Killing Maria Hill would have been just as big a cop out. She's yet to have a truly major role and her part in AOU basically consisted of sitting in front of a computer screen and spouting convenient exposition.
The problem with this sort of "Someone needs to die!" mindset is that the fans are screaming and begging for a death, just so long as it's not a character they actually give a hoot about.
I'd love a bigger character to die. But Marvel is in this to make money, so they can't just kill off main Avengers and by extension million dollar film franchises. They need to wait until the actor's contracts are up before they can kill them off. Kind of ruins the suspense for those of us who keep up to date on those sort of details, but it at least allows them to still surprise the general viewing public.
A good workaround is to introduce more characters who don't have their own franchises but are still important - which is what Marvel is doing, though they've yet to kill many off. Killing off Maria Hill would have been a good move I think. She's in the "sacrificial lion" position. She's not a huge character, but major enough that her death does actually up the stakes and provide a feeling of consequence.
A good workaround is to introduce more characters who don't have their own franchises but are still important - which is what Marvel is doing, though they've yet to kill many off.
Well that's the thing. If your purpose for introducing new heroes is just to kill them off, you have a problem. It makes your entire universe seem small and one of the reasons I didn't mind the AOU death so much was that we at least got two new Avengers to make up for the one killed off.
While I hate the pattern of killing off people and then pulling a fake out, I don't think death is necessary as a storytelling device to begin with.
Well that's the thing. If your purpose for introducing new heroes is just to kill them off, you have a problem. It makes your entire universe seem small and one of the reasons I didn't mind the AOU death so much was that we at least got two new Avengers to make up for the one killed off.
While I hate the pattern of killing off people and then pulling a fake out, I don't think death is necessary as a storytelling device to begin with.
I disagree. I think in any story with a lot of action, you eventually need some character deaths or else it starts to break the willing suspension of disbelief. If the work is aimed at a much younger audience then you can get away with everyone living. But for teenage demographics and up, you need character death.
I don't think it's bad to write characters with the purpose of killing them off. If that's all they're there for then that's bad (unless they're really small characters). But it's good writing to plan out the arcs of your characters and how those arcs end, whether that involves them dying, retiring or riding off into the sunset for more adventures. Or alternately you can be more spontaneous. And when you need a death you look around and see which characters qualify best.
The way Civil War will most likely play out, the most impactful and dramatic death will probably be captain America. Which is why they will not do it. This is Marvel we are talking about, all they do is play it safe. Just check Feige's latest interview, as long as these movies are making ridiculous amounts of money they're not changing anything even if they did it in the comics and it would make the film better.
Iron-Man or CA, would be the best bet if they were not just playing it safe.
I don't think so. Honestly, how many superhero movies have had actual heroes killed off permanently? X2? Even that ends with a very strong (and extremely blatant to comic fans) hint that Jean isn't really dead. X-Men 3? Sure, several heroes die, but it's also considered a train wreck of a movie so it's not really a good example to use.
Even in the first Avengers movie, the only major death you had was Coulson. Who at the time was just some SHIELD agent created explicitly for the movies.
Just because superhero movies haven't permanently killed off characters in the past, doesn't mean all movies should follow suit. I mean at least Cyclops managed to stay dead for 8 years (even if he appeared in films set before X3 i.e Wolverine Origins).
And for what it's worth:
Fiege has confirmed that Quicksilver is really dead and not coming back. So they're certainly open to permanent deaths.
Nobody is saying that, just that I don't buy the claim that you need to kill off superheroes to keep the audience engaged when the genre has largely been bereft of superhero deaths since it's inception.
Even with the aforementioned death in Age of Ultron, opinion seems sharply divided. Some people liked it but some also think it was a waste of a character.
Just because superhero movies haven't permanently killed off characters in the past, doesn't mean all movies should follow suit. I mean at least Cyclops managed to stay dead for 8 years (even if he appeared in films set before X3 i.e Wolverine Origins).
And for what it's worth:
Fiege has confirmed that Quicksilver is really dead and not coming back. So they're certainly open to permanent deaths.
I don't see t'chakas death at the hands of crossbones setting off a registration act, it needs to be something that directly ties to The avengers themselves. Not as a result of an independent/hydra agent.
Not sure why they would do that, it seems too cliche, AoU spoils:
they already did a great job at not killing Hawkeye and his family off in AoU when everyone expected it.
They are NOT going to be cliche.
