The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 24

[Zarex]

Or just give me new characters that are not just versions of other characters who are bound to not get the same love and attention the originals did. We have more than enough characters in Marvel who are not just reskins of other characters who would be new and much more exciting. I'd rather see Storm than Jane Foster Thor, etc.

Why would they get less love? Is it written in stone that you must love your second child, dog, cat or spouse less simply because they weren't first?

I think the idea of a newbie picking up the hammer, wielding the shield and putting on the armor whilst trying (and perhaps, failing) to live up to the ideals of their predecessor is quite exciting and has been pulled off successfully in the comics since Barry Allen debuted in the 1950s. I'll be happy if the MCU gives us a mix of legacies along with new characters.

And who wouldn't want to see Kate Bishop in the (rumored) Hawkeye TV show? Nobody, that's who!

 

[Spider-Fan]

But why does there have to be a set number/quota of who can fill certain archetypes? In the Marvel Universe -- Reed and Stark co-exist and have done so for decades. Falcon-Cap and Storm/Nova co-exist in the comics. There's room for legacy stories to be told and new characters to be introduced at the same time. If you limit the "Patriotic/leader-type" to one hero then you make the MCU feel small.

Imagine a mature Peter Parker mentoring a young Riri Williams/Iron Heart. The symbolism would be soo powerful- a reverse of the roles in Homecoming/IW. These stories have potential to be just as emotionally fulfilling as introducing new people.

Again, see Spider-Verse

There are anywhere between 20-30 on-going comic titles at one time that come out monthly. We get 3 movies now, and at some point maybe 4 movies a year, and sequels don't come monthly. It is much easier to lose ideas when you do 12 issues a year x 40 years than it is when you get 3 solos and a few team-ups. The rotation and size of the MCU will never be as expansive as the comics, and each franchise is not depending on monthly sales to keep going. So you don't have to do gimicky things like kill 20 characters in an event, change who is wearing the costume to draw new readers, etc. Marvel has tons of characters that are fresh and new and begging for franchises. I prioritize those characters over reskins that largely got the gimmick due to declining comic book sales.

 

[Rorschach2012]

I just rewatched Hulk 2003 and I have to say I think Eric Bana is my favorite Banner. Ruffalo has never worked for me, he’s too upbeat. I think he’s the most miscast Avenger. I like a darker Bruce Banner, it makes the character more interesting.

 

[Endeavor]

Again, see Spider-Verse

I think Morales is the exception and not the rule.

How much better would Riri have been received if she was introduced as creating something completely different. Some tech that was unique and not a feminine version of Stark's armor?

 

[Spider-Fan]

Why would they get less love? Is it written in stone that you must love your second child, dog, cat or spouse less simply because they weren't first?

I think the idea of a newbie picking up the hammer, wielding the shield and putting on the armor whilst trying (and perhaps, failing) to live up to the ideals of their predecessor is quite exciting and has been pulled off successfully in the comics since Barry Allen debuted in the 1950s. I'll be happy if the MCU gives us a mix of legacies along with new characters.

And who wouldn't want to see Kate Bishop in the (rumored) Hawkeye TV show? Nobody, that's who!

In Hawkeye's case, he's got no love at all. So Kate Bishop has a chance Clint never had. That one is more an exception though and largely works because Hawkeye has done little in 6 movies. But I can be you that Falcon-Cap in reviews would always be held to the standard of Steve Rogers. Every review will draw that comparison, and it is applying pressure on that character they don't need. It also limits the direction you really can go. You have to make it a passing of the mantle story and address the elephant in the room, while a Falcon story can basically be about anything.

Also how do I know they will get less love? Simple, Steve got 3 theatrical movies. Sam will be sharing a show. That says it all.

Also, you can give me legacy character that worked, but I can give you plenty more who flopped. For every Hal Jordan and Barry Allen, there John Walker, Kyle Rayner, and heck, even Bucky Barnes in the grand scheme didn't last that long.

 

[metaphysician]

I have to admit, I kind of hate Amadeus Cho. I know that, as awful as his original run in the comics was, he eventually got redeemed a bit. I also know that the movie version will almost certainly be revamped heavily; I mean, they made Civil War good, they can surely fix Amadeus Cho.

