Sequels Who should be the villain in an Avengers sequel? (Poll)

It's too soon for the guy featured in the mid-credits scene.

You don't want to peak on the second movie.
 
It's too soon for the guy featured in the mid-credits scene.

You don't want to peak on the second movie.

This idea that sequels have to continually 'top' their predecessors is idiotic and unsustainable, so there is absolutely not reason why
Thanos
cannot be used as the villain for Avengers 2, especially given that the events of The Avengers, as well as an easter egg from Thor, pretty much telegraph him playing a major role in the overall storyline narrative of the MCU as it continues to unfold.
 
You save the best for last.

The villain is question is the ultimate challenge.

After defeating him no other victory would be as impressive.
 
^ By that logic, The Joker shouldn't have been used in Batman '89 or The Dark Knight (the first and second installments of their respective iterations of DC/Warner Bros. filmic Batman franchise) because he is widely considered to be Batman's 'ultimate foe' and the one who constantly and consistently provides him with the biggest challenge.

Going with another example, Joss Whedon shouldn't have used Angel(us) as the Big Bad of BtVS Season 2 and instead saved him for Season 7, because he ended up providing more of an emotional and physical challenge for Buffy and her friends than any of the other villains she faced (including The First Evil).

Trying to weigh which villains should be used when in terms of the amount of challenge they provide to our heroes is a stupid way to make decisions because it is incredibly limiting and forces you to work within an unsustainable set of parameters.
 
^ By that logic, The Joker shouldn't have been used in Batman '89 or The Dark Knight (the first and second installments of their respective iterations of DC/Warner Bros. filmic Batman franchise) because he is widely considered to be Batman's 'ultimate foe' and the one who constantly and consistently provides him with the biggest challenge.

Going with another example, Joss Whedon shouldn't have used Angel(us) as the Big Bad of BtVS Season 2 and instead saved him for Season 7, because he ended up providing more of an emotional and physical challenge for Buffy and her friends than any of the other villains she faced (including The First Evil).

Trying to weigh which villains should be used when in terms of the amount of challenge they provide to our heroes is a stupid way to make decisions because it is incredibly limiting and forces you to work within an unsustainable set of parameters.


Thank you for injecting some sense into the proceedings.

Avengers is a CONTINUOUS franchise, not a beginning-middle-end trilogy. Their battles are not weighted on increasingly higher stakes and increasingly tougher "boss fights," leading up to one final boss. There's plenty of fuel left in the Avengers tank after Thanos' story is told.
 
^ I'd argue that trying to weigh which villainous characters to use in any given story - especially one based on as wide a spectrum of source material as comics books -in terms of the amount of challenge they can provide to the heroic character(s) being used is as much of a fallacy if you're dealing with a trilogy as it is if you're dealing with something like The Avengers and the rest of the Marvel MCU.
 
^ I'd argue that trying to weigh which villainous characters to use in any given story - especially one based on as wide a spectrum of source material as comics books -in terms of the amount of challenge they can provide to the heroic character(s) being used is as much of a fallacy if you're dealing with a trilogy as it is if you're dealing with something like The Avengers and the rest of the Marvel MCU.

Yes, and the other (successful) superhero film franchises bear that out. Is Doc Ock more powerful than Green Goblin? Are Venom and Sandman more powerful than Doc Ock? Is Joker more powerful than Scarecrow & R'as? Are Bane and Catwoman more powerful than Joker? Or in the case of the X-Men, there's not even a hierarchy there --- it's just X-Men vs. Brotherhood, again and again, in different venues.
 
Thanos has already been set up and would be easy enough to do. He could be a force so powerful that it takes all the heroes to defeat him. I think they go that way and maybe even take it off of Earth for the big battle.

If it's the Masters of Evil, then they don't use that cheesey name and it's probably a movie-verse version of them (Red Skull, Loki, Abomination, Madarin, Justin Hammer, etc) as opposed to Zemo and crew.

