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

[cherokeesam]

I stil think it is a good guess to say he may stick around till phase 3. When talking about him, Fiege said there are things that will be unfolding, like phase 1 leading up to the avengers. And similar things will unfold now that won't only lead to the conclusion of phase 2, but phase 3 as well.

That's what Fiege said. That could be read any way, but I read it as somethings will happen in phase 2 that will fall into phase 3 as well. That could be Thanos, it could be anyone. It could be Ultron. But since we know Thanos is the big villain of phase 2 atleast, based on what fiege said, it surely isn't absurd to take that as he will be around for a while. Which I am okay with. And I would expect you would be too.

Not as much as you'd think. As I've said before, I worry that such a strategy would lead to Thanos fatigue. I don't want to see Thanos so overused that people get sick of the character.

 

[Chewy]

I'm flattered that you guys think my main mad Titan Thanos should be the primary focus of the MCU for years to come, but I'll bet whatever you care to lose that simply won't be the case. If they wanted Thanos to be "the Emperor" or "Sauron" or "Voldemort," they would've set that up in 2008, not in 2012.

So far, the only solid leads point to Thanos having a major role in at least a coupla three Phase II movies. Beyond that, it's just crystal-ballin'.

except that

a) They were still finding their footing in 2008, and weren't even sure one Avengers movie would work, let alone 3. Phase 1 was more about setting up the leads as legitimate cinematic heroes than setting up a grand saga for them.

and

b) Thanos is not the villain of the Iron Man franchise, or the Thor franchise, or the Cap franchise, or the Hulk franchise. The Avengers is as much its own franchise as it is the culmination of the other franchises. Setting up Thanos in Avengers 1 for Avengers 2 and 3 is getting in on the ground floor. The ground floor of the Avengers franchise.

They are clearly threading him in to be a big deal, and making an incredibly risky Guardians movie just to ensure he's seen as a big deal.

 

[Adamantium]

Not as much as you'd think. As I've said before, I worry that such a strategy would lead to Thanos fatigue. I don't want to see Thanos so overused that people get sick of the character.

Please no one take offense.

The MCU seems to me they want to take Phase 2 and 3 in a baseball game direction, (nice and easy, strategically etc.)which I am all for! But they need to take it in a football direction (Wham! Bam! non stop new fresh scenarios). I agree if they drag Thanos out...as much as we fans might enjoy it if it were done right...they will get the general audience as well as some fans bored out of there mind. Just the best way I know how to articulate at this moment so please no one take this as a stab.

 

[Chewy]

Not as much as you'd think. As I've said before, I worry that such a strategy would lead to Thanos fatigue. I don't want to see Thanos so overused that people get sick of the character.

I don't see why you think there's more of a risk of Thanos fatigue than there is Iron Man fatigue or Thor fatigue or Captain America fatigue. He's another character woven into the bigger picture, another major piece of the puzzle.

It's not like he'll be in all of these movies. Avengers, Guardians, Avengers 2, then potentially Guardians 2 and Avengers 3.

 

[Chewy]

Please no one take offense.

The MCU seems to me they want to take Phase 2 and 3 in a baseball game direction, (nice and easy, strategically etc.)which I am all for! But they need to take it in a football direction (Wham! Bam! non stop new fresh scenarios). I agree if they drag Thanos out...as much as we fans might enjoy it if it were done right...they will get the general audience as well as some fans bored out of there mind. Just the best way I know how to articulate at this moment so please no one take this as a stab.

The franchises with the most sustained success - Harry Potter, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man (Raimi's trilogy), etc, are ones where there are genuine through-lines and long term arcs.

The one-off, "It's a NEW THREAT!" type franchises, don't see that kind of success. Because ultimately, it's just the lead(s) figuring out new ways to fight a new foe, and each installment begins to feel... expendable.

People always mention James Bond, but those movies are almost never huge hits anymore. It's just a nice, mid-level sized franchise, that sustains that level of success, which works for the type of budget those films have. Every once in a while one breaks out and hits big, like Goldeneye or Casino Royale. But most of them just kind of come and go.

