the topic, if I strain hard enough...
 
Edit: I *think* I can still see the topic, if I strain hard enough...

Haha, I hear that!

As far as the kids liking "old school" material. Having a younger generation like 60's - 90's material is nothing special, because it is so readily available. Where I come from which is middle America, it's a fad and a "cool" kid thing to like all that stuff now. Stores like Target and Wal-Mart sell "retro" t-shirts and things of that nature. I do believe there are TRUE fans and REAL interest in these products, but just like anything else anymore. It's packeged and sold.
 
Last edited:
That's true. Many correct people have been destroyed so that the majority can continue in destructive ignorance. Technically, if you're dead or destitute, you don't have much a point anymore.

Edit: I *think* I can still see the topic, if I strain hard enough...

The topic is the best strategy for the MCU's Phase II, and beyond.

You continue to labor under the misguided notion, perpetuated by other studios, that a slash-and-burn, trilogy-n-reboot approach is what the Avengers, and the MCU, needs.

The reason that shouldn't apply to The Avengers at all or even looked at is because you're talking about a SHARED UNIVERSE, *not* a single story. It's not "Star Wars, Part I, II, III" or "Spider-Man, Part I, II, III" --- it's Avengers, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, Black Panther, Ms. Marvel, Dr. Strange, Inhumans, Runaways, Iron Fist, Luke Cage, and whatever else Marvel Studios has on the drawing board. There is simply no way in hell that ALL of these properties are inter-related, or that they're all telling a single over-arching story.

You, like others, have been thrown off by the whole "Phase II" monicker, and you naturally assume it means "Phase I, Phase II, Phase III" trilogy-style. There is NOTHING to indicate that was ever the intent. And you make the mistake of thinking that there is some story thread that unites each Phase; but the simple fact is that we don't have any indication what the common thread to each Phase is. At best, the only thing I could say united Phase I is "Avengers assemble"....i.e., Phase I is loosely "about" the four core Avengers teaming up for the first time. We have NO indication what --- if anything --- will be shared between Cap 2, Thor 2, IM3, Avengers 2, Ant-Man, GOTG and whatever else is on the agenda for Phase II.

But a shared storyline, or a single over-arching story, doesn't even *remotely* seem to be in the forecast for Phase II. I challenge you to try to find one.
 
But a shared storyline, or a single over-arching story, doesn't even *remotely* seem to be in the forecast for Phase II. I challenge you to try to find one.

The build up to Thanos/ items in Odin's vault
People with "powers" in the world
The responsibility of having said powers

I personally think there was plenty of single arching stories or plot points if that's what you're talking about.
So Sam you want a gigantic continuity with everyone getting cameos and solo movies and Easter egg nods in every Marvel movie?
I don't remember hearing about Mr. Fiege talking about how many phases they were gonna do, but I do remember that he said how much he thought all those things distracted "people" (I don't wanna make assumptions about people... Alledgedly. And get dog-pilled like what happened to the good Doctor a couple posts ago ;)) from the movie.

The Skywalker story was the overarching story in Star Wars if I'm not mistaken.

Voldemort is an overarching story

To build a continuty don't they all have to be part of the story?
You have minor heroes and you have major Hero's, it goes back to the argument earlier of, eventually it's all the same story, even in a GIGANTIC CONTINUTY.
 
Fundamental storytelling is beginning, middle, end.
Just saying.
Which is why MOST stories are Trilogies, cause its an easy way to deliver the story.

But I think Sam might be a World of Warcraft player, so he might crave open ended stories, that milk the consumer of their hard earned money. :) just teasing y'all
 
Last edited:
The build up to Thanos/ items in Odin's vault
People with "powers" in the world
The responsibility of having said powers

I personally think there was plenty of single arching stories or plot points if that's what you're talking about.
So Sam you want a gigantic continuity with everyone getting cameos and solo movies and Easter egg nods in every Marvel movie?
I don't remember hearing about Mr. Fiege talking about how many phases they were gonna do, but I do remember that he said how much he thought all those things distracted "people" (I don't wanna make assumptions about people... Alledgedly. And get dog-pilled like what happened to the good Doctor a couple posts ago ;)) from the movie.

