Infinity War Who will die in Infinity war Part 1 and 2

[Y0nder]

Either way, Marvel will be fine post-Stark/Rogers. They have their most popular character (Spider-Man) and an actor willing to play him for maybe another whole ten years. And Black Panther, and The Guardians... I think Marvel is in great hands either way.

 

[Flash525]

This would shock me because I only see them killing 1 of the major Avengers (and killing more guys like Vision or Nebula or Loki level). So since I am only expecting 1 major death, I think that has to happen in the finale.

Who are you including as a main Avengers? Thor, Stark & Rogers, or do you extend the title of major Avengers to the likes of Tasha & Banner?

I think Hulk is going to be the shock death for IW, with one of the main three (or rather, two - I think Thor is safe) for the sequel.

 

[Delwin]

You keep saying that as though Iron Man and Captain America were solely carrying the franchise. That's the whole point. They aren't. Marvel has done a spectacular job building their universe to such an extent that it doesn't require any one character to carry it.

We can rank importance: IM, CA, Thor. This is more less reflected in number of their apperances in solo movies (IM had actually 4 solo movies plus significant part in SM:H) and importance in collective ones. Definitely IM/RDJ is most important character in the franchise. So someone want to really shake the viewers those three as most likely to be killed off. Yes, Marvel did a great job creating MCU where introducing almost all new characters is successfull (with small exception of Hulk) but still there are some key players.

 

[SteveRogers41]

Either way, Marvel will be fine post-Stark/Rogers. They have their most popular character (Spider-Man) and an actor willing to play him for maybe another whole ten years. And Black Panther, and The Guardians... I think Marvel is in great hands either way.

Actually, they do not have Spider-Man. Spider-Man is still owned by Sony. He's simply on loan to Marvel/Disney. The deal was that Sony would market the Spider-Man films, pay for them, and get the movie ticket revenue whereas Disney would use him in the extended MCU and get the revenue from merchandising.

 

[Flash525]

We can rank importance: IM, CA, Thor. This is more less reflected in number of their apperances in solo movies (IM had actually 4 solo movies plus significant part in SM:H) and importance in collective ones. Definitely IM/RDJ is most important character in the franchise. So someone want to really shake the viewers those three as most likely to be killed off. Yes, Marvel did a great job creating MCU where introducing almost all new characters is successfull (with small exception of Hulk) but still there are some key players.

Marvel are going to have to get rid of them eventually - they'll be too old to portray their required parts. It would be wise (I think) or Marvel to give one of them (at least) a worthy send-off.

Marvel apparently have another 20 projects lined up; there's ample room for them to shuffle new cast and characters into the mix. This trio of icons you've mentioned have created the MCU foundation - and they've done it well. There's only so many stories left to tell for each of them, with Thor probably having the wider scope.

 

[SteveRogers41]

We can rank importance: IM, CA, Thor. This is more less reflected in number of their apperances in solo movies (IM had actually 4 solo movies plus significant part in SM:H) and importance in collective ones. Definitely IM/RDJ is most important character in the franchise. So someone want to really shake the viewers those three as most likely to be killed off. Yes, Marvel did a great job creating MCU where introducing almost all new characters is successfull (with small exception of Hulk) but still there are some key players.

Iron Man *was* the most important. This is no longer the case.

 

[SteveRogers41]

Actually, they do not have Spider-Man. Spider-Man is still owned by Sony. He's simply on loan to Marvel/Disney. The deal was that Sony would market the Spider-Man films, pay for them, and get the movie ticket revenue whereas Disney would use him in the extended MCU and get the revenue from merchandising.

And actually, Disney doesn't own Hulk either. He's on loan from Universal. Just putting that out there.

 

[Flash525]

And actually, Disney doesn't own Hulk either. He's on loan from Universal. Just putting that out there.

I wonder why Universal haven't followed on the Spider-Man front and made use of what they have; Sony can play with Marvel, and will be producing Spider-Man solo films, yet Universal haven't thought to do the same with Hulk?

 

[Spider-Fan]

Who are you including as a main Avengers? Thor, Stark & Rogers, or do you extend the title of major Avengers to the likes of Tasha & Banner?

I think Hulk is going to be the shock death for IW, with one of the main three (or rather, two - I think Thor is safe) for the sequel.

I would count Banner and Tasha as major. Banner I do not see dying. They said that the arc for his solo would be stretched into 3 films beginning with Thor: Ragnarok.

 

[Flash525]

I would count Banner and Tasha as major. Banner I do not see dying. They said that the arc for his solo would be stretched into 3 films beginning with Thor: Ragnarok.

