Sequels Who thinks Thanos is going to be saved as the main villain in Avengers 3?

[The Question]

That could be a more "personal" film, but you're also forgetting about another word Whedon used which was "smaller.

There's no way that a film with Thanos successful taking over the earth is going to be a "smaller" film than The Avengers.

1: Why is that what the plot of the movie has to be?

2: Thanos doesn't conquer things. That's not what he does. What he does is mass murder for it's own sake.

 

[cherokeesam]

and JAQUA99 has been saying it before the first movie was released!!!! Ive been saying it that Thanos will be the main villian in 3 for months!! And I still completely see there being a possiblity for Ultron. Yes I am spelling words wrong. No I don't care. I mean, like I said, Ant-Man would be silly to the GA, why do a movie, but to introduce Ultron? This all assuming we do get an Ant-Man movie of course. Big If. If its announced that there will be an ant-man movie, Ultron Avengers 2. Bank on it. I know its a coincidence, but every prediction I made about thethe avengers has come true, so I am hoping I can keep the streak alive.

Every MS post-cred sequence has more or less set up the next movie to be released. With the exception of 2008's IM and TIH sequences pointing farther afield to Avengers, 2012. That's 4 years. You honestly think Marvel would use the 2012 Avengers film to set up a film that's even *farther* away than that.....? I mean, what could possibly be the point....? "Hey, you guys still remember that nameless guy we teased in a film five to seven years ago.....? t: No? Still interested....? No.....? "

 

[ken smith]

What does GA stand for?

 

[DrCosmic]

General Audience - The Masses, the Average Movie Goers, people that don't read/know comics, and only vaguely know anything beyond what they've seen in comic book movies, if that.

Every MS post-cred sequence has more or less set up the next movie to be released. With the exception of 2008's IM and TIH sequences pointing farther afield to Avengers, 2012. That's 4 years. You honestly think Marvel would use the 2012 Avengers film to set up a film that's even *farther* away than that.....? I mean, what could possibly be the point....? "Hey, you guys still remember that nameless guy we teased in a film five to seven years ago.....? t: No? Still interested....? No.....? "

What? We know Thanos is going to be in Avengers 2, as well as GoG and probably Thor 2. What's being discussed is if he'll be the main villain. Why would you ignore all the progress we've made in this conversation?

 

[jaqua99]

Every MS post-cred sequence has more or less set up the next movie to be released. With the exception of 2008's IM and TIH sequences pointing farther afield to Avengers, 2012. That's 4 years. You honestly think Marvel would use the 2012 Avengers film to set up a film that's even *farther* away than that.....? I mean, what could possibly be the point....? "Hey, you guys still remember that nameless guy we teased in a film five to seven years ago.....? t: No? Still interested....? No.....? "

Not what I meant at all.

No I don't think it will be used to set up Avengers 3. I think it was used to set up Thanos. Period. Letting us knew that there is a future in the MCU. If he becomes a player, I don't see it becoming a loss of interest. He's played, and is a main character in other movies. But the movie where he has his full fledged plan will simply be avengers 3. If thats the case. So no, I don't think they used that scene to set him up for Avengers 3. I think they used it to set him up, period.

catch my drift?

 

[The Morningstar]

It clearly had all the gems visible on it.

You could tell from that split second shot of it in Thor?

 

[jaqua99]

General Audience - The Masses, the Average Movie Goers, people that don't read/know comics, and only vaguely know anything beyond what they've seen in comic book movies, if that.



What? We know Thanos is going to be in Avengers 2, as well as GoG and probably Thor 2. What's being discussed is if he'll be the main villain. Why would you ignore all the progress we've made in this conversation?

basically. Although, its hard to understand, my typing sometimes lack context.

 

[ken smith]

General Audience - The Masses, the Average Movie Goers, people that don't read/know comics, and only vaguely know anything beyond what they've seen in comic book movies, if that.



What? We know Thanos is going to be in Avengers 2, as well as GoG and probably Thor 2. What's being discussed is if he'll be the main villain. Why would you ignore all the progress we've made in this conversation?