I just still hate him, and probably will until Marvel actually does fix him up.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

In Hawkeye's case, he's got no love at all. So Kate Bishop has a chance Clint never had. That one is more an exception though and largely works because Hawkeye has done little in 6 movies. But I can be you that Falcon-Cap in reviews would always be held to the standard of Steve Rogers. Every review will draw that comparison, and it is applying pressure on that character they don't need. It also limits the direction you really can go. You have to make it a passing of the mantle story and address the elephant in the room, while a Falcon story can basically be about anything.

Also how do I know they will get less love? Simple, Steve got 3 theatrical movies. Sam will be sharing a show. That says it all.

Also, you can give me legacy character that worked, but I can give you plenty more who flopped. For every Hal Jordan and Barry Allen, there John Walker, Kyle Rayner, and heck, even Bucky Barnes in the grand scheme didn't last that long.

Making Falcon Cap to me is even worse than something like Riri Williams to me (who already has issues), because at least she is not an existing character. With Wilson you are essentially taking a character in the Falcon and making him less interesting than he would be if you just made a Falcon movie. Same with Winter Soldier.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Again, as per my stance on legacy characters, I would prefer no Hulk once Banner is gone. Having a million Hulks devalues Banner IMO. Same applies for a million Captain Americas, Iron Men, etc. Let new characters forge their own legacies without the burden of a prior character's name. I'd be okay with She-Hulk, but not another Hulk.

I think Red Hulk could be interesting in a film, but as a villain or supporting character. Maybe a Thunderbolts/Dark Avenger character. Not someone who would explicitly be just a Banner replacement.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Making Falcon Cap to me is even worse than something like Riri Williams to me (who already has issues), because at least she is not an existing character. With Wilson you are essentially taking a character in the Falcon and making him less interesting than he would be if you just made a Falcon movie. Same with Winter Soldier.

I agree. It limits what type of story you can tell with them and now forces them into Cap's shadow, which they will never be able to surpass. It's much better for them to carve their own legacy in their own roles.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think Red Hulk could be interesting as a film, but as a villain or supporting character. Maybe a Thunderbolts/Dark Avenger character. Not someone who would explicitly be just a Banner replacement.

Red Hulk would not be my first villain choice mainly because we had Abomination already, and I would like someone who would offer something new in fight scenes and such. But, if I were to be told "You'll only get a Hulk sequel...with Red Hulk as the villain" then I would take it. But this would be the only role I'd accept another Hulk, outside of She-Hulk but I think of her as something more or less original at this point. But I don't want a Red Hulk franchise or anything. Recurring villain? Sure. That'd be fine.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Red Hulk would not be my first villain choice mainly because we had Abomination already, and I would like someone who would offer something new in fight scenes and such. But, if I were to be told "You'll only get a Hulk sequel...with Red Hulk as the villain" then I would take it. But this would be the only role I'd accept another Hulk, outside of She-Hulk but I think of her as something more or less original at this point. But I don't want a Red Hulk franchise or anything. Recurring villain? Sure. That'd be fine.

I do think Red Hulk and Abomination are mutually exclusive when it comes to something like Thunderbolts. They are so similar that they should use one or the other, not both. I personally would go with Red Hulk just because we haven't seen or heard from Abomination in a decade and even that was in the least popular MCU film. Ross has been more prominent with appearances in Civil War and Infinity War, and I think he has more story left to tell as someone who has been at the head of the anti-superhero movement in the films resorting to becoming one himself. I'm not sure how much there is left to tell with Abomination. His arc was pretty well concluded aside from just being generic muscle in TIH.

I'm with you on She-Hulk. She's different enough that she's basically an original character.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I do think Red Hulk and Abomination are mutually exclusive when it comes to something like Thunderbolts. They are so similar that they should use one or the other, not both. I personally would go with Red Hulk just because we haven't seen or heard from Abomination in a decade and even that was in the least popular MCU film. Ross has been more prominent with appearances in Civil War and Infinity War, and I think he has more story left to tell as someone who has been at the head of the anti-superhero movement in the films resorting to becoming one himself. I'm not sure how much there is left to tell with Abomination. His arc was pretty well concluded aside from just being generic muscle in TIH.

I'm with you on She-Hulk. She's different enough that she's basically an original character.

