The new trend in how sequels are done?

[Ultimatehero]

don't forget all those little teases that lead to nothing because plans change in the MCU can easily be closed in one of the short films. the Marvel One-Shots are a very smart idea. The only thread open from Phase 1 is the Leader and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a One-Shot one day.

Precisely.

And Eggy, EXACTLY with Lantern. Left strands, but who the hell cares about a bad film? And the film failed because it was a terrible film. Hell, I'd say the only thing that saved it in many eyes was the ending with Sinestro - only good thing I heard people say about the movie was that.

As to Lord's most critical question, check the replied quote above. You are acting as though MARVEL puts in these HUGE COLLASAL strands - they don't, they never have, they never will. The Leader is something small. The ONLY thing that carried over was the cosmic cube and hell, that didn't even need to be carried over and it was so small it made absolutely no difference what film it came from. The problem is this - you're acting like all of these things are huge strands, they're not and Marvel is going out of their way to make them contained stories. Why would they all of a sudden shift course and not make them contained? Your 'theory' is based off a way of going about things that is absolutely contrary to how Marvel is opperating. They are making these contained and easily resolved stories for a reason. Your 'scenario' only comes true if suddenly they go against this, which why would they? That shows terrible, BEYOND terrible business sense.

Also why would they have a Dr. Strange movie at the end of a phase? Like with Ant-Man you would have it at the BEGINNING or MIDDLE so that by the time the Avengers and following films roll around, it's easily fixable if it does poorly. BEYOND easily fixable.

What MARVEL has dealt with so far:

- Characters getting facelifts
- Characters with lower box office than they wanted (Hulk)
- Characters with unresolved villain (Hulk, which it could just be easily explained that the Leader was apprehended - I'm pretty sure a connecting comic has mentioned and shown this, Black widow questioned him).
- Character in nowhere land - Red Skull, great if he comes back but they don't need to.

MARVEL has the comics, the one-shots, and now the TV series for those who care about these strands and look deep into it.

Those that aren't major fans - are not going to notice. That's why they are making them contained stories. The masses have absolutely no idea about the Leader, those with moderate interest might be curious but not hard core, those with serious interest in the strands can find the answers in those. As said, there's more that happened to The Leader in Nick Fury's Big Week.

 

[Lord]

Let's just wait 10 years to see how much the landscale for the cinema industry has changed

 

[Ultimatehero]

See and there is your problem, you are going off of a hypothetical sense that all of a sudden MARVEL will CHANGE how they do business. Not just years later, but CHANGING how they opperate.That they will stop telling contained stories with strands that can be handled in a number of ways for those closely paying attention. And they are contained so that the masses don't need to see each one to enjoy the next. There is absolutely no reason why they'd fix/change what isn't broken and stop telling them as contained stories. Your whole thing doesn't come from time, it comes from drastically CHANGING their approach to business. And why on god's green earth would they change what's working?

 

[Lord]

My point is exactly that they won't change, the problem cmes if the films stop being a good, which is a very likelly scenatio, once again we can't know for sure as things are now.

 

[Ultimatehero]

MARVEL is going after the top talent to ensure that things are going good. And in the off chance that one isn't good, well then you can just shift plans and have that character fall to the wayside and only come up in the connecting comics or just relegate that character to Avengers and that's all. You're not going to have one bad movie after another bad movie after another bad movie, do you even know or grasp how very little the probably of that happening is? And as said, if Doctor Strange is bad - BEYOND easy to fix. This is yet another reason why they are CONTAINED. If that happens they have so much room to float around in.

 

[Lord]

You think studios did Die Another day and Batman & Robin with the intention of making a bad film? Things happen, expecially when you try to make a never ending film series. Marvel isn't going after top talent though, they go after less obvious choices that they think deserve an oportunity and fit their films, this is actually a very risky but interesting aproach considering some of these directors have films that without a great critical reception, which is an aproach i like since they don't just go after "Top directors" with a big and strong resumé like DC has done in Green Lantern (a top director who didn't fit the tone of their movies).

Even great studios go through dark phases, even Dreamworks started strong. It happened with Disney and Bond films too.

 

[Laderlappen]

All of those are superhero movies. Its not like they never "teamed up" in the comics.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The only one saying never have a terrible movie is you. I stated what would happen if Dr. Strange was terrible. It's a beyond simple fix. They wouldn't plan on it. But there is no way in hell they would have the important aspects of the phase rest on it, no way in hell that would happen. You're coming at things as though they would have Stranger's first installment be the crux of the phase why... who would do that?