 

[Adamantium]

Kids are distracting me from making another point, will try later

 

[Adamantium]

My point being was I personally want to see an intricately woven story. The nervous guy in me just worries what if Phase 2 doesn't score well with the general audience if they take the MCU in a more cosmic direction and they scrap things reboot and all that jazz. It's an exciting time and I just don't want it ending. So basically I'm just worrying for nothing. I'm simply being silly is all. t:

 

[KangConquers]

The franchises with the most sustained success - Harry Potter, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man (Raimi's trilogy), etc, are ones where there are genuine through-lines and long term arcs.

The one-off, "It's a NEW THREAT!" type franchises, don't see that kind of success. Because ultimately, it's just the lead(s) figuring out new ways to fight a new foe, and each installment begins to feel... expendable.

People always mention James Bond, but those movies are almost never huge hits anymore. It's just a nice, mid-level sized franchise, that sustains that level of success, which works for the type of budget those films have. Every once in a while one breaks out and hits big, like Goldeneye or Casino Royale. But most of them just kind of come and go.

Basically, if Marvel kept making Cap sequels for 50 years, and they never performed noticeably above or below the level of the first picture, that would be the Bond franchise.

 

[DrCosmic]

I'm flattered that you guys think my main mad Titan Thanos should be the primary focus of the MCU for years to come, but I'll bet whatever you care to lose that simply won't be the case. If they wanted Thanos to be "the Emperor" or "Sauron" or "Voldemort," they would've set that up in 2008, not in 2012.

So far, the only solid leads point to Thanos having a major role in at least a coupla three Phase II movies. Beyond that, it's just crystal-ballin'.

except that

a) They were still finding their footing in 2008, and weren't even sure one Avengers movie would work, let alone 3. Phase 1 was more about setting up the leads as legitimate cinematic heroes than setting up a grand saga for them.

and

b) Thanos is not the villain of the Iron Man franchise, or the Thor franchise, or the Cap franchise, or the Hulk franchise. The Avengers is as much its own franchise as it is the culmination of the other franchises. Setting up Thanos in Avengers 1 for Avengers 2 and 3 is getting in on the ground floor. The ground floor of the Avengers franchise.

They are clearly threading him in to be a big deal, and making an incredibly risky Guardians movie just to ensure he's seen as a big deal.

Exactly. And the point of the Voldemort and Palpatine comparisons is that audiences don't get tired of great bad guys, so the idea of Thanos fatigue is just silly when we have villains around for 10-20 years at at time.

Please no one take offense.

The MCU seems to me they want to take Phase 2 and 3 in a baseball game direction, (nice and easy, strategically etc.)which I am all for! But they need to take it in a football direction (Wham! Bam! non stop new fresh scenarios). I agree if they drag Thanos out...as much as we fans might enjoy it if it were done right...they will get the general audience as well as some fans bored out of there mind. Just the best way I know how to articulate at this moment so please no one take this as a stab.

It's not a stab, but I do disagree. What about Voldemort, or Darth Vader. Did audiences ever get bored out of their mind by these characters? Why can't Thanos be the same way?

The franchises with the most sustained success - Harry Potter, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man (Raimi's trilogy), etc, are ones where there are genuine through-lines and long term arcs.

The one-off, "It's a NEW THREAT!" type franchises, don't see that kind of success. Because ultimately, it's just the lead(s) figuring out new ways to fight a new foe, and each installment begins to feel... expendable.

People always mention James Bond, but those movies are almost never huge hits anymore. It's just a nice, mid-level sized franchise, that sustains that level of success, which works for the type of budget those films have. Every once in a while one breaks out and hits big, like Goldeneye or Casino Royale. But most of them just kind of come and go.

But don't you see, Avengers was never conceived of as a story with an ending, so it can't have story arcs like Avengers comics have had for the last umpteen years!

 

[KangConquers]

My point being was I personally want to see an intricately woven story. The nervous guy in me just worries what if Phase 2 doesn't score well with the general audience if they take the MCU in a more cosmic direction and they scrap things reboot and all that jazz. It's an exciting time and I just don't want it ending. So basically I'm just worrying for nothing. I'm simply being silly is all. t:

Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Cap 2, and Avengers 2 won't bomb. They're all follow ups to a $1.5 B picture with a 92% Tomato Meter and An A+ CineScore. Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man are risks, but at worst, those pictures bomb. Phase 2 isn't going to bomb in it's totality. That's like saying the new iPhone won't sell.

