Sequels The Avengers 2! The Official News and Speculation Thread - Part 2

[roach]

Well people often forget that QS & SW were bad guys like Hawkeye and Vision BEFORE they were good guys in the Comics. I'm curious where Joss would go with the two

well I know that they were bad guys in the comics and have flipped and flopped between good and bad....
....just seems odd that everyone is assuming these two...unless he said their names

 

[Endeavor]

I for one hope they are introduced as bad guys, albeit because they're being manipulated or mislead, and only become Avengers at the end of the movie. Or perhaps not even join at the end of TA2, just leave things open to the possibility and have them join in a later film.

 

[roach]

Whedon has confirmed he was talking about Wanda and Pietro. Check out the link Vartha posted at the same time you were asking.

oh ok well never mind me.....t:

 

[Vartha]

I for one hope they are introduced as bad guys, albeit because they're being manipulated or mislead, and only become Avengers at the end of the movie. Or perhaps not even join at the end of TA2, just leave things open to the possibility and have them join in a later film.

I'm wondering if we'll see anything on the two on Agents of SHIELD first? I mean their powers aren't at all hard to do for tv when you look at what they have so far in the Spot of AoS.

 

[Vartha]

oh ok well never mind me.....t:

lol just one of those things Roach lol

 

[Endeavor]

That would be sweet.
I think Wanda's powers might be hard to do.
Did you see how her powers worked in X-Men Evolution? That would be a massive undertaking in live action.

 

[terry78]

I think he may just have her doing the hex bolts at first if she's still young, then have her do some weird reality altering thing at the climax where she doesn't know how it happened.

 

[Vartha]

Yeah Wanda's Hex bolts from early on in the books would be VERY easy

 

[Lord]

That would be sweet.
I think Wanda's powers might be hard to do.
Did you see how her powers worked in X-Men Evolution? That would be a massive undertaking in live action.

That was very awesome, i don't know why it wouldn't work

 

[Endeavor]

I'm not saying they wouldn't work, just that the reality warping effects she did in that show would require major CG and other FX in live action. But they might go with simpler power displays like terry and Vartha mentioned.

 

[Vartha]

That was very awesome, i don't know why it wouldn't work

Well IF (and this is just us thinking) they introduce Petro and Wanda on Agents of SHIELD before TA2, they could easily start them off with simple CGI, like they already have on the TV spots, THEN they could boost the powers and CGI for TA2.
Joss used plenty of fx on Buffy and Angel, I don't see why they couldn't start them off on SHIELD

 

[cherokeesam]

The audience doesn't want more facetime with the new blood.

They want another Iron Man-Captain America-Thor-Hulk teamup movie

I'm sure some of them do. I'm also sure that a lot of people want to see the team expand. (Of course, I'm sure a lot of the expansionists have unrealistic expectations and very little CB knowledge and are hoping Spidey and Wolverine and Batman get the call.... ) The thing about a sequel is that nobody ever wants to see just the same old same old. They want familiar characters, yes, but they want to see their story and their world expanded upon; or else what's the point of making sequels?

 

[Chewy]

Yes, introduce new characters, tell new stories, split some of them apart and bring some of them together. But don't sideline the lead for a C-lister (I love Black Panther, but let's be real, he's a C-lister as of now)

You can gradually phase some of these characters into the public consciousness and maybe eventually have them take over, but Avengers 2 will have the big 4 front and center again.

 

[Iceman]

Hulk also, although not one of the big 3, has suddenly become too good to ever drop. I'll cry if he's not in every Avengers film for the rest of time now.

 

[Son of Coul]

Yes, introduce new characters, tell new stories, split some of them apart and bring some of them together. But don't sideline the lead for a C-lister (I love Black Panther, but let's be real, he's a C-lister as of now)

You can gradually phase some of these characters into the public consciousness and maybe eventually have them take over, but Avengers 2 will have the big 4 front and center again.

Right. It's always fun to add a couple new characters in the sequels, just not the massive team-expanding many of the fanboys crave. Now's the time to "dig deeper" into the big four as Whedon said, not the time for a passing of the torch.

With any luck (and of course some talent from the fingertips of Whedon ), SW and QS will be the Yoda/Gollum/Puss In Boots of this movie (in terms of being a breakout new character in a sequel). Except they'll obviously be, like, real people, rather than puppets/CG/cats.

 

[mkilban2]

Yeah I think the approach Marvel takes is more what will work best within the context of a movie or phase and what will make the general audience want to come back from more and be hyped for the future, and less of what is going to make the fan-boys happy. See: Iron Man 3. I think it's a good route to take, as long as they don't deviate from the source material drastically, which I don't think they'd ever really do.

 

[Son of Coul]

Yeah I think the approach Marvel takes is more what will work best within the context of a movie or phase and what will make the general audience want to come back from more and be hyped for the future, and less of what is going to make the fan-boys happy. See: Iron Man 3. I think it's a good route to take, as long as they don't deviate from the source material drastically, which I don't think they'd ever really do.

Yeah, this sort of led me to another thought of Marvel caring more about the material on a movie-to-movie basis, rather than in the grand scheme of things, despite the common critique that it restrains creativity for this very reason.