Dreamworks to my knowledge is a production studio -not a company. It works entirely different. I'll give you that Disney Pictures has had hits and misses. Bond had three consecutive bad films that didn't do well? When?

And MARVEL is going after the choices who have a vision and a vision similar to their own. The guys they have running the show in the background are extremely strong. Joss Whedon is now one of their primary go-to guys in the background.

 

[Lord]

The only one saying never have a terrible movie is you. I stated what would happen if Dr. Strange was terrible. It's a beyond simple fix. They wouldn't plan on it. But there is no way in hell they would have the important aspects of the phase rest on it, no way in hell that would happen. You're coming at things as though they would have Stranger's first installment be the crux of the phase why... who would do that?

Dreamworks to my knowledge is a production studio -not a company. It works entirely different. I'll give you that Disney Pictures has had hits and misses. Bond had three consecutive bad films that didn't do well? When?

And MARVEL is going after the choices who have a vision and a vision similar to their own. The guys they have running the show in the background are extremely strong. Joss Whedon is now one of their primary go-to guys in the background.

Who what and when?

 

[Ultimatehero]

Look three posts ago "genius" (said as derogatory).

I find it extremely telling that:

1) You back-peddled to begin with, look a page back and you'll see I'm not the only one who read your post that way and I'm still unsure if that was just poor thought presentation or if you meant it how it was read.

*** 2) That you keep on saying no company plans for a terrible film and are asking for what happens then, but then go on to rampantly ignore the answer with Dr. Strange.

3) Now that you are ignoring the Bond question of three consecutive bad Bond movies that did poorly. But, at this point - I'm not surprised you did ignore that. I'm also pretty sure you meant one film since you keep going back to D.A.D -- which see # 2.

 

[Lord]

Look three posts ago "genius" (said as derogatory).

That's the problem,

The only one saying never have a terrible movie is you.

The phrase itself doesn't make much sence, what am i exactly saying that never had a terrible movie?

I find it extremely telling that:

1) You back-peddled to begin with, look a page back and you'll see I'm not the only one who read your post that way and I'm still unsure if that was just poor thought presentation or if you meant it how it was read.

Look at a few pages back and you see me answering their questions, the only one then that keeps having questions is you, and the big problem is that you repeat questions you asked before and that i answered already. If you look some pages back you also see some agreeing with me, and you will notice that you're the only one that has been arguing with me since the start while many of those that had doubts stopped after i answered them with the reasons.

*** 2) That you keep on saying no company plans for a terrible film and are asking for what happens then, but then go on to rampantly ignore the answer with Dr. Strange.

You should calm down, now, you ignore the fact that bad films can go in succession, i read your example of Dr.Strange but i never said a single bad film was going to ruin everything.

3) Now that you are ignoring the Bond question of three consecutive bad Bond movies that did poorly. But, at this point - I'm not surprised you did ignore that. I'm also pretty sure you meant one film since you keep going back to D.A.D -- which see # 2.

Didn't ignore, i never said there were 3 bad bond films in succession , but a bad Bond film now and then does seem to hurt the series, which is why it was rebooted.

My whole point is this:

The problem with the post-credits scene is that no matter how bad the film was a window is left for a continuation that never happens, making the film not able to stand well on its oun, that's what i mean with blowing in their faces.

And the MCU being a connected universe, when a film leaves something unresolved the whole MCU franchise ends up having a loose end, this happens all the time with comics, which is why we have things like the proto-goblin.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Yes, that you quite obviously think:

1) MARVEL is going to suddenly stop being contained films, so that when one falls - now many one after another - they're all likely to fall in tandem.
2) MARVEL is going to give HUGE ties to a just-starting franchise, such as Strange, so that if it fails everything else fails like dominos. Or give one to an already established hero. You need a string for any dent to be made and as readily demonstrated by you being unable to find even one example -- that's extraordinarily rare.
3) MARVEL films each have these huge pieces of the puzzle so that in order for the following film to work, the one before it must work - despite this never being the case in how things are lined out. Hell, the ONLY important piece of the puzzle was a cosmic cube that kept changing in what it was and could do.
4) MARVEL is leaving loose strands everywhere. Which strands are these? For the general public - they have no idea who the Leader is. For the moderate fan - they can jump to conclusions but have no real interest in looking further. For the hard core fan - then what happened to The Leader was ALREADY answered in Nick Fury's Big Week. So even that Leader example is a piss poor one because it was concluded.