The Skywalker story was the overarching story in Star Wars if I'm not mistaken.

Voldemort is an overarching story

To build a continuty don't they all have to be part of the story?
You have minor heroes and you have major Hero's, it goes back to the argument earlier of, eventually it's all the same story, even in a GIGANTIC CONTINUTY.

Spider-Man is in the same "continuity" as The Avengers in the comics. And the X-Men. And Heroes for Hire. And Thor. And Moon Knight. And every other Marvel title out there. Does that mean all those stories are tied together? Not even remotely. Once in a blue moon, they'll crossover into a Team-Up or a Two-In-One, and once a year or so there's gonna be a mass crossover over several different titles, but life goes on. And plenty of other titles aren't even remotely involved in those crossovers. So no, no over-arching story.

Fundamental storytelling is beginning, middle, end.
Just saying.
Which is why MOST stories are Trilogies, cause its an easy way to deliver the story.

But I think Sam might be a World of Warcraft player, so he might crave open ended stories, that milk the consumer of their hard earned money. :) just teasing y'all

Never played WOW in my life, nor do I have any intention to. I just want to see the MCU develop the same way the comic universe did. And Feige has given every indication that's his intent, too.

For those of us who actually read the comics, this is easy. This is a no-brainer. This is the way it's always worked. Those of you who *don't* read the comics don't understand it at all, and you're coming up with limitations that DON'T need to be there.
 
How come the people that don't agree with you "don't read comics" that's not a fair assumption to make and it's not the first time you've said it. You don't know... I read comics and I watch tons of movies, that doesn't mean I need to share your opinion.
 
You continue to labor under the misguided notion, perpetuated by other studios, that a slash-and-burn, trilogy-n-reboot approach is what the Avengers, and the MCU, needs.

Can you quote me where I advocated a trilogy-n-reboot? I would say I'll wait, but I won't, because you can't. Don't quote my posts and then respond to something I've never said. It's rude, and it takes time away from the discussion for me to re-state my clearly stated opinion that you simply decline to respond to.

Now, what leads you to believe that studios have taken this strategy? Batman Begins/TDK/TDKR is the only thing we know of planned as a trilogy from beginning to end, with a reboot shortly after. Others became trilogies because they failed to keep their success long enough to make a fourth movie.

The reason that shouldn't apply to The Avengers at all or even looked at is because you're talking about a SHARED UNIVERSE, *not* a single story. It's not "Star Wars, Part I, II, III" or "Spider-Man, Part I, II, III" --- it's Avengers, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, Black Panther, Ms. Marvel, Dr. Strange, Inhumans, Runaways, Iron Fist, Luke Cage, and whatever else Marvel Studios has on the drawing board. There is simply no way in hell that ALL of these properties are inter-related, or that they're all telling a single over-arching story.

You, like others, have been thrown off by the whole "Phase II" monicker, and you naturally assume it means "Phase I, Phase II, Phase III" trilogy-style. There is NOTHING to indicate that was ever the intent. And you make the mistake of thinking that there is some story thread that unites each Phase; but the simple fact is that we don't have any indication what the common thread to each Phase is. At best, the only thing I could say united Phase I is "Avengers assemble"....i.e., Phase I is loosely "about" the four core Avengers teaming up for the first time. We have NO indication what --- if anything --- will be shared between Cap 2, Thor 2, IM3, Avengers 2, Ant-Man, GOTG and whatever else is on the agenda for Phase II.

But a shared storyline, or a single over-arching story, doesn't even *remotely* seem to be in the forecast for Phase II. I challenge you to try to find one.

Hmmm... SHIELD, Tesseract, Loki... you didn't notice any of these things that were part of the same overarching story? The story isn't linear, sure, but it certainly is one story, otherwise, it couldn't all culminate in one film. Now, I guess you could hope that these next films will be as disconnected as comics properties used to be before they realized that building up to big events was more profitable. But based on Phase I, that's a pipe dream.

