Marvel Cinematic Universe (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Future Films



Message


Emyr Thy King -> Marvel Cinematic Universe (17/5/2012 3:37:50 PM)

The suggestion has probably been made before, but I think a combined thread for all future Marvel films would be a good way of keeping it all together. News about individual films could get lost in the milieu but it would save people having to search for the individual film threads!

Iron Man 3 (2013)

Thor 2 (2013)

Captain America 2 (2014)

Avengers 2 (?)

IM3 is already in full swing. Ben Kingsley and Guy Pearce are on-board. Looks like it might be centered on the Extremis virus and the action might take place in China, which could see the introduction of Mandarin. I think Jon Favreau voiced his aversion at using the character as it could clash with the more grounded approach of his films (or certainly the first). But with the Avengers and the MCU coming together, that's a moot point. Plus Favreau's moved to a producing role allegedly with shane Black as director of course. James Badge Dale has signed to play a role. As it's been noted by Empire, possibly Eric Savin. I was disappointed that Jessica Chastain didn't sign on. I really hope they go with someone else other than Rebecca Hall.

As of yet, there isn't much news on Thor 2 or CA2. Any ideas where they could go? I think the newly appointed director for Thor 2 (Alan Taylor - Game of Throes [sic]) has said he wants to explore more of the mystical side of Asgard and the mythology of the nine realms. Bascially stripping back the science bits. Could they ditch Jane Foster? Could Lady Sif and another love interest (a sorceress?) move-in on him?

As for CA2, I don't think that waitress from Avengers (Beth) will feature further in the sequel. There was obviously more to her but that'll be explained with the deleted scenes when the film's eventually out on DVD/Blu-Ray. Contrary to belief, the scene with Steve Rogers and Peggy Carter was never shot, it was only in a draft of the script (may even have been the fial draft). I've seen Bernadette Rosenthal and Rachel Leighton/Diamondback being mentioned. What do you think?

What do you guys want to see for Avengers 2?

Marvel Wikia




pete_traynor -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (17/5/2012 4:14:31 PM)

Aren’t they also pushing for a new Hulk film on his popularity in the Avengers?




Emyr Thy King -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (17/5/2012 4:20:41 PM)

Yeah it seems some studio head other than the Fagin twigged that Hulk's increased popularity could spell dollars. A tad cynical but it's a business I know. Mark Ruffalo's signed a multi-picture deal hasn't he? So there's certainly scope for him to have a solo film. He may of course turn up in the other solo films first before doing the next Avengers.




Rob -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (17/5/2012 4:49:46 PM)

Good idea for a thread.

Firstly I think the next few films are hugely important for Marvel. The individual films need to show the heroes facing credible threats that also remove the option to call upon the Avenger as a "deus ex machina". I think by and large, with the exception of Iron Man 2, the first few films succeeded in telling compact and self-contained stories whilst simultaneously building the universe. This is going to be even harder to given given the unprecedented level of success of the Avengers.

Also it's worth noting that Iron Man 3 apparently represents RDJ's last contracted film as Iron Man and so getting him back for the Avengers part 2 could take some fierce negotiating.

But moving on as to what I'd like to see:

Iron Man 3
Extremis seems to be the ways things are headed by all accounts and whilst I haven't read it for a few years it couold certainly work. I'm pretty happy with Rebecca Hall as I think she's immensely talented and coupled with the lessons learnt from part 2 and Shane Black's scripting capabilities it could be something really good.

Thor 2
I loved the first one but would like to see a bit more of the "rustic / medieval" Asgard. If they were being really bold I'd love to see them adopt the Thor disassembled plot line from a few years ago but I don't see that happening. However, they go Hemsworth has got the part nailed and I find him and incredibly engaging screen presence.

Cap 2
Of all the films this is the one that was the weakest for me. I used to read Cap as a kid so would love to see Diamondback brought in along with Crossbones and Sin which would fit in with the Red Skull from the first film. However, would also be delighted to see them go for the Winter Soldier arc,

The big question is how to they all tie in to the Avengers and my first thought is that they shouldn't. That should be an issue for the sequel and the individual films should simply not worry about what's later down the line.




Cool Breeze -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (17/5/2012 7:10:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

Yeah it seems some studio head other than the Fagin twigged that Hulk's increased popularity could spell dollars. A tad cynical but it's a business I know. Mark Ruffalo's signed a multi-picture deal hasn't he? So there's certainly scope for him to have a solo film. He may of course turn up in the other solo films first before doing the next Avengers.