Thanks DrCosmic

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Every MS post-cred sequence has more or less set up the next movie to be released. With the exception of 2008's IM and TIH sequences pointing farther afield to Avengers, 2012. That's 4 years. You honestly think Marvel would use the 2012 Avengers film to set up a film that's even *farther* away than that.....? I mean, what could possibly be the point....? "Hey, you guys still remember that nameless guy we teased in a film five to seven years ago.....? t: No? Still interested....? No.....? "

This. It wouldn't make any sense at all for Thanos not to be the main villain in Avengers 2. Its like if in The Avengers instead of giving us the full extent of SHIELD & Fury, they still kept them in the background. The GA (& myself) would say "What's with Sam Jackson showing up in all these movies for no reason? & why are those government guys always popping up at random?" 3 years & 4-5 films is enough setup for Thanos.

 

[Roose Bolton]

The biggest problem with that scenario is that Thanos winning would most likely result in earth getting destroyed, and or the human race getting wiped out. Doesn't work if you want to do, cap 3, Thor 3, Iron man4 etc you'd need Thanos to work through someone whom can inflict damage, but also be defeated in some capacity. Yes have an Avenger killed, have them all brought to an emotional breaking point, but leave earth intact for other franchises.

 

[BigThor]

1: Why is that what the plot of the movie has to be?

2: Thanos doesn't conquer things. That's not what he does. What he does is mass murder for it's own sake.

I was clearly responding to Alexei's post that said Thanos should conquer earth in Avengers 2, so maybe you should've quoted him.

 

[BigThor]

Double post

 

[cherokeesam]

Not what I meant at all.

No I don't think it will be used to set up Avengers 3. I think it was used to set up Thanos. Period. Letting us knew that there is a future in the MCU. If he becomes a player, I don't see it becoming a loss of interest. He's played, and is a main character in other movies. But the movie where he has his full fledged plan will simply be avengers 3. If thats the case. So no, I don't think they used that scene to set him up for Avengers 3. I think they used it to set him up, period.

catch my drift?

Okay, yeah, I catch your drift now. Yes, I believe that's what Thanos will become --- a *recurring* character in at least a few of the Phase II movies.

But I'm still not following your and Dr.Cosmic's theory that we won't get a full-scale confrontation with Thanos until TA3. Wayyyyy too far away for an adequate payoff. You guys keep going with the Emperor in Star Wars analogy, but there's a huge difference: that was set up over three movies, in the span of six years (77-83....three years, really, 80-83, when you consider that the Emperor isn't actually referenced until ESB). By contrast, you're talking about a Thanos that is being set up over three PHASES, and potentially *many* films, and potentially twice as long as the gulf separating ESB and ROTJ.

I don't think that's going to happen. You're talking about Thanos overload, and turning the GA off of the character by dangling him in bits and snippets here and there without paying off until the end of Phase III. I don't think Marvel would succeed as cockteases.

 

[jaqua99]

Okay, yeah, I catch your drift now. Yes, I believe that's what Thanos will become --- a *recurring* character in at least a few of the Phase II movies.

But I'm still not following your and Dr.Cosmic's theory that we won't get a full-scale confrontation with Thanos until TA3. Wayyyyy too far away for an adequate payoff. You guys keep going with the Emperor in Star Wars analogy, but there's a huge difference: that was set up over three movies, in the span of six years (77-83....three years, really, 80-83, when you consider that the Emperor isn't actually referenced until ESB). By contrast, you're talking about a Thanos that is being set up over three PHASES, and potentially *many* films, and potentially twice as long as the gulf separating ESB and ROTJ.

I don't think that's going to happen. You're talking about Thanos overload, and turning the GA off of the character by dangling him in bits and snippets here and there without paying off until the end of Phase III. I don't think Marvel would succeed as cockteases.

True. We will see.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Oberon, I have a strong feeling that the solo films in Phase III will mainly consist of introductory stories for characters that will be added to the roster. Not sequels. Doc Strange, The Inhumans, Black Panther, etc. I highly doubt that Phase III will contain an IM4 or a Cap 3. Remember, these Phases only have 4-5 films & said 4-5 films are basically exposition for the culminating "Event" film. If Thanos has left Earth in ruins in Avengers 2, you can appropriately bring in Strange, BP & The Inhumans in Phase III to aid The Avengers in the ongoing conflict. Those solo films would simultaneously take place during the war, leading up to a final battle in Avengers 3.