Ah, that's true. I do wonder then whether he'll be a fatality at the conclusion of the sequel, or whether something will happen to either stop the transformation, or something that'll split the two personas so they both get their individuality; Bruce staying on Earth, whilst Hulk departing to the stars I wonder.

Something big is going to happen with Hulk. I'm certain of it. Maybe he'll just **** out the soul stone or something, but something's going to happen with him!

 

[MbJ]

And actually, Disney doesn't own Hulk either. He's on loan from Universal.

He isn't. Universal has the distribution rights to Hulk, but Marvel still has the production rights.

 

[SteveRogers41]

I wonder why Universal haven't followed on the Spider-Man front and made use of what they have; Sony can play with Marvel, and will be producing Spider-Man solo films, yet Universal haven't thought to do the same with Hulk?

Yeah, I wonder that, too. I also wonder the same thing with Namor the Sub-Mariner - another character that Universal still owns but hasn't done anything with. Both of those characters are fantastic properties. Universal is wasting potential.

 

[SteveRogers41]

He isn't. Universal has the distribution rights to Hulk, but Marvel still has the production rights.

Owning the distribution rights means that Universal can veto any Hulk project, which is what I meant by 'loan'.

Per this forbes article here:

But despite obtaining the cinematic rights to make Hulk movies, Marvel did not obtain distribution rights. Universal held those rights, and today I can confirm the exact situation is that Universal currently retains the right of first refusal to distribute any Hulk films in the future.

 

[MbJ]

Owning the distribution rights means that Universal can veto any Hulk project, which is what I meant by 'loan'.

Per this forbes article here:

That's not what that means. It means they have the right of refusal to any future Hulk movie and keep it from getting mean. They cannot prevent Marvel from using the character in other films, like the Avengers movies or his recent appearance in Thor: Ragnarok.

So, hypothetically, if Marvel wanted to launch a New Avengers film with, say, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Doctor Strange, Hulk, Valkyrie, Ant-Man, Wasp, Thor and Scarlet Witch, Universal couldn't do anything about it.

 

[SteveRogers41]

That's not what that means. It means they have the right of refusal to any future Hulk movie and keep it from getting mean. They cannot prevent Marvel from using the character in other films, like the Avengers movies or his recent appearance in Thor: Ragnarok.

I'm not arguing that though! You're trying to go 'ah, gotcha' on a technicality I'm not even arguing. I'm not arguing that Marvel can't use him in an Avengers movie. What I'm saying, and I stand by, is that Marvel does not own full rights to the character. Which they don't. They cannot distribute a Hulk movie without Universal's permission.

Which is contrasted to characters like Black Panther and Captain America, for which Marvel/Disney owns full rights and they can do anything they want with. There is no red tape Marvel has to go through, no deals to be made or contracts to be signed to do what the want with characters they fully own. Unfortunately, due to Marvel's late 90's bankruptcy and their desperation to stay afloat, Spider-Man, Hulk, and Namor are still tied up in bureaucracy and will be for the foreseeable future. And until the Fox deal goes through so are numerous other properties.

 

[MbJ]

I'm not arguing that though!

You're arguing that he's "on loan" like Spider-Man, which is inaccurate. Marvel is free to use Hulk whenever they like and however they like just so long as it isn't a solo movie, while Spider-Man, who actually is on loan, has far greater restrictions and can be vetoed by Sony.

 

[SteveRogers41]

You're arguing that he's "on loan" like Spider-Man, which is inaccurate. Marvel is free to use Hulk whenever they like and however they like just so long as it isn't a solo movie, while Spider-Man, who actually is on loan, has far greater restrictions and can be vetoed by Sony.

Once again, you are arguing a technicality I'm not arguing. Simple question, does Marvel own full rights to Hulk? The answer is no, they do not. That is what I meant. They are restricted in his use. They are not restricted in the use of other characters. That was the contrast I was making. The original poster said that Marvel 'had' Spider-Man. I pointed out that no, they don't and they don't fully own Hulk either.

Why it is so important to you arguing that down to specific legalities of what rights Universal has versus Marvel I don't care. My main point was that Marvel does not fully own Hulk. This is still a correct statement and remains a correct statement.

 

[Joefixit]

I just keep thinking back to Empire Strikes Back, which has been widely called the best Star Wars movie of all time and also hailed as the most gloom and doom of the series. When I think back to it.. None of the major characters died, but all went through life altering events. I say that to say it’s possible to have a movie that’s showcases the big bad without going to the kill off a major star card. They all had life altering events and things seemed to be at there worst before they were fixed in return of the Jedi .

