again, short sighted. if we are under the assumption that the MCU has no expiration date, you're robbing yourself off of major players in a possible future (by killing them) where there is need for them. retiring is always an option, and nothing I'm really against, but that still means cameos now and then. not only in the next ten years but beyond. sooner or later new faces for known characters will happen out of a necessity. yes there are dozens of character untouched for the MCU, but how many of them are strong enough or have a history deep enough to have a movie or a franchise build around them? maybe a handful (unless, MS gets a few rights back sometime) and those new characters introduced in Phase 2 and Phase 3 grow older too. If MS and the MCU is still around in 2030 and they look at the choices they hav left, either a Big Bertha franchise or Iron Man coming back from retirement they might decide that a 60 year old Stark is preferrable to a 70something Stark. Or they might realize, that while Thor is still King of Asgard, he really doesn't age at the same rate as humans and might want to look into another actor in an age category.
Shortsighted would be to assume that the MCU couldn't possibly go on without any of the original Avengers. I think it might be cool to have Cap mentor some of the newer heroes, but there's no reason to assume that cameos MUST happen. The New Avengers will have their own story to tell, and they need to prove that they can stand on their own. Having the old heroes show up in too many movies would make the new ones look incompetent. A couple of cameos in Avengers 4 or 5 could be nice, but Marvel shouldn't overdo it. The New Avengers will likely have their own supporting cast, some of which would carry on to future Avengers movies, and their are only so many characters that can fit in a movie. While it is true that Cap and IM are the most prominent Avengers, there are many others(certainly more than a handful). Marvel isn't exactly scraping at the bottom of the barrel with these new heroes and if everything goes well, that's another ten years of Marvel. That's ten more years for Marvel Comics to play catch up with some characters like Monica Rambeau and Ms. Marvel. Cap and IM have decades of stories, but Marvel Studios made a Guardians of The Galaxy movie, and that team hadn't even been around five years before they started production. Source material is obviously important, but you don't need as much as you think since Marvel very often deviates from the source material.
And no, recasts doesn't mean reboot. and since this is ultimately a sci-fantasy universe there might even be in-universe explanations for the face change or the notable age difference (don't count on it, but there might be). Doctor Who changes the actor of its titular character approximatly every 3 1/2 years or so and it makes total sense in-universe and the story still progresses linearly (more or less, wibbly wobbly timey-wimey not included). Fandral, Rhodey, Bruce Banner...all of them have already been recast and the story still progresses without any needs for reboots, without any needs to change the linear structure and without too many questions asked by the audience.
Just like James Bond, there would be no Doctor Who show without Doctor Who. It's common sense, really. So, that's a terrible argument to begin with, and we haven't even gone into time travel yet. The difference between recasting Rhodes and Banner between and recasting IM or Cap is that those recasting happened before the MCU got really big(Pre-Avengers). You're talking about recasting actors ten years after they've been cast. Fandrall's recasting was barely even noticed by people. Since he's Asgardian, he won't really age much in a fear years. This also means that Thor is the one Avenger in which a recasting would actually make sense.
your logic is faulty and driven by a certain desire, I think. long term it makes more sense, business-wise to have more options and not paint yourself in a corner with closing doors for characters to come back.
My logic is actually pretty sound. If Marvel is going to be serious about passing the torch, then they shouldn't half-ass it and have faith in the new heroes' ability to stand on their own without assistance from the old heroes. I've actually had several theories about the Avengers' fate at the end of Infinity War.
1. They die(But can be brought back with an Infinity Stone)
2. They don't die but live the rest of their life in the Soul World, living out the rest of their lives in peace.
3. They retire
I'm kind of hoping they die half way through IW2, so the New Avengers can "AVENGE" The Avengers. It would be a nice way of passing the torch. The only thing I don't like about this is that I would like some future interactions between the heroes.