Why -- because I honest to god think you're back-peddling on that. Because after it was brought up only then did you mention the future (after trying to list terrible films that failed and more or less stated there's you proof that films that beg for sequels fail - you mentioned strands after the fact), only then did you mention if there is a string of terrible films (originally you stated only one terrible film), and now saying if in the future the way MARVEL goes about things changes. They are all contained films - there is no huge tie from one to the next other than Shield. With ignoring the most obvious question -- why would they change something that works?

So with Bond you can literally find no string of bad films -- only one here and there which further emphasizes Dr. Strange and how little of an effect that has. When you used the Bond example to go along with Dreamworks and Disney Pictures as having a phase of bad films. This really exemplifies every one of your run-abouts to me.

Even great studios go through dark phases, even Dreamworks started strong. It happened with Disney and Bond films too.

I wouldn't call one film that was followed up by as-seen one of the best Bond films as a "dark phase."

What exactly is unresolved from the first set of films rather than not answered yet? The Leader??? They GAVE an answer lol.

 

[Lord]

Yes, that you quite obviously think:

So, now you're going to say how i think

1) MARVEL is going to suddenly stop being contained films, so that when one falls - now many one after another - they're all likely to fall in tandem.

What i'm saying is that's it's impossible that a series of films going on forever will never have a bad string of films that may make them lose audience.

2) MARVEL is going to give HUGE ties to a just-starting franchise, such as Strange, so that if it fails everything else fails like dominos. Or give one to an already established hero. You need a string for any dent to be made and as readily demonstrated by you being unable to find even one example -- that's extraordinarily rare.

I never really mentioned Strange besides answering the statements you gave, it's quite possible for a film like Iron Man or Thor to pull a Superman IV, i can't give an example inside the MCU because they're like what, 7 films? The biggest failing string was the Leader, and as i mentioned they were lucky, do you think they will be as lucky next time? Or after that? You think something that last forever can really maintain it's popularity and quality?

3) MARVEL films each have these huge pieces of the puzzle so that in order for the following film to work, the one before it must work - despite this never being the case in how things are lined out. Hell, the ONLY important piece of the puzzle was a cosmic cube that kept changing in what it was and could do.

Never said that, but you can bet that if the public looses interest in superhero 75% of their plan will crumble.

4) MARVEL is leaving loose strands everywhere. Which strands are these? For the general public - they have no idea who the Leader is. For the moderate fan - they can jump to conclusions but have no real interest in looking further. For the hard core fan - then what happened to The Leader was ALREADY answered in Nick Fury's Big Week. So even that Leader example is a piss poor one because it was concluded.

What's up with you and strands? I never thought of "strands" before you mentioned them. I already said there wasn't any real problem with the Leader already, see? You keep insisting on things, you don't seem able to move beyond certain arguments, you just keep shoving things i didn't say.

I said they were lucky with the leader, this must be the 6th or 7th time i say this, but once again will they be as lucky nect time? Or after that? Or in the next 20 years?

Why -- because I honest to god think you're back-peddling on that. Because after it was brought up only then did you mention the future, only then did you mention if there is a string of terrible films (originally you stated only one terrible film), and now saying if in the future the way MARVEL goes about things changes. They are all contained films - there is no huge tie from one to the next other than Shield. With ignoring the most obvious question -- why would they change something that works?

So, a bad film doesn't taint the quality of a series, yeah right.

So with Bond you can literally find no string of bad films -- only one here and there which further emphasizes Dr. Strange and how little of an effect that has. When you used the Bond example to go along with Dreamworks and Disney Pictures having a string of bad films.

A bad film taints the universe it's set in, that's how it blows in their faces, look at Marvel comics, you will see that a continuing universe also bring "trash" with it.

What exactly is unresolved from the first set of films rather than not answered yet? The Leader??? They GAVE an answer lol.

GO READ

When i talk about forgotten plot points i talk about things like the Leader, which wasn't that bad considering i, who at the time didn't read the comics or know who the leader was, thought the dude was dead and was smiling at his creation (the abomination). Now, in one Phase they left this plot point, this time it wasn't a big deal, but who knows how it will be next time? Or the one after?