And again, the only reason I'd ever suspect Avengers as a trilogy is because the actors are signed on for an Avengers trilogy. This means anything after that, (which can only happen if Avengers 3 is wildly successful unlike X-Men/Spider-Man/Batman/Superman 3) would be new actors and a new direction, meaning the previous actors would want to finish a story and give an apex to their characters. Otherwise, you have someone trying to play RDJ's IM and Hemsworth's Thor. Not a good look. Perhaps you remember that and thought, because I acknowledge reality, that I think that's the way it 'should' be. I mean, I love comics (or else why would I be here?) but I accept the reality of the situation. Movies aren't comic books, and there's a host of reasons - from media to timing to money to actors to directors - why not. That doesn't mean we can't capture the spirit of the characters, but it does mean that we can't come out with monthly installments of varying quality indefinitely. Comics can. Film cannot.

Edit:

Never played WOW in my life, nor do I have any intention to. I just want to see the MCU develop the same way the comic universe did. And Feige has given every indication that's his intent, too.

For those of us who actually read the comics, this is easy. This is a no-brainer. This is the way it's always worked. Those of you who *don't* read the comics don't understand it at all, and you're coming up with limitations that DON'T need to be there.

Remember when I posted that really dumb comment about your son? That's where you are now. I read New Avengers, Mighty Avengers, Invincible Iron Man, Captain America, Mighty Thor, Avengers Academy, Ms. Marvel, Adjectiveless X-Men, Uncanny X-Men, X-Men First class, Black Panther, Fantastic Four, Future Foundation, every single scrap of the Ultimate Universe, and the endless events, Avengers vs X-Men, Secret Invasion, Civil War, Dark Reign, Seige, World War Hulk, Spider Island, Schism, Operation Zero Tolerance, Age of Apocalypse, Days of Future Past, The Clones Saga, the Dark Phoenix Saga, God Loves Man Kills, The Twelve, Search for Cyclops and that's just the Marvel Stuff. I'm a lot more into DC. Why the heck do you think we're here?

Feige has given no such indication. He's made movies that have explicitly not developed the MCU the way the comic universe has.

Just because we love comics, doesn't mean we aren't connected to reality. You're disconnected man. You're seeing things that aren't there, and not seeing things that are. If your main defense is "you guys just don't understand" as opposed to "this is why that limitation is irrelevant" then you either need to do a self check, or be self-satisfied feeling you are right since you can't communicate your logic effectively.
 
Last edited:
I'll just leave this here:

With Iron Man 3 about to start principal photography in a few weeks, it seems strange to imagine anyone else besides Robert Downey Jr. playing Tony Stark. Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige recently said that, in the event Robert Downey Jr. leaves the franchise, it will not be rebooted. Here's what the executive had to say, likening the Iron Man series to James Bond.


"I think Bond is a good example. Let's put it this way: I hope Downey makes a lot of movies for us as Stark. If and when he doesn't, and I'm still here making these movies, we don't take him to Afghanistan and have him wounded again. I think we James Bond it."

The actor will almost certainly return as Tony Stark in the inevitable sequel The Avengers 2. After that, it isn't clear how many other movies, if any, Robert Downey Jr. is signed on for at Marvel Studios. Kevin Feige also spoke out about the negative connotation attached to the word "reboot," and how it shouldn't apply to The Amazing Spider-Man.


"I think the term reboot has got to go. I think it's like after the Star Wars movies nobody likes the idea of prequels, and reboots have turned into the same thing. It means 'Oh they've run out of ideas! It's bad.' I've seen The Amazing Spider-Man. It's awesome. It's totally fresh and unique."

http://www.movieweb.com/news/iron-man-wont-get-a-reboot-when-robert-downey-jr-leaves

Nice to see that I'm on the same page as Kevin Feige about the need to maintain CONTINUITY AND RECASTING in the MCU, instead of making a finite story and rebooting it every 8-10 years or so.

Please tell me again how I'm "disconnected," Doc. Then tell it to Feige.

Your blinders off yet?
 
It's good to see Kevin Feige continues to get it - no reason on earth to ever reboot Iron Man and Bond is the perfect comparison...

But if they do have to recast YEARS from now, I vote for Joseph Gordon-Levitt ~ there's a 16 year difference so maybe we'll see JGL step into the armor around 2024 or so...?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
200,769
Messages
21,805,862
Members
45,625
Latest member
papapasmurfsmur
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"