I agree that Abomination's story is basically done. But I would like if a Hulk vs Red Hulk or a Thunderbolts movie ever happens if they can work the Leader into his origin somehow. He did have all that Banner blood, after all. It would be a logical way to use him.

 

[Zarex]

In Hawkeye's case, he's got no love at all. So Kate Bishop has a chance Clint never had. That one is more an exception though and largely works because Hawkeye has done little in 6 movies. But I can be you that Falcon-Cap in reviews would always be held to the standard of Steve Rogers. Every review will draw that comparison, and it is applying pressure on that character they don't need. It also limits the direction you really can go. You have to make it a passing of the mantle story and address the elephant in the room, while a Falcon story can basically be about anything.

I would agree that if someone already has a cool superhero title - Falcon and both the Winter Soldier and White Wolf qualify - there's no need to 'upgrade' said character to new Captain America. But I think it would be interesting to see a Captain America who may not be quite as up to the challenge as Mr. Rogers. I'd love to see Sam Rockwell's Justin Hammer take on the Iron Man moniker and struggle using sub par Hammer tech.

Also, you can give me legacy character that worked, but I can give you plenty more who flopped. For every Hal Jordan and Barry Allen, there John Walker, Kyle Rayner, and heck, even Bucky Barnes in the grand scheme didn't last that long.

Hal Jordan, Barry Allen, Johnny Storm, Carol Danvers, Scott Lang, Kamala Khan, Damien Wayne, Ted Kord, Jaime Reyes, Michael Holt, Ray Palmer, America Chavez, John Stewart, Kate Bishop, Wally West, Hope Van Dyne, Miles Morales, Zatanna, Courtney Whitmore........legacy characters work WAY more often than they are given credit for.

 

[metaphysician]

Plus, you have grossly underused characters waiting to be brought to the limelight. Build those up, give them relevant stories. Revamp then...

Don't give me a honduran Warren Worthington iii, because you happened to have seen that country mentioned in recent stories about the caravan and think it would somehow make the character "fresh" or "relevant".

Eh, while that would be a bad reason to cast Warren as Honduran, I feel like Warren Worthington is in the category where his exact race and ethnicity is flexible. He needs to be a rich guy from a rich family, but he doesn't particularly have to be any specific race. Particularly since. . . at least to me, he's always given a sense of "globe-trotting wealth", the kind that doesn't attach itself to specific nations. Its not like with Batman, where Bruce specifically has to be "multi-generational New England rich guy".

The only thing I would insist is that he come from a majority-Christian culture, since that ties in with his powers at least on the subtextual level.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I would agree that if someone already has a cool superhero title - Falcon and both the Winter Soldier and White Wolf qualify - there's no need to 'upgrade' said character to new Captain America. But I think it would be interesting to see a Captain America who may not be quite as up to the challenge as Mr. Rogers. I'd love to see Sam Rockwell's Justin Hammer take on the Iron Man moniker and struggle using sub par Hammer tech.



Hal Jordan, Barry Allen, Johnny Storm, Carol Danvers, Scott Lang, Kamala Khan, Damien Wayne, Ted Kord, Jaime Reyes, Michael Holt, Ray Palmer, America Chavez, John Stewart, Kate Bishop, Wally West, Hope Van Dyne, Miles Morales, Courtney Whitmore........legacy characters work WAY more often than they are given credit for.

I'm not going to get into the whole name for name game with legacy characters, but I can do this same list you provided with failed ones easily. Also, again, we're getting a much smaller amount of CBMs annually than comics. There is no need to recycle old ideas when the pool of fresh ones is still very rich. We don't have like 20 on-going franchises that have to produce content monthly, and sell said content monthly at a rate that justifies the money spent on them. The X-Men/Fantastic Four properties alone add an embarrassment of riches for possible MCU solo films. Why remove one of these fresh ideas by making a movie that will likely see diminishing returns? Even in your Kate Bishop example I conceded to you could work, she is going to be getting a show and not a movie. That is more than Clint has gotten, granted. But it is still not like she is being tossed into the limelight to set the world on fire. If she was, it'd be a movie.