The fact that Rufalo has signed a contract doesnt mean anything really.Thats par for the course with these superhero films.Both Eric Bana and Edward Norton were signed for sequels as well and look what happened to them.Heck, Vinnie Jones was contracted for further appearances as Juggernaught!

I would imagine Hulk will appear in the Avengers sequel but thats about it really.A cameo of Banner in Iron Man 3 would be a possibility as well.

Id actually like them to hold off an an Avengers sequel for a few years and do a solo S.H.I.E.L.D. instead.I think Jackson, Johanssen, and Renner are more than capable of a carrying a film like that and they could throw Don Cheadles War Machine in there as well.




Emyr Thy King -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (17/5/2012 7:16:05 PM)

I think with Thor being removed from the Earth and the Bifröst presumably yet to be repaired. Thor will pretty much be stuck on Asgard. As I imagine they won't want to use the Tesseract too much. I think all of them could just state they're all off doing their own thing. For IM3, Stark might be cut-off somewhat from the rest of the world. As that's what the Fagin has suggested. I agree, the Avengers has raised the bar way above chin-level and so each film will have to deliver upon the promise now fulfilled by the Avengers. I personally think they'll initially feel like an anti-climax, but with the right crew and story they can make an enaging solo film for each character.

Well after the success of IM, it seems Robert Downey Junior's agents managed to secure him a lucrative deal for each appearance he made as Stark/Iron Man. I think he takes a certain cut of the profit hence why he's purportedly received a staggering amount of quidage for the Avengers. Still, despite Marvel's shrewdness in the past in dealing with actors's demands and salaries. I think they'll want to keep Downey Jnr on and they'll probably be willing to make certains amends.

Hall isn't an actress who I'm excited to see in a film. Unfortunately in the previous IM film, they cast Mickey "Irish" Rourke and he's not one to tickle my taste buds. But we'll see...it's early days but then they'll be commencing filming in the next few weeks so I don't think they're going to waste too much time. I think Shane Black's addition to the film is a welcome move. Unfortunately the previous film didn't quite work and whilst it didn't seem to be all of Jon Favreau's fault, I wouldn't be surprised if he managed to get himself an expanded role in that one. Which I thought was extraneous and hopefully such an excess and indulgence won't be in this film. I really do like the idea of the Mandarin and I think it's about time the Ten Rings made a full appearance in an IM film.

I agree, I think concentrating more on Asgard and the other realms is the way to go. Really we haven't seen much of Thor's world and perhaps we can deal with threats to the realm, that hitherto haven't been mentioned? I actually think there's huge potential here. Since Thor is the one who stands out the most in terms of the Avengers. He comes from a word and a life so different to them. And you can indulge things such as dwarves, fire demons and the like without it feeling out of place. I think this would be a good way of differentiating itself from the first film whilst also expanding upon Thor's mythology and introducing new elements and characters. Perhaps a story element in Hela's realm could work?

I agree on CA being one of the weakest. I think it surpasses TIH though. Winter Soldier is Bucky Barnes right? Do you think they could bring him back in a believable way? As he was seen falling a great height and it's unlikely that something/someone would've saved him. I guess they could use a different character but that wouldn't be faithful to the source material and it would remove an element of conflict for Rogers. I think someone along the lines of Diamondback would be more interesting. Because again you have that element of conflict and you want someone who can stand up to Cap as it were.

I think that's a good idea about letting the individual films being their own entities without having to majorly refefence the Avengers. Perhaps mild allusions would work but nothing too 'on the nose' (a bit of a favourite phrase here [;)]) because as IM2 showed. If you crowbar too many characters and references in, you compromise the story a little and the films suffers.

There is room for the Hulk to have his own film. He could feature in one of the solo films. I think he'd fit into Thor 2 actually. I watched the Hulk Vs animated feature, well only the one with Thor. And it has an interesting story about Loki's manipulation of Hulk and how he goes on a big rampage in Asgard. They could go that route, although I suspect it would feel a little bit 'Avengers-lite' and possibly take the focus away from Thor. There's also the matter of Black Widow and Hawkeye. I think they would fit in most comfortably with Cap. Out of all the Avengers, he's the one they're most similar to and it could deal with a re-emerging HYDRA or AIM.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Id actually like them to hold off an an Avengers sequel for a few years and do a solo S.H.I.E.L.D. instead.I think Jackson, Johanssen, and Renner are more than capable of a carrying a film like that and they could throw Don Cheadles War Machine in there as well.