 

[DrCosmic]

Basically, if Marvel kept making Cap sequels for 50 years, and they never performed noticeably above or below the level of the first picture, that would be the Bond franchise.

Except the Bond franchise does take noticeable dips, usually on the fourth or fifth film of a character arc/actor's stay. So they start fresh with a new Bond, a new story angle, a new take, and run that until it dips, give it a rest and then start with a new. The thing about this 'forever continuity' people forget is that the creators get tired of making a story with no ending, just like the audience gets tired of following it. Eventually, no one cares, because it's not going anywhere. Bond would have done much better overall if they had understood the modern story arc way of telling these serial stories, and done Trilogies or Quadrilogies or something with definite endings, and then picked it up again. This meandering hasn't helped the franchise, even though it's lasted long despite it.

 

[KangConquers]

Except the Bond franchise does take noticeable dips, usually on the fourth or fifth film of a character arc/actor's stay. So they start fresh with a new Bond, a new story angle, a new take, and run that until it dips, give it a rest and then start with a new. The thing about this 'forever continuity' people forget is that the creators get tired of making a story with no ending, just like the audience gets tired of following it. Eventually, no one cares, because it's not going anywhere. Bond would have done much better overall if they had understood the modern story arc way of telling these serial stories, and done Trilogies or Quadrilogies or something with definite endings, and then picked it up again. This meandering hasn't helped the franchise, even though it's lasted long despite it.

I have mixed feelings about "tying up" the Avengers. I want the trilogy to stand on it's own without damaging the potential of future installments.

 

[DrCosmic]

I see no reason why they can't do just that. Certainly some avenues need to be closed off in order to create a satisfying ending, but Star Wars did just fine, imho, and while it certainly destroyed The Empire, which was necessary for the trilogy to stand on its own, there's certainly enough material for a resurgence ala Thrawn Trilogy or a new threat ala Yuuzhan Vong wars or some combinations thereof. I think the X3 and Matrix 3 way (be back soon!) is a cheap way to do it, but that's an option too. There's also the very real possibility of passing things on to the next 'generation' of heroes, per se, even though they wouldn't be in different generations from a comic book perspective, there could still be a torch passing moment.

In fact, if it were me, I would plan three Avengers trilogies, the middle one dealing with a new threat and the third one dealing with a resurgence and touching back on the first trilogy, perhaps via Time Travel? At that point, perhaps 20+ years from now, being very relevant, and the technology existing to one up Tron Legacy's time-lost performance. Now, at that point, between the entire MCU we're talking about something like 50 different films, and I don't think anyone who's not prepared to cull 50 quality films worth of content from the Marvel Universe should be talking about anything beyond that.

 

[KangConquers]

I see no reason why they can't do just that. Certainly some avenues need to be closed off in order to create a satisfying ending, but Star Wars did just fine, imho, and while it certainly destroyed The Empire, which was necessary for the trilogy to stand on its own, there's certainly enough material for a resurgence ala Thrawn Trilogy or a new threat ala Yuuzhan Vong wars or some combinations thereof. I think the X3 and Matrix 3 way (be back soon!) is a cheap way to do it, but that's an option too. There's also the very real possibility of passing things on to the next 'generation' of heroes, per se, even though they wouldn't be in different generations from a comic book perspective, there could still be a torch passing moment.

In fact, if it were me, I would plan three Avengers trilogies, the middle one dealing with a new threat and the third one dealing with a resurgence and touching back on the first trilogy, perhaps via Time Travel? At that point, perhaps 20+ years from now, being very relevant, and the technology existing to one up Tron Legacy's time-lost performance. Now, at that point, between the entire MCU we're talking about something like 50 different films, and I don't think anyone who's not prepared to cull 50 quality films worth of content from the Marvel Universe should be talking about anything beyond that.

I don't know the exact order, but I want to see the major Avengers arcs adapted:


Kree/ Skrull War
Korvac Saga
Under Siege
Infinity Gauntlet
Ultron Unlimited
Kang Dynasty


Beyond that, I don't need if we need more Avengers films.