 

[Endeavor]

Eh, while that would be a bad reason to cast Warren as Honduran, I feel like Warren Worthington is in the category where his exact race and ethnicity is flexible. He needs to be a rich guy from a rich family, but he doesn't particularly have to be any specific race. Particularly since. . . at least to me, he's always given a sense of "globe-trotting wealth", the kind that doesn't attach itself to specific nations. Its not like with Batman, where Bruce specifically has to be "multi-generational New England rich guy".

The only thing I would insist is that he come from a majority-Christian culture, since that ties in with his powers at least on the subtextual level.

Our conversation isn't about casting actors of different races in movies, it's about characters in general being forcibly replaced in all media by another to take up the former's spot.
This includes the comics, which is why we've been citing examples of Sam taking over as Cap, Morales taking over for Parker, etc. I think I didn't word my hypothetical correctly.

 

[metaphysician]

On the matter of legacies. . . honestly, I'm not hugely fond of most of the efforts on Marvel's part, and kind of hope they don't overly go with them for movies. However, it is a damn shame that DC basically disavowed their own, enormously successful, exploration of legacies. Because while Marvel's intermittent efforts have largely been meh, there was a good 20 year period, some of the best DC has ever done, where legacies and legacy characters were the centerpiece of their whole setting.

 

[Marvel united]

There are anywhere between 20-30 on-going comic titles at one time that come out monthly. We get 3 movies now, and at some point maybe 4 movies a year, and sequels don't come monthly. It is much easier to lose ideas when you do 12 issues a year x 40 years than it is when you get 3 solos and a few team-ups. The rotation and size of the MCU will never be as expansive as the comics, and each franchise is not depending on monthly sales to keep going. So you don't have to do gimicky things like kill 20 characters in an event, change who is wearing the costume to draw new readers, etc. Marvel has tons of characters that are fresh and new and begging for franchises. I prioritize those characters over reskins that largely got the gimmick due to declining comic book sales.

I dunno about that. With the introduction of Disney+ it allows the MCU to expand past the movies and tell a wider overarching story. We could easily get a Kate Bishop show or a Falcon show dealing with him trying to live up to Steve's legacy. "How can he ever live up to Rogers' legacy" maybe that could be the overarching theme of his arc? Maybe that can actually be addressed in the movie/show? How that takes a toll on him would be very interesting to see.

And even then, where does that leave characters like American Dream and Patriot? The former of whom is directly tied to Steve (Sharon's niece) and Patriot is a direct connection to Cap/Super Solider serum

 

[Spider-Fan]

I dunno about that. With the introduction of Disney+ it allows the MCU to expand past the movies and tell a wider overarching story. We could easily get a Kate Bishop show or a Falcon show dealing with him trying to live up to Steve's legacy. "How can he ever live up to Rogers' legacy" maybe that could be the overarching theme of his arc? Maybe that can actually be addressed in the movie/show? How that takes a toll on him would be very interesting to see.

And even then, where does that leave characters like American Dream and Patriot? The former of whom is directly tied to Steve (Sharon's niece) and Patriot is a direct connection to Cap/Super Solider serum

Do we also need 500 variations of that same story? Bucky: "How can I live up to being Captain America?" Riri: "How can I live up to Mr. Stark?", Female Thor: "How can I live up to Odinson?" Etc. Do you see where I am going with this? Are we just wasting a phase of people trying to live up to characters we already like asking the same legacy questions? Why do this when we can explore NEW idea with people we have yet to see?

Also, going from a billion dollar franchise to a show is a major downgrade. So again, that shows me less care than the predecessor got. Going back to my point of these characters not getting the same level of care.

 

[Abudefduf]

Okay but Kate Bishop is good and she needs to become part of the MCU. I don't want to die before seeing at least one good Hawkeye on the big screen.

 

[Marvel united]

Do we also need 500 variations of that same story? Bucky: "How can I live up to being Captain America?" Riri: "How can I live up to Mr. Stark?", Female Thor: "How can I live up to Odinson?" Etc. Do you see where I am going with this? Are we just wasting a phase of people trying to live up to characters we already like asking the same legacy questions? Why do this when we can explore NEW idea with people we have yet to see?

Also, going from a billion dollar franchise to a show is a major downgrade. So again, that shows me less care than the predecessor got. Going back to my point of these characters not getting the same level of care.