That would be over doing it. There's already three solo films planned and of course an Avengers sequel. They could instead opt for the comics/graphic novel route with SHIELD.




fuzzy -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (18/5/2012 1:40:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

I agree on CA being one of the weakest. I think it surpasses TIH though. Winter Soldier is Bucky Barnes right? Do you think they could bring him back in a believable way? As he was seen falling a great height and it's unlikely that something/someone would've saved him.


There was also a scene where Cap saved him from the camp. He found him in a room, tied to a doctor's chair after possibly having been experimented on? There's got to be something to revisit there. Maybe Hydra were going to use him as a test subject - so the fall may not have been deadly. The guy never stays dead in the comics so you never know.

*Avengers SPOILERS* (do I even need to say that in this thread). On the subject of the next Avengers pic, they hinted at a Civil War style scenario at the end where some of the public are on their side and others aren't. I think it's far too early to go down that route though, give the guys a break they just saved NY from an alien attack and a nuclear strike (whether the public were privy to the latter though remains to be scene). If I'm being honest that montage at the end kinda left a bad taste in the mouth. Bloody ungrateful New Yorkers was what I was thinking, didn't they just see what happened!




Emyr Thy King -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (18/5/2012 6:29:23 PM)

I will answer your points later fuzzy (good point about Bucky Barnes) as I'm heading off in a minute. Just thought I'd share this:

" "Doctor Strange" Destined For The 'Marvel Cinematic Universe'

IMDb

Major caveat: likely to be a red herring but there's a possible big announcement for the MCU

MCU Facebook page

P.S. No need to put a spoilers tag here [;)]




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (18/5/2012 8:01:14 PM)

Surprised they haven't done a film on 3-D Man[8|]




Wild about Wilder -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (19/5/2012 9:39:18 AM)

Well looks like AntMan's finally going to be made though with Edgars track record on this I wont hold my breath, looking forward to a new DareDevil film hopefully darker & can the leather please. However not too sure I can be asked about a new Fantastic Four movie though.




spark1 -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (19/5/2012 12:31:18 PM)

kevin feige on the future of marvel on screen-

http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/marvels-kevin-feige-on-avengers-and-next-5-films-video/






KeithM -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (21/5/2012 4:23:57 PM)

Moffat and Cumberbatch for Dr. Strange?

Ostensibly (yeah, right [;)] ) they were there for a podcast (airing on the 22nd May btw - check the link for details), but why Marvel?

Discuss... [:D]




Darth Marenghi -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (30/5/2012 6:15:44 PM)

So then, Iron Man 3 - despite basically being an adaptation of Warren Ellis' IRON MAN: EXTREMIS by all accounts, will have no on-screen credit for Ellis, nor will he get any money for the reuse of his work. What a rancid company Marvel truly is... [:@]




Wild about Wilder -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (31/5/2012 10:56:26 AM)

Probably has a lot to do with Disney owning Marvel now & we know how legendarly tight they are.




Titanm21 -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (31/5/2012 1:03:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darth Marenghi

So then, Iron Man 3 - despite basically being an adaptation of Warren Ellis' IRON MAN: EXTREMIS by all accounts, will have no on-screen credit for Ellis, nor will he get any money for the reuse of his work. What a rancid company Marvel truly is... [:@]


Do we know this for sure? or is it just Internet ranting based on rumour




fuzzy -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (1/6/2012 2:22:19 PM)

Just read that Marvel have both Punisher and Blade rights back - any thoughts on whether they can work these usually more 15/18 cert (if done faithfully) characters into the existing universe they're setting up?

Personally, my preference is to make stand-alone films, but reference the wider Avenger's based stuff, and maybe through in a few cameos. It would be good for Marvel to make some more adult tone comic films to cater for an older audience; but I can also see how that may not be so financially attractive to the ol' house of mouse.

What do you guys think?




Darth Marenghi -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (2/6/2012 9:49:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanm21

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darth Marenghi

So then, Iron Man 3 - despite basically being an adaptation of Warren Ellis' IRON MAN: EXTREMIS by all accounts, will have no on-screen credit for Ellis, nor will he get any money for the reuse of his work. What a rancid company Marvel truly is... [:@]


Do we know this for sure? or is it just Internet ranting based on rumour


Ellis has confirmed this himself.




Tzarification -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (6/6/2012 12:51:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fuzzy

Just read that Marvel have both Punisher and Blade rights back - any thoughts on whether they can work these usually more 15/18 cert (if done faithfully) characters into the existing universe they're setting up?

