MCU: Phase II

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, here's what we know:

2013:
Iron Man 3, May 3
Thor 2, November 15

2014:
Captain America 2, April 4

2015:
Avengers 2

So, what else might be in store for us in 2014 & 2015? My money is on Guardians of the Galaxy, because Latino Review has been proven correct several times in the past. But my hopes are set on Ant-Man and Black Panther. Mostly because IMO Hank, Jan, and T'Challa are what we need added in Avengers 2. And because they're the most deserving IMO.

The problem with this lies in fitting all three of those (GotG, Ant-Man, and BP) into 2014 & 2015 considering those years each already have one film in place. If, and that's a BIG IF, Marvel is willing to put three movies in 2014, and have a spring movie before Avengers 2's huge summer release, it could work.

Actually, we don't know that Avengers 2 will come out in 2015. Feige has hinted that they may be building up to an event in 2015, but he did not put anything in stone. And we do know that Marvel is planning a second movie for August 1, 2014.

Anyway, I don't have money on anything except that some of this will be revealed at Comic-Con!
 
Hmmm... if they were doing Ant-Man and BP, then I'd bet on GotG in the late summer of 2014 and Ant-Man in the fall/winter of 2014, with BP in the Spring of 2015. If they don't do BP before Avengers 2, then Ant-Man might be spring 2015.

Here's a different thought: Assuming Avengers is the 1st movie of the summer, post-credits with Black Panther and have him as the second movie of the summer.
 
Hmmm... if they were doing Ant-Man and BP, then I'd bet on GotG in the late summer of 2014 and Ant-Man in the fall/winter of 2014, with BP in the Spring of 2015. If they don't do BP before Avengers 2, then Ant-Man might be spring 2015.

Here's a different thought: Assuming Avengers is the 1st movie of the summer, post-credits with Black Panther and have him as the second movie of the summer.

Interesting. The second direct Avengers spin-off (considering Cap 2 as directly tied to TA), and kicking off Phase III right off the bat...

I am really not convinced that TA2 is set for 2015 yet. After Iron Man had its big opening weekend, they announced The Avengers for July 2011 (3 years after IM), but ended up pushing it out a year. The same thing could very well happen with TA2.

The four-year build-up from IM (2008) to The Avengers (2012) worked out pretty well, I'd say. Granted, there were no MCU movies in 2009 and only one in 2010, so there were only 4 movies between IM and TA. A four-year build-up from TA (2012) to TA2 (2016) could involve 6 movies in between instead of 4, but I still think that would be just fine--and potentially awesome. I know many people here don't like the idea of extending time between Avengers movies (especially since actors age), but I don't like the idea of rushing a big event movie; I think The Avengers benefited from being pushed out to May 2012.
 
Interesting. The second direct Avengers spin-off (considering Cap 2 as directly tied to TA), and kicking off Phase III right off the bat...

I am really not convinced that TA2 is set for 2015 yet. After Iron Man had its big opening weekend, they announced The Avengers for July 2011 (3 years after IM), but ended up pushing it out a year. The same thing could very well happen with TA2.

The four-year build-up from IM (2008) to The Avengers (2012) worked out pretty well, I'd say. Granted, there were no MCU movies in 2009 and only one in 2010, so there were only 4 movies between IM and TA. A four-year build-up from TA (2012) to TA2 (2016) could involve 6 movies in between instead of 4, but I still think that would be just fine--and potentially awesome. I know many people here don't like the idea of extending time between Avengers movies (especially since actors age), but I don't like the idea of rushing a big event movie; I think The Avengers benefited from being pushed out to May 2012.


I was going to disagree with you, because for the most part three years is a good gap between sequels (from Star Wars in '77 to Empire in '80 to Jedi in '83), but then I thought about The Dark Knight and Rises. They're four years apart, and seem to be doing fine. So waiting until 2016 for Avengers 2 could work just fine, assuming Robert Downey Jr. and Samuel L. Jackson are still young & spry enough.
 