Civil War would be pointless. There is not enough history and the first movie dealth with in-fighting to some degree.

Ultron needs Pym/Wasp to be introduced. This is feasible because it would probably be a SHIELD project gone wrong. Also leaves the door open to the Vision.

Namor and Atlanteans would be fun, but not really a big enough threat (yes, I know it can be in the comics, but I don't see it here).

At the end of the day, the first film will be hard to top. I like the idea of doin IM3, THor 2, Cap 2 first and maybe even a solo Hulk. Then come up with a big threat that requires them all. I'm fine waiting 4-5 years and having it done right.
 
I want Ultron in Avengers 2. They should just keep building Thanos up in the background so that there is a much bigger payoff by Avengers 3. Whedon said he wanted something smaller and more personal. I think Ultron would fit that bill perfectly while still being an extremely deadly threat. It would also make a change of pace from Avengers 1. I don't want a rehash of the first film, which it could easily be with Thanos.

Marvel need to show they have variety, and not just repeating the formula. Otherwise it would be like many of the James Bond movies that keep remaking Goldfinger just because it works and is extremely successful. They need a few like From Russia With Love as well. That is what Avengers 2 could be like.
 
Thank you for injecting some sense into the proceedings.

Avengers is a CONTINUOUS franchise, not a beginning-middle-end trilogy. Their battles are not weighted on increasingly higher stakes and increasingly tougher "boss fights," leading up to one final boss. There's plenty of fuel left in the Avengers tank after Thanos' story is told.

while this is true for a comic it doesn't hold true for movies...regardless if its a trilogy or a continued series. In Avengers they fought Loki and an alien invasion...the next movie has to escalate beyond that. If in Avengers 2 they were up against a group of ninjas the audience would feel cheated. More over if they fight a space god in Avengers 2 then there has to be a bigger threat in Avengers 3.
Marvel understands this escalation which is why none of their heroes saved the world until this movie. Iron Man's fights were personal...the world was never hanging in the balance. Thor saved a small town in Nevada. Cap saved America in the past.
 
and Joker is the greatest Batman villain but he never will be the physical threat that Bane is.

The Joker challenges Batman's integrity. Bane toys with Batman strategically, breaks his spine and leaves him for dead.

You can't say the Joker is a bigger threat when Bane has done the most damage to Batman effortlessly.
 
Thank you for injecting some sense into the proceedings.

Avengers is a CONTINUOUS franchise, not a beginning-middle-end trilogy. Their battles are not weighted on increasingly higher stakes and increasingly tougher "boss fights," leading up to one final boss. There's plenty of fuel left in the Avengers tank after Thanos' story is told.

Who told you it was a continuous franchise?

You think Robert Downey Jr and the other actors want to play these characters for the next 15 years?

It's best to do a legendary trilogy with the current cast then start over a few years later with a fresh cast.
 
Well, they have the cast (sans RDJ) locked up for 3 of each of their movies and 3 Avengers. They're going to avoid recasting as best they can. For a while anyway.

It sounds like Thanos was just kinda put in there, per Whedon. They're really not locked into using him for Avengers 2.

If so, I think they could do the following. Have each of the next 3 movies have their post-credits scene revolve around Thanos or introducing members of the Guardians of the Galaxy (ie, one of the GotG is the sole survivor of an encounter with Thanos or they see the aftermath of one of his battles). Build to a Guardians of the Galaxy movie which would come out in the same years as Cap 2. Market it as a tie-in to the other Marvel movies and a prelude to Avengers 2. It won't set records, but it would be a hit.

They might be better off holding off a bit on Thanos though. Ultron is certainly a more contained story. Ant-Man and Wasp should either be introduced in their own movie (Wasp needs to be in the Ant-Man movie) or in the beginning of Avengers 2. They could also be introduced in the upcoming films' post-credits scenes. Build to them being on the Avengers team. Maybe have one of the credits scenes be an introduction to the Ultron computer system (which will help coordinate and keep track of the Avengers). Avengers could be about Ultron about building its own "perfect" Avenger in the form of Vision which it plans on replacing the current Avengers with. Ultron starts building its own body and maybe an army as well. Vision rebels against Ultron. Avengers (including Ant-Man, Wasp, and Vision) take on Ultron. This would be a good way of expanding the Avengers roster.