It's all about the execution of the idea. Jane's internal conflict does not have to be presented the same way as Bucky, even if she's "trying to live up" to Odinson... Because Captain America and Thor are fundamentally different characters. What it means to be Cap is something completely different from what it means to be Thor. Taking on the burden of the shield/symbol calls for that story to be told. About someone trying to honor the legacy of one of the most influential icons in the world. That's kinda like saying origin stories are all the same because every character goes through a learning curve of figuring out who they are.

The symbol of these characters should not die with the current mantle holders. We need a Captain America, we need a Thor and we need sn Iron Man. These characters have been around for decades, since the beginnings of the Marvel Universe. We need "like" characters to fill the void left behind by these people. Can you honestly imagine Secret Wars without a Cap, Thor, Hulk or Iron Man? It won't be the same without them. I mean, Young Avengers in itself is all about "legacy" and "living up to the legends" and everybody seems to want that movie to happen.

Even if the Legacy ones are created out of a need to boost sales, these characters still interact with their "spiritual successors" all the time in the comics. Storm and Nova should not cancel out Bucky/Sam-Cap, Reed should not cancel out Riri. This Is a cinematic universe and there can be more than one "smart person" or "brave" person.

And if we're being honest, have we ever really seen a legacy story in the MCU? That's something remains unexplored in the MCU that I could see Marvel/Feige wanting to tap into.

 

[Spider-Fan]

It's all about the execution of the idea. Jane's internal conflict does not have to be presented the same way as Bucky, even if she's "trying to live up" to Odinson... Because Captain America and Thor are fundamentally different characters. What it means to be Cap is something completely different from what it means to be Thor. Taking on the burden of the shield/symbol calls for that story to be told. About someone trying to honor the legacy of one of the most influential icons in the world. That's kinda like saying origin stories are all the same because every character goes through a learning curve of figuring out who they are.

The symbol of these characters should not die with the current mantle holders. We need a Captain America, we need a Thor and we need sn Iron Man. These characters have been around for decades, since the beginnings of the Marvel Universe. We need "like" characters to fill the void left behind by these people. Can you honestly imagine Secret Wars without a Cap, Thor, Hulk or Iron Man? It won't be the same without them. I mean, Young Avengers in itself is all about "legacy" and "living up to the legends" and everybody seems to want that movie to happen.

Even if the Legacy ones are created out of a need to boost sales, these characters still interact with their "spiritual successors" all the time in the comics. Storm and Nova should not cancel out Bucky/Sam-Cap, Reed should not cancel out Riri. This Is a cinematic universe and there can be more than one "smart person" or "brave" person.

And if we're being honest, have we ever really seen a legacy story in the MCU? That's something remains unexplored in the MCU that I could see Marvel/Feige wanting to tap into.

We've seen legacies address in the Ant-Man series kind of. It's a legacy story without it feeling like we're replacing anyone. So yes, the MCU has 2 of them currently in Scott and Hope, though again it's not a perfect example of a direct replacement since there was no Hank Pym Ant-Man movie.

You can change the wrapping paper all you want, it's still the same package. I am not saying Reed has to be the only smart guy in the universe, but what I am saying is when you're competing for the same 3 or 4 spots, you have to choose them wisely. The MCU will only avoid stagnation by continuing to evolve and introducing new elements. Falling into using the same ideas is the complete opposite of that and something they don't have to do. The BO has shown us the magic Marvel continues to work. We're not seeing declining BO returns with the current strategy. The average film continues to make more money, and they're doing it by keeping it fresh and adding new elements. The universe has grown beyond sole dependence on the original 6 Avengers. We don't need to replace them with exact-ish copies. The BO is proof. The audience is enjoying the new characters they have been given, and no doubt given who Marvel still has on the bench, will do so for ages. I don't think there is a need to go back to tactics grounded in desperation when the studio is flourishing.

 

[The Infernal]

And who wouldn't want to see Kate Bishop in the (rumored) Hawkeye TV show? Nobody, that's who!

*Raises hand*

I want to see a lot more of Hawkeye amd maybe some Thunderbolts before they try and replace him with or even just take on trainee Hawkeye.

 

[Shuri]

I won't be against Bucky Cap, but I'll prefer a winter soldier movie. There's a lot of potential there and Stan is a very good actor.

 

[Erik Lensherr]