I think waiting 4 years between sequels works better with Avengers as it's supposed to be an event, so each Phase should have time to get more movies
 
I would like that more personally, the four year gap, more time to expand the MCU, but I think they're trying to strike while the iron (man?) is hot, and use the rest of the MCU to keep the momentum going, rather than escalating the next Avengers movie to some new heights.
 
I would like that more personally, the four year gap, more time to expand the MCU, but I think they're trying to strike while the iron (man?) is hot, and use the rest of the MCU to keep the momentum going, rather than escalating the next Avengers movie to some new heights.

Well, keep in mind that they are probably planning The Avengers as a trilogy, and the next sequel will only be the second movie of that trilogy. Therefore, while they want some buildup for its first sequel, they probably want the third and last movie of the three-part installment to be the one that they throw everything in plus the kitchen sink. I think a three-year gap between TA 1 & 2 is reasonable, but for TA3, I think a four-year gap would be ideal to get the buildup they want, and to hit home that it is indeed the climax of the series. They will also be able to put in BP & Ant-Man in addition to the third movie for Thor & Cap, and maybe even Ms. Marvel.
 
If The Sun can be believed (ha-ha), then filming on Avengers 2 begins next year.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-pockets-13million-to-star-in-Avengers-2.html

Which would point towards a 2015 release. Unproven, of course, but it makes the most sense to me. Avengers 1 took a long time to build up because it was a gamble; there'll be a lot more pressure from fans and from the studio this time around, though, so no lolly-gagging allowed.

I think waiting 4 years between sequels works better with Avengers as it's supposed to be an event, so each Phase should have time to get more movies

Avengers is not an "event": it's a franchise.
Crossing over multiple films is an event the first time; there's nothing novel about it the second (or third) time.
 
Well, keep in mind that they are probably planning The Avengers as a trilogy, and the next sequel will only be the second movie of that trilogy. Therefore, while they want some buildup for its first sequel, they probably want the third and last movie of the three-part installment to be the one that they throw everything in plus the kitchen sink. I think a three-year gap between TA 1 & 2 is reasonable, but for TA3, I think a four-year gap would be ideal to get the buildup they want, and to hit home that it is indeed the climax of the series. They will also be able to put in BP & Ant-Man in addition to the third movie for Thor & Cap, and maybe even Ms. Marvel.

There is a huge gap in the movie timeline between TDK/TDKR to my knowledge. Avengers needs at least a few years in the movie timeline between each film.

RDJ is getting a bit old though so that is pushing it. I also think even a classic Star Wars trilogy gap is a bit underwhelming. Why are we still stuck in that mode? Is Marvel seriously not going to make Avengers 4 at some point?

With that said, I would make GotG the event movie in 2015 that Feige was talking about. Put Panther/Ant-Man late 2014 or early 2015. Avengers movies need to be mid summer events. I think they will still go with the standard 2015/2018 turn around though.

Ideally I would lean more toward Avengers 2 in 2016. Avengers 3 in 2020/2021. That's only 10 years since 2011, and Evans and Hemsworth will be in their primes (near 40). Also gives them breathing room to do other projects in the middle, which they desperately need to avoid burnout. Look at Jackman mixing in Broadway and what not over the years.

There are also some characters that simply can not be rebooted any time soon. Iron Man is one of them, and I don't see RDJ doing more than two more movies. Recasting would kill all the momentum you have. I would go the Han Solo route, and "kill" the character off in Avengers 2. Have his brain/mind preserved in some nano-tech/organic hybrid life form or something. Something more dramatic than Sherlock Holmes 2 without the cop out in the end. It wouldn't be as cliche as Captain America sacrificing himself yet again as a climax to the series.
 
Last edited:
There are also some characters that simply can not be rebooted any time soon. Iron Man is one of them, and I don't see RDJ doing more than two more movies. Recasting would kill all the momentum you have. I would go the Han Solo route, and "kill" the character off in Avengers 2. Have his brain/mind preserved in some nano-tech/organic hybrid life form or something. Something more dramatic than Sherlock Holmes 2 without the cop out in the end. It wouldn't be as cliche as Captain America sacrificing himself yet again as a climax to the series.