Personally, my preference is to make stand-alone films, but reference the wider Avenger's based stuff, and maybe through in a few cameos. It would be good for Marvel to make some more adult tone comic films to cater for an older audience; but I can also see how that may not be so financially attractive to the ol' house of mouse.

What do you guys think?


I don't see why they can't connect all the more adult content in an extended universe. Punisher, Blade, Doctor Strange and perhaps Ghost Rider if they got back the rights could work together fighting the more mystical demonic aspects of the marvel universe. The odd cameo from Fury, Widow etc would fit in nicely too.




Harry Tuttle -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (6/6/2012 1:20:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tzarification


quote:

ORIGINAL: fuzzy

Just read that Marvel have both Punisher and Blade rights back - any thoughts on whether they can work these usually more 15/18 cert (if done faithfully) characters into the existing universe they're setting up?

Personally, my preference is to make stand-alone films, but reference the wider Avenger's based stuff, and maybe through in a few cameos. It would be good for Marvel to make some more adult tone comic films to cater for an older audience; but I can also see how that may not be so financially attractive to the ol' house of mouse.

What do you guys think?


I don't see why they can't connect all the more adult content in an extended universe. Punisher, Blade, Doctor Strange and perhaps Ghost Rider if they got back the rights could work together fighting the more mystical demonic aspects of the marvel universe.


Yeah that's a good idea, it makes sense to keep Blade and Ghost Rider seperate from the Avengers universe due to the more supernatural elements of their characters (although Thor is a Norse God so y'know..). Strange is too synonymous with The Avengers to be seperate IMO and to be honest I haven't really read enough of The Punisher to offer an opinion either way. As long as they don't go down the Ultimate Avengers 3 route I'll be happy.




spark1 -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (11/6/2012 12:32:20 PM)

spidey in 'the avengers'?

it could happen-

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelMovieverseNews/news/?a=61371




Vadersville -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (11/6/2012 4:12:39 PM)

i was hoping we'd have a mention or two of other characters in The Avengers that would then to get their own film. So far it seems the Phase 2 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is just going to be sequels. I was hoping to have some more characters personally.




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (11/6/2012 4:45:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

spidey in 'the avengers'?

it could happen-

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelMovieverseNews/news/?a=61371


A Venom film?




Marwood -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (11/6/2012 10:16:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vadersville

i was hoping we'd have a mention or two of other characters in The Avengers that would then to get their own film. So far it seems the Phase 2 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is just going to be sequels. I was hoping to have some more characters personally.


Well that's only the confirmed films so far; there's been a lot of rumours about the Black Panther film very recently plus ongoing speculation (plus the odd comment alluding to development by Feige) for Dr Strange. Plus a bit of teasing by Edgar Wright and Feige (again) about Ant Man making his way to the screen again (so you might as well chuck Wasp in there too). Runaways and Guardians of The Galaxy are still in development as well.

All Marvel have actually confirmed (and are in various stages of pre-production and principle photography - in Iron Man 3's case anyway) are the obvious sequels to the films based on characters who have just blagged 1.3 billion dollars globally (Hulk aside). No set dates for Avengers 2 yet so there's plenty of scope for them to announce more on the slate. My money's on Black Panther being their next linking film personally to set up Avengers 2 proper.

Plus in all honesty they've already mined the most likely bankable characters left in their in-house stables; the rest are unlikely IMO to be able to draw the same sort of audiences as the Phase 1 guys so they;re best trying to milk those cows a bit more and use Avengers 2 to broaden the universe in a more direct way rather than throw new character after new character at the screen and seeing what sticks. It's a business strategy as much as anything else as these are big productions and even while Marvel and Disney can rest on their laurels a bit it still doesn't mean any character with the Marvel Studios banner attached will be as big a success as the Phase 1 films; they need sequels to Iron Man, Thor and Cap for a steady cash flow while they can push out new characters to set up Avengers 2 and not have to be too concerned about any of those being potential bombs. It will balance things out untl Avengers 2 which (if done right again) could be their next monster monster hit.




spark1 -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (12/6/2012 10:21:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

spidey in 'the avengers'?

it could happen-

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelMovieverseNews/news/?a=61371


A Venom film?




more at-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jun/11/amazing-spider-man-avengers-assemble?intcmp=ILCMUSIMG9382





fuzzy -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (12/6/2012 6:30:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marwood


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vadersville

i was hoping we'd have a mention or two of other characters in The Avengers that would then to get their own film. So far it seems the Phase 2 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is just going to be sequels. I was hoping to have some more characters personally.