 

[jaqua99]

Not as much as you'd think. As I've said before, I worry that such a strategy would lead to Thanos fatigue. I don't want to see Thanos so overused that people get sick of the character.

See but I see it as sorta playin him, or keeping him in the movies but not for his main story till later. And that's not even the thing though. See my below post, cause they kinda sorta get into it.

I don't see why you think there's more of a risk of Thanos fatigue than there is Iron Man fatigue or Thor fatigue or Captain America fatigue. He's another character woven into the bigger picture, another major piece of the puzzle.

It's not like he'll be in all of these movies. Avengers, Guardians, Avengers 2, then potentially Guardians 2 and Avengers 3.

The franchises with the most sustained success - Harry Potter, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man (Raimi's trilogy), etc, are ones where there are genuine through-lines and long term arcs.

The one-off, "It's a NEW THREAT!" type franchises, don't see that kind of success. Because ultimately, it's just the lead(s) figuring out new ways to fight a new foe, and each installment begins to feel... expendable.

People always mention James Bond, but those movies are almost never huge hits anymore. It's just a nice, mid-level sized franchise, that sustains that level of success, which works for the type of budget those films have. Every once in a while one breaks out and hits big, like Goldeneye or Casino Royale. But most of them just kind of come and go.

Exactly. The thing I think that will make this work is the fact that as chewy said, its not just "it's a new threat" type of franchise. Thanos isn't being introduced as a villain for the movies. It seems like he is the next frequent character in MCU. Just like Loki in a way, in thor, was in the avengers, and will continue to be in thor movies ( and some people think another avengers movie, I disagree personally). But it seems like Thanos is being introduced as a character, with how big he seems to be in the MCU. Like, Thor, Cap, Hulk, Ironman, Fury, Widow, they are major characters in the MCU, I think that Thanos is the next character, he won't be "just the villain" no matter how big a scale. He is probably just the next biggest character, which is why I think "stretching" him out isn't over using him, since it isn't stretching him out at all, since he will be the next big character.

Anyone else agree with this view?

 

[KangConquers]

See but I see it as sorta playin him, or keeping him in the movies but not for his main story till later. And that's not even the thing though. See my below post, cause they kinda sorta get into it.






Exactly. The thing I think that will make this work is the fact that as chewy said, its not just "it's a new threat" type of franchise. Thanos isn't being introduced as a villain for the movies. It seems like he is the next frequent character in MCU. Just like Loki in a way, in thor, was in the avengers, and will continue to be in thor movies ( and some people think another avengers movie, I disagree personally). But it seems like Thanos is being introduced as a character, with how big he seems to be in the MCU. Like, Thor, Cap, Hulk, Ironman, Fury, Widow, they are major characters in the MCU, I think that Thanos is the next character, he won't be "just the villain" no matter how big a scale. He is probably just the next biggest character, which is why I think "stretching" him out isn't over using him, since it isn't stretching him out at all, since he will be the next big character.

Anyone else agree with this view?

100%. Some characters are set and forget. We don't ever need to see Laufey or Whiplash again, but Loki, Red Skull, and Thanos should be characters in this franchise, just like the heroes.

 

[DrCosmic]

Anyone else agree with this view?

I do. I think villains need to be phased out at some point, moreso than heroes, because their story is entirely in service of the heroes' story, eventually they serve better as memories than participants, but certainly, they can, and in some cases should, be full fledged characters. Loki being the way he was was a huge part of Avengers' success.

 

[Adamantium]

See but I see it as sorta playin him, or keeping him in the movies but not for his main story till later. And that's not even the thing though. See my below post, cause they kinda sorta get into it.






Exactly. The thing I think that will make this work is the fact that as chewy said, its not just "it's a new threat" type of franchise. Thanos isn't being introduced as a villain for the movies. It seems like he is the next frequent character in MCU. Just like Loki in a way, in thor, was in the avengers, and will continue to be in thor movies ( and some people think another avengers movie, I disagree personally). But it seems like Thanos is being introduced as a character, with how big he seems to be in the MCU. Like, Thor, Cap, Hulk, Ironman, Fury, Widow, they are major characters in the MCU, I think that Thanos is the next character, he won't be "just the villain" no matter how big a scale. He is probably just the next biggest character, which is why I think "stretching" him out isn't over using him, since it isn't stretching him out at all, since he will be the next big character.