So in all this call for a major star to die, I don’t think that it’s necessary just to sale a movie. Marvel took away the big guns in the comics to at one point.. How did that work out for them ?

 

[Venom'sDad]

I don't think anyone is calling for a major death, just for whatever impact...more so, just speculating because the directors/writers confirm these things will happen. Forge said these deaths will reset the MCU.....and that's what everyone & their 2 cents are speculating on. Whose death would greater impact the MCU, moving forward.

 

[Zarex]

So in all this call for a major star to die, I don’t think that it’s necessary just to sale a movie. Marvel took away the big guns in the comics to at one point.. How did that work out for them ?

Movies aren't the comics. Comic readers are morons - I have been one myself for over 40 years, so I should know. We want the same characters in the same stories repeated over and over again until the heat death of the universe.

Moviegoers respond strongly to new characters and new stories, and don't give a crap about who is or is not important to the long time comic book reader. We've seen this quite recently with the "C" lister Black Panther nearly doubling up DC's All Star Superhero team at the Box Office. If Tony or Steve falls in battle Feige and company will either move on to other characters or have someone else put on the suit or pick up the shield.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Movies aren't the comics. Comic readers are morons - I have been one myself for over 40 years, so I should know. We want the same characters in the same stories repeated over and over again until the heat death of the universe.

Moviegoers respond strongly to new characters and new stories, and don't give a crap about who is or is not important to the long time comic book reader. We've seen this quite recently with the "C" lister Black Panther nearly doubling up DC's All Star Superhero team at the Box Office. If Tony or Steve falls in battle Feige and company will either move on to other characters or have someone else put on the suit or pick up the shield.

In the world of movies, having a different character take over a dead one's role goes over better than legacies tend to. This is why I don't see a new person being Iron Man or Captain America. I see their place being occupied by say Black Panther or Captain Marvel.

 

[parkerpete]

Movies aren't the comics. Comic readers are morons - I have been one myself for over 40 years, so I should know. We want the same characters in the same stories repeated over and over again until the heat death of the universe.

Moviegoers respond strongly to new characters and new stories, and don't give a crap about who is or is not important to the long time comic book reader. We've seen this quite recently with the "C" lister Black Panther nearly doubling up DC's All Star Superhero team at the Box Office. If Tony or Steve falls in battle Feige and company will either move on to other characters or have someone else put on the suit or pick up the shield.

Yes exactly. Audiences have sunk a lot of time and money into the MCU, and they've been promised a big event with huge stakes. The will feel burned if Marvel cheats on that. And as you can see from the DCEU, it's not good to lose audience trust, no matter how loyal they are to the characters/brand.

MCU is an opportunity to not repeat the creative mistakes of the comics, with the endless revolving door of characters dying and reviving to the point that none of it matters anymore.

 

[Zarex]

In the world of movies, having a different character take over a dead one's role goes over better than legacies tend to. This is why I don't see a new person being Iron Man or Captain America. I see their place being occupied by say Black Panther or Captain Marvel.

I'm not so sure. Like many other posters I thought Sam or Bucky would pick up the shield. But Coogler mentioned wanting to introduce Elijah Bradley into the Black Panther film, and having a descendant of someone who went through a twisted version of the super soldier program take on the mantle would be interesting.

And billionaire, philanthropist playboy Tony Stark must have a son or daughter out there wanting to step into the shoes of the father they never met.

I'm thinking Feige and company will wait a respectable amount of time, but at some point we will see legacy versions of Cap and Iron Man, and perhaps Hulk (Jennifer Walters?) and Hawkeye (Kate Bishop?) as well.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I'm not so sure. Like many other posters I thought Sam or Bucky would pick up the shield. But Coogler mentioned wanting to introduce Elijah Bradley into the Black Panther film, and having a descendant of someone who went through a twisted version of the super soldier program take on the mantle would be interesting.

And billionaire, philanthropist playboy Tony Stark must have a son or daughter out there wanting to step into the shoes of the father they never met.

I'm thinking Feige and company will wait a respectable amount of time, but at some point we will see legacy versions of Cap and Iron Man, and perhaps Hulk (Jennifer Walters?) and Hawkeye (Kate Bishop?) as well.

Rarely in film does this work though. For every Adonis Creed, there are more Sam Flynn's from failed movies like Tron: Legacy. This is why I don't see the legacy angle working.

 

[Flash525]

What is the obsession with Legacy characters in the MCU? I mean, what possible purpose is there to another Captain America or Ironman that another - new character couldn't bring into the fold with more? Why can't Bucky & Sam just be Bucky and Sam? Why can't Rhodes or Riri (if introduced) just be Rhodey or Riri?