I think they should try to keep RDJ around, at least until after he finished with The Avengers 3, before they contemplate a recast. Since RDJ is actually not in the suit (it's CGI) and even when he's in the suit he was wearing a mocap suit that isn't as heavy as it looks, if he can stay in shape he will be able to play Tony Stark well into his 50's. However, after TA3 if they want to keep going, I think a recast will be unavoidable.
 
I think they should try to keep RDJ around, at least until after he finished with The Avengers 3, before they contemplate a recast. Since RDJ is actually not in the suit (it's CGI) and even when he's in the suit he was wearing a mocap suit that isn't as heavy as it looks, if he can stay in shape he will be able to play Tony Stark well into his 50's. However, after TA3 if they want to keep going, I think a recast will be unavoidable.

Then do Avengers 2-3 back to back (won't happen).

These are comic book based characters, which can be written back in after "dying". Look at what Fox is trying to do if the rumored Days of Future Past is being done. They can undo EVERYTHING that didn't work in the OT. Especially the climax to X-3, which drove that franchise into a dead end.

So Stark can come back I am sure, whether it is cryo-freezing to prevent aging or some cheesy science fiction explanation, and then you can go with a younger actor at that time. But time needs to elapse for that to have value. Real time.

Then when all the characters return to the MCU, you can have Stark in adventures with the FF and Spidey and the Illuminati and God knows what else 10-15 years from now. Possibilities abound.
 
Last edited:
There is a huge gap in the movie timeline between TDK/TDKR to my knowledge. Avengers needs at least a few years in the movie timeline between each film.

RDJ is getting a bit old though so that is pushing it. I also think even a classic Star Wars trilogy gap is a bit underwhelming. Why are we still stuck in that mode? Is Marvel seriously not going to make Avengers 4 at some point?

With that said, I would make GotG the event movie in 2015 that Feige was talking about. Put Panther/Ant-Man late 2014 or early 2015. Avengers movies need to be mid summer events. I think they will still go with the standard 2015/2018 turn around though.

Ideally I would lean more toward Avengers 2 in 2016. Avengers 3 in 2020/2021. That's only 10 years since 2011, and Evans and Hemsworth will be in their primes (near 40). Also gives them breathing room to do other projects in the middle, which they desperately need to avoid burnout. Look at Jackman mixing in Broadway and what not over the years.

There are also some characters that simply can not be rebooted any time soon. Iron Man is one of them, and I don't see RDJ doing more than two more movies. Recasting would kill all the momentum you have. I would go the Han Solo route, and "kill" the character off in Avengers 2. Have his brain/mind preserved in some nano-tech/organic hybrid life form or something. Something more dramatic than Sherlock Holmes 2 without the cop out in the end. It wouldn't be as cliche as Captain America sacrificing himself yet again as a climax to the series.

oh, dear lord....:facepalm:
 
oh, dear lord....:facepalm:

Lol!

So I have a quick question...
All the phase I films took place in a pretty close time frame in the MCU timeline.
How far ahead will they push the timeline forward in the next movies?

Edit: except for cap of course
 
This is real news:

IronMan 3-2013
Thor 2-2013
Captain America 2-2014
Guardians of The Galaxy-2014
 
The Spiderman reboot hasn't worked out great thus far. I am sure people said then that we can have Spidey movies every 4-5 years and that franchise seems to be running out of gas.

I don't think the Bond comparison is applicable here or anywhere else for that matter. Bond is a movie icon dating back to the 60's. Can't say the same for any superhero on film, unless you want to go back to Adam West or some other lame TV shows in the 60's. It was basically a parody back then. Bond never was.

I see the character in terms of Indiana Jones and Wolverine, who are relatively recent in movie and TV medium compared to Bond. You don't replace that character until you decide to reboot, which they already denied. There are millions of ways to keep a character young in the comics so you can bring him back in a different era. They already did that with Cap. Something similar could be done here.
 