It mostly shines in the way they don't seem to follow through on some of the threads they set up that fans spend hours theorizing on (Stark in TIH, Stark not being accepted in IM2 (it was mentioned in Avengers, but kinda pointless to set up), The Ten Rings backstory, Justin Hammer swearing revenge, Thor's trouble getting back to Earth in Avengers, Loki manipulating Selvig by astral means, etc). They're either left dangling or quickly stitched together in a throwaway line or one-shot. Because they focus on the movie at hand, and I appreciate not locking themselves into anything with those.

Conversely, their world and mythology-building is great and very fun, putting in things like Howard Stark in CA:TFA, the "Arc Reactor Theory" linking three of the main heroes, the cube being in CA:TFA and coming back in TA, sticking the Infinity Gauntlet in Thor (2011) for a set-up that may potentially not even pay off till Avengers 3 (2018?).

Actually, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if when the Infinity Gauntlet does come up, the fact that it was in Odin's Vault will have little-to-no bearing on how it gets in the movie. Basically, while not all their set-ups may come to fruition, the ones that do have a helluva payoff, and that's what's most important when you have a movieverse with multiple concurrent franchises that constantly cycle through new creative people with their own visions.

Set-ups with good payoffs in-movie beat set-ups with no payoffs in-universe, every time. When the latter works out, it's just a healthy bonus. And for every one of them that does, it outweighs the amount that don't go anywhere or in the direction fans had hoped.

 

[Iceman]

Yeah, this sort of led me to another thought of Marvel caring more about the material on a movie-to-movie basis, rather than in the grand scheme of things, despite the common critique that it restrains creativity for this very reason.

It mostly shines in the way they don't seem to follow through on some of the threads they set up that fans spend hours theorizing on (Stark in TIH, Stark not being accepted in IM2 (it was mentioned in Avengers, but kinda pointless to set up), The Ten Rings backstory, Justin Hammer swearing revenge, Thor's trouble getting back to Earth in Avengers, Loki manipulating Selvig by astral means, etc). They're either left dangling or quickly stitched together in a throwaway line or one-shot. Because they focus on the movie at hand, and I appreciate not locking themselves into anything with those.

Conversely, their world and mythology-building is great and very fun, putting in things like Howard Stark in CA:TFA, the "Arc Reactor Theory" linking three of the main heroes, the cube being in CA:TFA and coming back in TA, sticking the Infinity Gauntlet in Thor (2011) for a set-up that may potentially not even pay off till Avengers 3 (2018?).

Actually, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if when the Infinity Gauntlet does come up, the fact that it was in Odin's Vault will have little-to-no bearing on how it gets in the movie. Basically, while not all their set-ups may come to fruition, the ones that do have a helluva payoff, and that's what's most important when you have a movieverse with multiple concurrent franchises that constantly cycle through new creative people with their own visions.

Set-ups with good payoffs in-movie beat set-ups with no payoffs in-universe, every time. When the latter works out, it's just a healthy bonus. And for every one of them that does, it outweighs the amount that don't go anywhere or in the direction fans had hoped.

I'm fine as long as they acknowledge things like this with the throwaway line. Not every set-up will work out & that's understandable in a complex structure with multiple underlying franchises with different teams within one parent franchise. But don't just leave them there as things that look outright wrong to anyone who notices, gloss over them while recognising them and people will soon pay them no further undue notice when a different set-up receives a grand payoff.

 

[BigThor]

The audience doesn't want more facetime with the new blood.

They want another Iron Man-Captain America-Thor-Hulk teamup movie

They sure do and I want the same thing, the core team hasn't even had time to gel together as a group yet. Adding Quicksilver and Wanda is fine, but I'm pretty sure the big 4 are going to be the man focus as they should be.

 

[T"Challa]

From Mike Sang, a Cleveland reporter who has been followint Cap 2 production in Cleveland

Heard around the set: next avengers movie features Black Panther, Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch. Sounds right. #CleFilms

Don't want to get my hopes up but if this is true..how do u guys thing T'Challa will fit into the story?

 

[Shikamaru]

I never thought I'd say this but I'm really starting to miss Ant-Man in the Avengers movies.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

From Mike Sang, a Cleveland reporter who has been followint Cap 2 production in Cleveland



Don't want to get my hopes up but if this is true..how do u guys thing T'Challa will fit into the story?

I'd say that's pretty good timing.

I was just saying something about Black Panther wasn't I?

 

[RockSP]

They sure do and I want the same thing, the core team hasn't even had time to gel together as a group yet. Adding Quicksilver and Wanda is fine, but I'm pretty sure the big 4 are going to be the man focus as they should be.

They aren't even really a team yet.

 

[mkilban2]

I'm guessing since theyre looking at filming spots in that wakanda looking place (can't remember the name) that BP is going to be the one who contacts everyone to bring the team together, and that might be his only part in the movie, then maybe joining the fight later on. But that could drastically hurt the chances of him getting his own solo movie.

I'm just really wondering with Ant-Man starting Phase 3 but Thanos also seemlingly looking to be the big bad of Avengers 3 are they going to save ultron for Phase 4 or have him and thanos in avengers 3?

 

[mkilban2]

They aren't even really a team yet.

they're not a team.. they're a timebomb