Anyone else agree with this view?

Yes, I agree. All the other stuff was my silly anxieties that I see as stupid now that I actually read that which I was thinking inside my head.t:

 

[Duran Man]

Since we're probably going to see Thanos in The Avengers 2, I'd like to see Ultron as the villain for The Avengers 3.

 

[jaqua99]

lol way to completely ignore the most recent posts :P

It seems likely Thanos will be in phase 3 as well

 

[cherokeesam]

I don't see why you think there's more of a risk of Thanos fatigue than there is Iron Man fatigue or Thor fatigue or Captain America fatigue. He's another character woven into the bigger picture, another major piece of the puzzle.

It's not like he'll be in all of these movies. Avengers, Guardians, Avengers 2, then potentially Guardians 2 and Avengers 3.

Very simple answer: because people go to superhero movies to see the heroes. It's right there in the genre name and all: superhero. Not supervillain.

And the only supervillains that had lasting appeal did so because they were complex, layered, interesting, and cool as hell. Magneto; Joker; Darth Vader (don't kid yourself about Palpatine/The Emperor --- nobody gave two ****s about him); Voldemort.

I really and truly hate to say this, but Thanos simply doesn't have that same kind of general audience appeal. At the end of the day, he's your basic Saturday-morning uberpowered megalomaniac who would've conquered/ destroyed the universe if it hadn't been for those meddling kids and their talking dog. You can't get a whole decade or more of fulfilling movies out of that tired old schtick.

The way I see it is simple enough: GOTG introduces Thanos properly, as the main villain; he gets the Gauntlet by movie's end; and IG Thanos does epic battle with Avengers in 2015, and that's the end of it. Audiences will have had their fill of him and be ready to move on to the next threat.

 

[I'm Venom]

My hope for the next Avengers is Red Skull is found to have spent the last 70 years in the far parts of space, and he’s unaged. He makes it back to Earth, and upon learning of the Avengers, he establishes a team of his own to take out the heroes. At the end, we could find out Red Skull was just a pawn Thanos found to manipulate to gain something more important before his fight against the Avengers in Avengers 3.

The obvious foe is HYDRA.

 

[KangConquers]

Very simple answer: because people go to superhero movies to see the heroes. It's right there in the genre name and all: superhero. Not supervillain.

And the only supervillains that had lasting appeal did so because they were complex, layered, interesting, and cool as hell. Magneto; Joker; Darth Vader (don't kid yourself about Palpatine/The Emperor --- nobody gave two ****s about him); Voldemort.

I really and truly hate to say this, but Thanos simply doesn't have that same kind of general audience appeal. At the end of the day, he's your basic Saturday-morning uberpowered megalomaniac who would've conquered/ destroyed the universe if it hadn't been for those meddling kids and their talking dog. You can't get a whole decade or more of fulfilling movies out of that tired old schtick.

The way I see it is simple enough: GOTG introduces Thanos properly, as the main villain; he gets the Gauntlet by movie's end; and IG Thanos does epic battle with Avengers in 2015, and that's the end of it. Audiences will have had their fill of him and be ready to move on to the next threat.

Starlin's Thanos is pretty layered and philosophical. Far from "basic." Maybe you need to brush up on your reading?

 

[cherokeesam]

Starlin's Thanos is pretty layered and philosophical. Far from "basic." Maybe you need to brush up on your reading?

Nihilism is a pretty "basic" philosophy. Kill everything. Or at least revel in death.

Which, of course, is extremely problematic for a Disney-backed kid-friendly franchise anyway.

 

[Chewy]

If you're going to go there, you can do the same for every character on your list.

Voldemort just wants to kill Harry Potter, and rule the world.
Joker is an anarchist. At least, Nolan's Joker was.
Magneto is just a mutant supremacist.
etc

It's all in the execution. Most characters can be summed up in a simple thought, if that's your angle.