 

[Eggyman]

Who knows? You do. It's going to blow up in their faces.

 

[Lord]

Who knows? You do. It's going to blow up in their faces.

I'm just speculating. I have been very positive about MCU's creation up until now but i don't believe something of this magnitude is going to be able to last for long.

 

[Ultimatehero]

1) List a series that has a bad string of films. You stated Bond but then had to back-track. X3 is considered bad by fans because it puked all over the characters, but it's nowhere seen as terrible by general audiences. So you have an "okay" followed by a "terrible" (Origins) followed by a "terrific." Hardly a strand, so -- you keep on saying this, put your money where your mouth is and NAME ONE STRAND OF FILMS IN A SERIES. Can you?

2) The Leader wasn't a huge string at all. That would only connected into an Incredible Hulk sequel. It had no impact and would have no impact at all on Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, or the Avengers in general. And for those hard-core fans who cared -- it WAS answered.

3) Will there be hiccups? Yes. I've even stated as much. Will there be: bad film - bad film - bad film? No. Name one film series that has operated like that.

4) Your interest in superhero thing is coming out of thin air and has absolutely nothing to do with continuity and is another discussion all together.

5) You keep mentioning Leader as 'lucky' and being the biggest falling string. What impact does the Leader have on the Avengers - why would the Leader be in anything but Hulk 2? How do the masses all of a sudden know about the Leader? Not to mention for those who care, that string wasn't let go of - it was RESOLVED. Not only do they have comics, and shorts -- now they have an entire TELEVISION SERIES to further cover things. You might not see Leader fight, but it was resolved. It's not a dangling string at all. And it furthers shows why these films are contained.

6) A bad film taints its own series. If Strange fails, well then you're not likely to see Strange again. People still think Spider-Man and the X-Men are going to join the Avengers and ask why Superman couldn't be in there. And you seriously think Strange being bad will effect the rest of the films MARVEL has? How?

7) See the above. "Now in one phase, they left this plot point." No they didn't leave it, it's not dangling - it's resolved.

 

[Eggyman]

I'm just speculating. I have been very positive about MCU's creation up until now but i don't believe something of this magnitude is going to be able to last for long.

I agree. I'm already feeling a little burnt out with the influx. But that's because of the amount of films, not scenes after the credits. If they didn't put those scenes at the end and still kept churning the films out, it'd just be the same. If they did hint at the next film and never make it, it wouldn't matter, because the reason they're not making it is because no one cares enough to go put money down and see it.

 

[Lord]

I agree. I'm already feeling a little burnt out with the influx. But that's because of the amount of films, not scenes after the credits. If they didn't put those scenes at the end and still kept churning the films out, it'd just be the same. If they did hint at the next film and never make it, it wouldn't matter, because the reason they're not making it is because no one cares enough to go put money down and see it.

Well, in a way it would matter, because then the story itself wouldn't have a conclusion.

1) List a series that has a bad string of films. You stated Bond but then had to back-track. X3 is considered bad by fans because it puked all over the characters, but it's nowhere seen as terrible by general audiences. So you have an "okay" followed by a "terrible" (Origins) followed by a "terrific." Hardly a strand, so -- you keep on saying this, put your money where your mouth is and NAME ONE STRAND OF FILMS IN A SERIES. Can you?

Batman, Friday the 13th had a string of films disapointing to it's fans and it ended badly, Superman. There's also Matrix and Robocop, my mind's not an archive so i'm sure i'm not even scratching the surfasse of a bad string of films.

2) The Leader wasn't a huge string at all. That would only connected into an Incredible Hulk sequel. It had no impact and would have no impact at all on Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, or the Avengers in general. And for those hard-core fans who cared -- it WAS answered.

If i want string i go watch a puppet show

3) Will there be hiccups? Yes. I've even stated as much. Will there be: bad film - bad film - bad film? No. Name one film series that has operated like that.

Batman & Robin, and Superman III & Superman IV were pretty bad.

4) Your interest in superhero thing is coming out of thin air and has absolutely nothing to do with continuity and is another discussion all together.

huh? They were lucky with the leader because the public barelly noticed it was left out.