BTW, Ant-Man should be in a bind at one point and forces himself becoming larger into Giant-Man. It would be a very dramatic reveal and could work as well as the Hulk vs. Loki moment.
 
Avengers 1 had Loki, Loki's alien army, and then [BLACKOUT]Thanos[/BLACKOUT], does this mean they have to take things up a notch? Raise the threat level? Can they get away with Baron Zemo and his Masters of Evil? Would Ultron be enough compared to Avengers 1? Could they get away with Kang the Conquerer? Or does it have to go more naturally from alien invasion in Avengers 1 to the Kree/Skrull War and then beyond? And never able to include Absorbing Man, Kang, Ultron, Zemo, etc?
Some threats can be managed, I think, in the solo films. Cap can handel Zemo and the Red Skull in his own movies. But for me Ultron is an Avengers bad guy. You need the Avengers for it. It wouldn't be the same with random SHIELD agents or something.
The movies will have to deal with [BLACKOUT]Thanos[/BLACKOUT], and that means space stuff. Will that include the Kree or Skrulls?
I have an idea for when they bring Ant Man/Wasp into the movies.
Hank Pym joins the team, and while he seems heroic he feels out of place. But everything seems fine, just another team member. In the next Avengers after that film we see that Pym is actually mentally unstable. He has a breakdown and creates Ultron and uses his own brain patterns as a blueprint. Ultron becomes the living robotic embodiment of all of Pym's hatred, resentment, and jealousy for all the Avengers, including his wife Janet/Wasp and for Pym himself. He wants to kill them all. In his schemes he creates the Vision, the 1st AI robot created by a robot without a human involved. In the final battle Vision joins the Avengers and Pym leads the charge and redeems himself through his actions and through Vision. Sort of like Pym (the father) taught his son to hate, now he redeems himself through his grandson Vision by teaching him that hate is wrong. Another way to look at it is that Pym took his dark side and gave it a body of its own.
Originally I thought that the alien invasion might actually be Atlantis invading like they did in the FF comics, with their Atlantian ships and armor. Namor leading them and his giant sea monsters. I thought that would be the perfect way to introduce Namor into the movies. But now they had an invasion in Avengers 1 and have unfinished things they have to deal with in the next films so that might make it hard to get to Namor. And again would that be a step down from Avengers 1? Having an alien invasion, Loki (demi god) and [BLACKOUT]Thanos[/BLACKOUT]? Would Namor be a let down from that?
I have a big idea for the whole franchise too. The cast wont want to play these characters forever. Eventually they will leave the Avengers franchise. Robert Downey Jr. is already reported to be out after Iron Man 3 and Avengers 3. So I have a way to keep the films and franchise going. Bring in Ant Man and Wasp in Avengers 2, that way when Chris Evans and the rest leave when their contracts are up after Avengers 3 you still have Avengers the audience knows in Avengers 4. So you can then bring in more Avengers from the comics into Avengers 4, like Ms. Marvel, Wonder Man, Vision (brought in in the Ultron story), Scarlet Witch, etc. So then when the actors who play Ant Man and the Wasp's contracts are up and they leave too you still have the others signed up for more films. So you stagger the cast's rotation. You still have members of the cast signed up for the next film or the next 2 films. You could keep the films going (from a contract perspective) for a long time much like Law and Order. You don't even have to recast them. So you could even bring Bucky/Cap into the Avengers as the new Captain America when Evans is done.
Aren't they going to have the films cross into the AKA tv show that will also include Luke Cage and a cameo by Ms. Marvel? Maybe they could also introduce some ideas for the bad guys here too.
 
In Avengers they fought Loki and an alien invasion...the next movie has to escalate beyond that.