As a side note I was just playing the Future Fight app the other day and in it they talked about in an alternate dimension Hawkeyes family was killed when he was fighting crime. This caused him to turn evil in that alternate universe. Not sure if that's from a comic, but it would be interesting. I doubt that he would turn evil though.
That would actually make sense. T'Chaka would be key enough for it to have an impact, as long as they develop his character a little first.
As far as Falcon, they have barely touched the surface of him. They have really only had his character developed at all in one movie. I hope they don't kill him. He is such a cool character and his relationship with the team hasn't even been shown.
Rhodey seems more likely. He has been in a few films as a side character, yet he isn't necessarily a key character. He isn't an avenger, but he is a friend for sure.
As far as Hawkeye, again, it would seem a bit cliche. Blackwidow has too many fans, same with Thor, Hulk, Iron Man and Cap. They can't kill main characters like that so soon. However, if it were any of those it would more likely be Steve, as he has two replacements waiting in line to be Captain America. He can come back as a ghost type thing, or even be secretly brought back to life but he knows he cant and shouldn't go back. This would allow them to show that his death was real to all the other Avengers, and he is REALLY leaving the team, but he is doing it because it's the best thing he can do. Maybe a couple of guys can know that he's really alive. If he dies, Bucky is next in line. Don't cut to Falcon. Cap's 'death' would mean a lot to Bucky, especially as he was just getting to know him. This would be a great cause for Bucky to take up the shield. Obviously this would also leave the door open for them to have Steve come back EVENTUALLY, but not until Bucky can be Cap for a little bit. Maybe something along the lines of what happened when Punisher was Cap?
I think a death is necessary, and hate to see so many people claiming they don't need one. This is the Civil War story, there must be a turning point where someone loved dies, which causes people to switch sides. It is a point where people will question whether what they are doing is right or wrong. You can't do that with anything else. Does it have to be exactly like the comics? Obviously no, Goliath will not be dying in Civil War, I can guarantee it. No one in this thread claiming that there should be a death is claiming that it should be exact. But for the Ultron story it was necessary for a Hero to create Ultron. We didn't need Hank to create him, but that was a key part to the storyline. A death of a hero in the story is one of THE MAIN events which take place. Could they do it without? Probably, but it seems that it would not help.
As for Cap dying, I would say that is another crucial thing, though not as crucial. I have said in the past, if Cap dies and Tony was right about registration, Cap dies in vain, if Cap lives and Tony was right, then Cap also fought in vain, if Cap lives and Cap was right, Tony becomes a bad guy because he has no reason to regret what he did, if Cap lives and Tony was right, same goes for Cap. In the end whether the Registration act was right or not doesn't matter as much as whether it was right to take the pieces of silver to capture your friends. (As Daredevil noted, I really want that DD scene to make it to the movie, that is arguably one of the greatest quotes.)
In the end we know Rhodey will be in the film, and he has been in the MCU for long enough as a side Character, they could easily kill him off and it would have a lot of meaning.
The rumors of Ant-Man I find a bit silly. Is it that Ant-Man can shrink just like Goliath could grow that makes Ant-Man a good target? It doesn't make sense at all to me. Why kill of a key Marvel character just as he is getting started?
Another thing, whoever kills someone to set off the Registration act, they MUST be a superhuman. Crossbones would not work because he is NOT a super human. Why would that cause people to wonder whether people with superpowers should be put under a strict law? Crossbones could be the one who kills Cap though. I do wonder if they will go with the whole 'hiring villains' thing. I think they can easily hire Hydra Agents instead, because unless they bring in Spider-Man villains or the Abomination, there aren't really any villains they could use...
I'd rather they not do the cliche "Black guy dies first" trope with War Machine. I found it just as tiring when we spent a whole year on the AOU forum with everyone insisting Ultron would kill him.
Another thing, whoever kills someone to set off the Registration act, they MUST be a superhuman. Crossbones would not work because he is NOT a super human. Why would that cause people to wonder whether people with superpowers should be put under a strict law? Crossbones could be the one who kills Cap though. I do wonder if they will go with the whole 'hiring villains' thing. I think they can easily hire Hydra Agents instead, because unless they bring in Spider-Man villains or the Abomination, there aren't really any villains they could use...
If you read the synopsis, it says an event involving the Avengers that causes collateral damage. The necessary part isn't a superhuman being the one to instigate the attack, but that the Avengers come out looking tarnished enough that the world governments begin to believe they need to be kept on a tighter leash.