 

[BigThor]

and JAQUA99 has been saying it before the first movie was released!!!! Ive been saying it that Thanos will be the main villian in 3 for months!! And I still completely see there being a possiblity for Ultron. Yes I am spelling words wrong. No I don't care. I mean, like I said, Ant-Man would be silly to the GA, why do a movie, but to introduce Ultron? This all assuming we do get an Ant-Man movie of course. Big If. If its announced that there will be an ant-man movie, Ultron Avengers 2. Bank on it. I know its a coincidence, but every prediction I made about thethe avengers has come true, so I am hoping I can keep the streak alive.

I've been saying it for months as well, so I'm just gonna watch people go crazy with hypotheticals and wait until A2 rolls around.

 

[jaqua99]

I've been saying it for months as well, so I'm just gonna watch people go crazy with hypotheticals and wait until A2 rolls around.

yup I know you have. I hope so. I don't see Ultron being ridiculous at all.

 

[KangConquers]

Am I the only one who seems to remember Feige implying Avengers 3 might be Civil War?

There's your trilogy.

Loki/ Chitauri
Thanos
Civil War.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Am I the only one who seems to remember Feige implying Avengers 3 might be Civil War?

There's your trilogy.

Loki/ Chitauri
Thanos
Civil War.

Civil War sucked. They turned Iron Man into a faschist and made Cap a violent thug.
No way in hell would, or should, Marvel use that story as a template

 

[Avenger]

Civil War sucked. They turned Iron Man into a faschist and made Cap a violent thug.
No way in hell would, or should, Marbel use that story as a template

There's nothing wrong with the basic idea. I doubt an MCU version would follow the comics version exactly. More likely they'd take the parts that did work and go from there.

 

[cherokeesam]

There's nothing wrong with the basic idea. I doubt an MCU version would follow the comics version exactly. More likely they'd take the parts that did work and go from there.

The "basic idea" comes from two concepts that will be horribly, horribly outdated by 2017 (or later; whenever Avengers 3 is due):

a) that superheroes need to be registered so that SHIELD can monitor them. So far, the MCU is opening with a very clear move towards that at the outset. The issue that superheroes were vigilantes who acted without limits or authority had been around for fifty years, and CW was just Marvel's way of saying, "hey, you know, what gives them the right to be judge, jury and executioner?"

b) George W. Bush's neo-fascism (Patriot Act, red state vs. blue state, etc). Civil War spoke to the political climate in America circa 2005; there'll be a very different dynamic 10-12 years after that.

Civil War is entirely unnecessary in the MCU, and doesn't even fit.

 

[jaqua99]

The "basic idea" comes from two concepts that will be horribly, horribly outdated by 2017 (or later; whenever Avengers 3 is due):

a) that superheroes need to be registered so that SHIELD can monitor them. So far, the MCU is opening with a very clear move towards that at the outset. The issue that superheroes were vigilantes who acted without limits or authority had been around for fifty years, and CW was just Marvel's way of saying, "hey, you know, what gives them the right to be judge, jury and executioner?"

b) George W. Bush's neo-fascism (Patriot Act, red state vs. blue state, etc). Civil War spoke to the political climate in America circa 2005; there'll be a very different dynamic 10-12 years after that.

Civil War is entirely unnecessary in the MCU, and doesn't even fit.

Agreed. Not to mention, atleast to me, it wasn't really an avengers story. It was just more of a marvel story.

 

[Radioactive1980]

The biggest problem with that scenario is that Thanos winning would most likely result in earth getting destroyed, and or the human race getting wiped out. Doesn't work if you want to do, cap 3, Thor 3, Iron man4 etc you'd need Thanos to work through someone whom can inflict damage, but also be defeated in some capacity. Yes have an Avenger killed, have them all brought to an emotional breaking point, but leave earth intact for other franchises.

That's what I was thinking... If we consider Thanos being TA opponent in A2, and that he defeats them at the end TESB style, then how could there be any phase III films prior to A3 because everyone would be captured/defeated/killed etc. That would not work.

So I'm thinking he's either going to be the enemy in A2 and be defeated by the end which would be lame, or be saved for A3.

 

[marcvader]

I think our heroes can be defeated without necessarily destroying earth. This could happen off planet or in another realm.

 

[The Question]

Well, what Thanos winning means depends on what his goal is. If his only goal is to kill everyone on Earth to appease Death, then yeah, him winning wouldn't work out. But if his plan is more complicated, then he can get the thing so he can do the thing later and The Avengers can fail to stop him.

Also, there's such a think as a pyrrhic victory. The Avengers could stop him from achieving any of his goals, but he could hurt them so badly in the process that it feels like they lost.