Personally, I think Andrew Garfield makes The Amazing Spider-Man and would have had no problem if they decided to recast with him rather than reboot. I don't know if it would have worked as well tonally as the reboot, but I think he does a fine job.

As for Bond, what was he before he was a cinematic icon? They have to start somewhere. Bond did. Perhaps Iron Man can too.
 
Any issues ASM is having is not due to the recast.
 
ASM is a reboot, which is not applicable to the MCU at this time.

I still firmly believe people wanted to see RDJ as Iron Man. Not Iron Man played by anybody. Characters like Spidey and Wolverine are iconic as is, and Iron Man is not at that level.

I don't think Spidey can go on indefinitely like Bond. You can not consistently update the character. Note how we are still stuck in high school. Bond can fight Commis, European power brokers and arms dealers, terrorists, etc. There is no need to fixate on one era. Does Indiana Jones work in the 21st century? Not a chance.

Wolverine can cross multiple eras and the character doesn't age. That lends itself to recasting over and over. How does that help Iron Man though? I don't see it. Any longevity will require some sci-fi explanation to explain why the character wouldn't age normally.
 
Last edited:
No superheroes age. Do you not read comics.? There was an Iron Man in the 60's, one in the 70's, 80's, 90's etc. If Ian Fleming were still alive today do you think he'd still be writing Bond in the 60's? They're fictional characters that don't depend on one era so they go on and on.
 
No superheroes age. Do you not read comics.? There was an Iron Man in the 60's, one in the 70's, 80's, 90's etc. If Ian Fleming were still alive today do you think he'd still be writing Bond in the 60's? They're fictional characters that don't depend on one era so they go on and on.

Exactly. Dunno why this is so hard for some people to grasp. Or the idea that eventually, characters --- yes, even Iron Man --- get recast. I don't look for RDJ being replaced until at least Avengers 3, but I'm sure that when the recast eventually happens, it will be on RDJ's terms. Despite Marvel Studios' apparent ease with replacing actors and directors, they're not going to arbitrarily kick RDJ to the curb anytime soon.
 
Exactly. Dunno why this is so hard for some people to grasp. Or the idea that eventually, characters --- yes, even Iron Man --- get recast. I don't look for RDJ being replaced until at least Avengers 3, but I'm sure that when the recast eventually happens, it will be on RDJ's terms. Despite Marvel Studios' apparent ease with replacing actors and directors, they're not going to arbitrarily kick RDJ to the curb anytime soon.
Absolutely. People take MS statement on recasting Stark as if they want to let RDJ go or something. All they were saying was that when the day inevitably comes, whenever that may be, they will recast and I'm sure they will take great care in doing so.
 
No superheroes age. Do you not read comics.? There was an Iron Man in the 60's, one in the 70's, 80's, 90's etc. If Ian Fleming were still alive today do you think he'd still be writing Bond in the 60's? They're fictional characters that don't depend on one era so they go on and on.

Not sure how one would compare comics to ongoing movie franchises. Do you view films as a lengthier issue of a comic book in live action? Maybe, MAYBE, that comparison is applicable to TV. You can prolonge aging like the Smallville series because you are doing almost 100 episodes in 4-5 seasons. Even then, a series has to grow. Characters have to age. You don't suddenly recast a TV series and keep it going. I am not talking about remaking a series (Knight Rider/90210) for a new generation, essentially a well timed reboot.

Movies are on a completely different level. You can not trivialize characters and not expect them to lose cinematic appeal at some point. You can not present these characters in a TV series style format. Note how the new Hulk TV series (if it even happens) in the works is completely separate from the MCU. You have to distinguish these two mediums starkly. Similar to how movie Superman does not compare with Smallville or comic book issues.
 
The majority of Bond movies are based on Bond stories that took place in the 50's but they were all adapted to the era they were made in. Same can be done with a character like Stark or mostly any character for that matter. Look at Sherlock Holmes. That's another character from another era and has been adapted to the present. It really is that simple.
 
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"