Plus in all honesty they've already mined the most likely bankable characters left in their in-house stables; the rest are unlikely IMO to be able to draw the same sort of audiences as the Phase 1 guys so they;re best trying to milk those cows a bit more and use Avengers 2 to broaden the universe in a more direct way rather than throw new character after new character at the screen and seeing what sticks. It's a business strategy as much as anything else as these are big productions and even while Marvel and Disney can rest on their laurels a bit it still doesn't mean any character with the Marvel Studios banner attached will be as big a success as the Phase 1 films; they need sequels to Iron Man, Thor and Cap for a steady cash flow while they can push out new characters to set up Avengers 2 and not have to be too concerned about any of those being potential bombs. It will balance things out untl Avengers 2 which (if done right again) could be their next monster monster hit.


I can totally get the need for the studios to milk their most bankable characters for all their worth, but I still reckon failing to introduce or at least cameo a couple of newbies in the Avengers was a missed opportunity. Let's face it Hawkeye and Widow weren't exactly household names to the wider audience, but they were still given intros in Thor and IM2 respectively. Now they're both popular and had ample screen time to shine in the Avengers, putting them in good stead for future films, whether they be SHIELD based or standalone.

I think slipping in a quick cameo by Hank Pym on the Helicarrier for example would have worked, even it was for 5 mins. It didn't do Hawkeye any harm in Thor. I can understand the worry of over cluttering the film with superheros for example, but this is the Avengers, like X-men, the ranks will only swell in films to come, so what's the harm in little cameos and intros while you have the opportunity - and if you can't do it in the 3rd biggest grossing film of all time when can you do it! And as Marvel look to introduce the likes of Black Panther, Dr. Strange and Antman/Wasp (who are clearly not as well known), it's also an opportunity to test out audience reaction before contemplating a costly standalone film - which could prove the end of that character if it bombs.




Marwood -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (12/6/2012 10:30:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fuzzy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marwood


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vadersville

i was hoping we'd have a mention or two of other characters in The Avengers that would then to get their own film. So far it seems the Phase 2 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is just going to be sequels. I was hoping to have some more characters personally.



Plus in all honesty they've already mined the most likely bankable characters left in their in-house stables; the rest are unlikely IMO to be able to draw the same sort of audiences as the Phase 1 guys so they;re best trying to milk those cows a bit more and use Avengers 2 to broaden the universe in a more direct way rather than throw new character after new character at the screen and seeing what sticks. It's a business strategy as much as anything else as these are big productions and even while Marvel and Disney can rest on their laurels a bit it still doesn't mean any character with the Marvel Studios banner attached will be as big a success as the Phase 1 films; they need sequels to Iron Man, Thor and Cap for a steady cash flow while they can push out new characters to set up Avengers 2 and not have to be too concerned about any of those being potential bombs. It will balance things out untl Avengers 2 which (if done right again) could be their next monster monster hit.


I can totally get the need for the studios to milk their most bankable characters for all their worth, but I still reckon failing to introduce or at least cameo a couple of newbies in the Avengers was a missed opportunity. Let's face it Hawkeye and Widow weren't exactly household names to the wider audience, but they were still given intros in Thor and IM2 respectively. Now they're both popular and had ample screen time to shine in the Avengers, putting them in good stead for future films, whether they be SHIELD based or standalone.

I think slipping in a quick cameo by Hank Pym on the Helicarrier for example would have worked, even it was for 5 mins. It didn't do Hawkeye any harm in Thor. I can understand the worry of over cluttering the film with superheros for example, but this is the Avengers, like X-men, the ranks will only swell in films to come, so what's the harm in little cameos and intros while you have the opportunity - and if you can't do it in the 3rd biggest grossing film of all time when can you do it! And as Marvel look to introduce the likes of Black Panther, Dr. Strange and Antman/Wasp (who are clearly not as well known), it's also an opportunity to test out audience reaction before contemplating a costly standalone film - which could prove the end of that character if it bombs.



I love cameos and am all for them but The Avengers had enough going on so that using that as a springboard for a new set of heroes to get their spin off films would have been a bad move and could have hurt it. Look at the X-Men films (particularly The Last Stand) with their massive casts of prominent characters and many, many cameos that ultimately prove distracting as much as anything else. Avengers got it right by not overcrowding and keeping it's focus on the core idea of "what would bring these guys together?". It was a big enough experiment for Marvel to start with and anything more would have just turned it into an exercise of throwing as much shit as they could and seeing what stuck.