I think a death is necessary, and hate to see so many people claiming they don't need one. This is the Civil War story, there must be a turning point where someone loved dies, which causes people to switch sides.
There doesn't. Goliath's murder was significant but there were other factors at work such as the decision to hire supervillains and increasingly insane lengths the Pro-Reg side were going to in order to defeat Steve.
No deaths in Civil War; I'm tired of Marvel keep killing their characters just because they need some dramatic scene, and not used other kind of storytelling to create the same effect.
im not a fan of killing characters off (unless their villains). but it doesnt quite answer how will Evans do CW, IW pt1 and IW pt2 if there are only 2 pictures left on his contract.
.... unless he made a deal and i didnt hear about it?
which makes me wonder if something might happen to Cap at the end of CW which will allow him to skip one IW movie.
im not a fan of killing characters off (unless their villains). but it doesnt quite answer how will Evans do CW, IW pt1 and IW pt2 if there are only 2 pictures left on his contract.
.... unless he made a deal and i didnt hear about it?
which makes me wonder if something might happen to Cap at the end of CW which will allow him to skip one IW movie.
That does make sense.
However, the same thing was said for RDJr, and he is even harder to get to continue. I doubt they would have trouble getting Chris Evans to sign another contract, he obviously loves playing the character. However, if they did do what I was thinking they might do (kill him off, have it either a fake death, or have him actually die but be revived with the same juice Coulson was given, that was made specifically in case of an event of an Avenger's death, or revive him somehow with Infinity Stones, or whatever, then have him go into hiding until a couple of phases when he can return.) if they did that then they wouldn't need him to renew his contract anytime soon, and they could have him in IW1 or 2 shown revived and going into hiding. Not to mention they could easily (though I hope they wouldn't have to) bring back Steve with him having a different actor later, because he could have had facial surgery to keep people from recognizing him.
Honestly, I'm just speculating, I don't put much more weight on anything I say than I do on what others have said. But I know they COULD do this. It would NOT be the same as a faked death because he WOULD be dead to all the characters for a SIGNIFICANT time as well as he would NOT be part of the team for a while. As long as he stays in hiding long enough, it will effect the audience as much as the characters, having Cap gone for even one movie and having the audience think he is dead for most of the movie or all of it would give the audience feels. Having him shown as alive would give people hope, and it would make them not hate Marvel, but when he shows that he has to leave it will bring back them feels, but they will not hate marvel and will know there is hope for Steve coming back in the future.
Exactly! I wouldn't want them to just kill someone for no reason, but a hero's death is KEY to a turning point in the Civil War storyline. If this is a Civil War film, it will be more than just two sides fightng about a random issue, it is still based on the comics. Just like AoU. Was it exact? Far from it! But did they keep the key events? Yes. There are things that make it the Civil War story, and other things that don't need to translate onto screen. A struggle with a turning point for some heroes is a key event. The BEST way of doing this without it being lame is a hero's death.
Marvel is not purposefully going to NOT do what the comic books did, so there is no reason to claim they won't have this event. I saw someone say that there's no reason they must, but there is. It is #1 a key event, and #2 the best way to get a specific point across.
Do I think they should have killed the other characters in the past only to revive them all? Not particularly. But I think some of them were necessary to the plotline. Even Coulson's death was, Nick purposefully used it to keep the Avengers together and to keep on keeping on, he even rubbed Coulson's trading cards in blood to get the point across. This clearly showed that he was using Coulson's death, and the fact that he saved Coulson only strengthened that point. Nicks death was meaningful because he had to go into hiding, it was never a surprise to the audience that he wasn't really dead, it was obvious. I doubt anyone can argue about Bucky's death, clearly necessary.
I think there is an ok way of doing it (Coulson) a wrong way of doing it (random death that means nothing and then the character is brought back and faked a death for no reason) and a right way to do it. (a character dying because it is key to cause people to question what they are doing and why, and if they should continue) Also there is a way of doing it where it is not some type of trick to the audience and therefore should be no surprise and can't be a wrong way. (Nick)
There's no Goliath in MCU, and quite frankly I don't want Marvel to create a character for the sole purpose of killing him off in the same movie he was introduced.
Originally, I was against the idea of killing off Steve. For one, it was too early to do unless they had a plan to bring him back in Infinity War. But then they'd run into the problem of having like 4 or 5 fake deaths in a row.
Ever since QS, assuming he stays dead, I've come around on it as it kinda breaks the trend.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
It doesn't make sense at all to me. Why kill of a key Marvel character just as he is getting started?