5) You keep mentioning Leader as 'lucky' and being the biggest falling string. What impact does the Leader have on the Avengers - why would the Leader be in anything but Hulk 2? How do the masses all of a sudden know about the Leader? Not to mention for those who care, that string wasn't let go of - it was RESOLVED. Not only do they have comics, and shorts -- now they have an entire TELEVISION SERIES to further cover things. You might not see Leader fight, but it was resolved. It's not a dangling string at all. And it furthers shows why these films are contained.

That's why they were lucky, they failed at something that didn't cause a big impact.

6) A bad film taints its own series. If Strange fails, well then you're not likely to see Strange again. People still think Spider-Man and the X-Men are going to join the Avengers and ask why Superman couldn't be in there. And you seriously think Strange being bad will effect the rest of the films MARVEL has? How?

Well, Strange is technically part of the MCU series, so it taints it, maybe not on the box office level, but critically it does.
7) See the above. "Now in one phase, they left this plot point." No they didn't leave it, it's not dangling - it's resolved.[/QUOTE]
So, the guy became the Leader and was put into SHIELD custody, i didn't need to read the tie-in to guess that, and what really matter is what you see on-screen. Once again, they were able to handle that part well because the audience didn't even notice he was going to be a big threat, if they saw him being taken into SHIELD custory most would still think that happened to him because he's going to be important.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Okay, I'll give you those franchises.

Strange it would taint it critically, maybe, but as you've said the general public wouldn't know because they expect Superman to be in The Avengers 2.

On-screen they'll never make anything as huge as you're describing. They'll face similar hiccups they have faced because they are keeping them contained for a reason and that's it. They are purposefully making these films solid. Look at Phase One all that staid was the cube. Phase Two, it's probably just going to be the presence of A.I.M. and nothing more. That a company is named A.I.M. That's as small a strand as they've been keeping.

 

[Lord]

Well it matter to us fans that watch it in succession

Yeah, they're keeping the films solid, which has made many say they don't do enough risks, but even playing safe can sometimes end up in failure, DC kind of tried to keep Green Lantern safe by hiring a director with a solid past and a screenplay with a simple and straightforward narrative, then again Marvel does care much more about their films, so they try to choose people they think fits the film, unlike DC which put a good director into a project he didn't care.

They also created Hydra in WWII, i hope they return in some form, unless they use AIM to fill their role of course.

 

[Ultimatehero]

So, it matters to the few - the masses? They outweigh us by 50 to 1. I'll go one further - before Avengers, I watched all the films together in the correct order (which means inter-changing between the films and reading the comics and everything).

Hydra will most likely be kept to Captain America or we might even see them in Agents of Shield. Again, it's another thing that is very very small.

It is because these things really are minor that they won't run into problems down the road. If you didn't see Thor, okay - you can just see the cosmic cube in Captain America and if you haven't seen that - you can just watch it in the Avengers for the first time and not be effected by it at all. If they go any bigger than that, they're running a gamble but I'd say it's safe to say they'll keep things as minor as they are now because that's safe.

 

[Lord]

Yeah, it was more of a self-reflexion

I never really read much of their role in the comics yet, but i remember them being very present, it would be a waste not to use them again in any form.

Yeah, but the MCU is whole new beast, who know what problems may appear on the way, i hope they keep going strong, but i'm not sure they will. Then again certain comics also go through bumpy roads and pick again.

Going back to the subject of this thread The Avengers does seem to have inspired other studios to do shared universes. Paramount is toying with the idea of a G.I.Joe/ Transformers crossover, Fox wants to do a similar thing with the properties they do control, plans to connect the Evil Dead reboot with Army of Darkness, as well as a crossover between the two are being put into motion, i remember some talk of a Magic Kingdom connected universe but i'm not sure there are real plans for that, DC is entering the game, it will get even more confusing if The Fast and Furious branches out into spin-offs, with that planed solo for The Rock's character.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The MCU is a multi-platformed beast like none other. Shorts, comic books, and television all going into the same exact universe. Not to mention video games if they decide to utilize them beyond and above as well. For example, no Hulk sequel -- what about a Hulk game with The Leader breaking out of Shield as the main villain? Etc.

 

[Lord]

As long as the games are better this time, i wonder how they'll use Agents of SHIELD, if it's going to be a story of the week kind of show and if they will use the c and z list villains

 

[Ultimatehero]

They need to get rid of SEGA and go back to ACTIVISON. It will likely do all that and more, just not cameos from the key Avengers -- maybe Samuel L. Jackson since he seems interested. They could also dive further into AIM, HYDRA, etc.