While they can use Phase 2 to open things up a bit more they still need to think about the long game rather than go crazy and risk oversaturising. Cameos and clues in the Iron Man, Cap and THor sequels is fine, have a couple of new character solo films like Ant Man and Black Panther as well and then tie everything back in for Avengers 2.

Then with Phase 3 they could perhaps give the Phase 1 characters a break, sequelise their Phase 2 characters while also introducing new characters in solo films.





fuzzy -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (13/6/2012 1:54:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marwood


quote:

ORIGINAL: fuzzy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marwood


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vadersville

i was hoping we'd have a mention or two of other characters in The Avengers that would then to get their own film. So far it seems the Phase 2 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is just going to be sequels. I was hoping to have some more characters personally.



Plus in all honesty they've already mined the most likely bankable characters left in their in-house stables; the rest are unlikely IMO to be able to draw the same sort of audiences as the Phase 1 guys so they;re best trying to milk those cows a bit more and use Avengers 2 to broaden the universe in a more direct way rather than throw new character after new character at the screen and seeing what sticks. It's a business strategy as much as anything else as these are big productions and even while Marvel and Disney can rest on their laurels a bit it still doesn't mean any character with the Marvel Studios banner attached will be as big a success as the Phase 1 films; they need sequels to Iron Man, Thor and Cap for a steady cash flow while they can push out new characters to set up Avengers 2 and not have to be too concerned about any of those being potential bombs. It will balance things out untl Avengers 2 which (if done right again) could be their next monster monster hit.


I can totally get the need for the studios to milk their most bankable characters for all their worth, but I still reckon failing to introduce or at least cameo a couple of newbies in the Avengers was a missed opportunity. Let's face it Hawkeye and Widow weren't exactly household names to the wider audience, but they were still given intros in Thor and IM2 respectively. Now they're both popular and had ample screen time to shine in the Avengers, putting them in good stead for future films, whether they be SHIELD based or standalone.

I think slipping in a quick cameo by Hank Pym on the Helicarrier for example would have worked, even it was for 5 mins. It didn't do Hawkeye any harm in Thor. I can understand the worry of over cluttering the film with superheros for example, but this is the Avengers, like X-men, the ranks will only swell in films to come, so what's the harm in little cameos and intros while you have the opportunity - and if you can't do it in the 3rd biggest grossing film of all time when can you do it! And as Marvel look to introduce the likes of Black Panther, Dr. Strange and Antman/Wasp (who are clearly not as well known), it's also an opportunity to test out audience reaction before contemplating a costly standalone film - which could prove the end of that character if it bombs.



I love cameos and am all for them but The Avengers had enough going on so that using that as a springboard for a new set of heroes to get their spin off films would have been a bad move and could have hurt it. Look at the X-Men films (particularly The Last Stand) with their massive casts of prominent characters and many, many cameos that ultimately prove distracting as much as anything else. Avengers got it right by not overcrowding and keeping it's focus on the core idea of "what would bring these guys together?". It was a big enough experiment for Marvel to start with and anything more would have just turned it into an exercise of throwing as much shit as they could and seeing what stuck.




Thinking of it though, they did introduce Maria Hill for the first time. She's bound to show up in future films, and you can just see which way that charcter's going to go with the way she was questioning Fury's judgement.




Cool Breeze -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (13/6/2012 2:33:29 PM)

I think they should do a SHEILD movie in the interim between now and the next Avengers film.It would give the likes of Fury, Hill, Black Widow, and Hawkeye the chance to shine and a good opportunity to throw in a few cameos as well.




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (13/6/2012 2:33:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1


quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

spidey in 'the avengers'?

it could happen-

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelMovieverseNews/news/?a=61371


A Venom film?




more at-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jun/11/amazing-spider-man-avengers-assemble?intcmp=ILCMUSIMG9382




hmm,I see.

Would a stand alone Venom film actually work?,Personally I feel it wont.




Marwood -> RE: Marvel Cinematic Universe (13/6/2012 8:47:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1


quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

spidey in 'the avengers'?

it could happen-

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelMovieverseNews/news/?a=61371


A Venom film?




more at-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jun/11/amazing-spider-man-avengers-assemble?intcmp=ILCMUSIMG9382




hmm,I see.

Would a stand alone Venom film actually work?,Personally I feel it wont.



I don't see how it could without a strong Spider-Man presence to explain the character's origin; either that or they'll go for some horseshit non-Spidey origin which would make no sense in terms of the character's look. Unless they changed that drastically enough to sever the connection completely. In which case what's the point? Changes for changes sake, never a good way to go.





Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.1367188