No, it doesn't. This kind of thinking is an unsustainable and idiotic fallacy, as myself and cherokeesam have already stated a couple of times. It puts a serious damper on creativity and storytelling and sets a 'bar' that can ultimately never be reached or surpassed.
 
No, it doesn't. This kind of thinking is an unsustainable and idiotic fallacy, as myself and cherokeesam have already stated a couple of times. It puts a serious damper on creativity and storytelling and sets a 'bar' that can ultimately never be reached or surpassed.

Yeah, that's typically why most sequels are no where near as good as the first film. I have complete faith in Joss, and that Marvel will let him do his thing considering how amazing The Avengers is doing. Not even Marvel could have expected this.
 
No, it doesn't. This kind of thinking is an unsustainable and idiotic fallacy, as myself and cherokeesam have already stated a couple of times. It puts a serious damper on creativity and storytelling and sets a 'bar' that can ultimately never be reached or surpassed.

No it doesn't. Especially not with Avengers. They have plenty of villains that are bigger than Loki and aliens but not bigger than Thanos. Every sequel has done this. The threat is bigger and the villain more powerful.

Just because you and cherokeesam state it doesn't make it true. When the Marvel execs sit down to discuss Avengers 2 they are gonna asks 2 questions...How can we make it bigger and how can we make it better?
 
No it doesn't. Especially not with Avengers. They have plenty of villains that are bigger than Loki and aliens but not bigger than Thanos. Every sequel has done this. The threat is bigger and the villain more powerful.

Just because you and cherokeesam state it doesn't make it true. When the Marvel execs sit down to discuss Avengers 2 they are gonna asks 2 questions...How can we make it bigger and how can we make it better?

The only movie to get a sequel in the MCU was Iron Man... and we all know how that turned out. I thought Stane/Iron Monger was a much better villain, and he was literally and figuratively a bigger threat than danko.

Terminator 2 fits your mold. That was bigger and better in every sense of the word, but it also went in line with what Joss says about it being the natural and next step, and not just being bigger and more intense for the sake of it being bigger and more intense.

Whedon knows what's going on and he'll give us a natural coherent next step in the Avengers saga/MCU.

I don't think Marvel is going to be dumb enough to simply 'Make the next one bigger' cause that is what 'every sequel does'. If it doesn't make sense within the context of the MCU I'm sure they won't do it.
 
Last edited:
Alien-Aliens(one alien vs a colony of aliens and a queen)
Terminator-T2(one terminator vs a state of the art liquid metal one)
Spider-man-Spider-man 2 (we went from a grudge with GG to a Doc Ock who attempted to blow up the city)
X-men-X2(fighting Magneto to fighting the government with humans and mutants in the balance)
Superman-Superman 2 (fighting Lex to fighting 3 kryptonians)
Matrix-Matrix Reloaded (Fighting one Smith to fighting a bunch of Smiths)
Jaws-Jaws 2(the shark got bigger)
Transformers(fighting Megatron to fighting more deceptions and the Fallen)
 
^ I'm not sure if you're trying to prove your point about sequels having to 'up the ante', but, in the case of Matrix Reloaded and Revenge of the Fallen, general opinion argues against the idea that 'upping the ante' makes a sequel better because those two particular sequels are percieved to have been worse than their predecessors.

Your example of Spidey 2 also doesn't really work because I think you'll find that the general feeling is that the reason Doc Ock made a better villain than the Green Goblin wasn't because he provided a bigger threat to Spidey, but because of the truly sympathetic nature of his character.
 
Ultron or Kang. I could see them leaning more towards Ultron to break up the invasion-from-another-world thing.
 
Ultron makes the most sense to me if you want to bring in Pym.
 
Some of you are going to hate me for this but why not have JARVIS become Ultron?
 
Masters of Evil I say from before. We need a team of superpowered bad guys to take them all on as a contrast.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,545
Messages
21,757,399
Members
45,593
Latest member
Jeremija
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"