The Gauntlet Has Been Thrown: The Future of Superhero Movies

[TheGlyphstone]

First off Glyphstone, it's nice that you agree with me that your argument is completely ridiculous.

The only ridiculous thing here is your diversions into personal attacks instead of giving actual rebuttals. If you can't argue in good faith, at least be polite. Just because you're a DC fan doesn't mean you have to resort to vitriol in their defense. Since you haven't been able to demonstrate any of these, I won't be discussing it with you or addressing your insults here on out.

[mia h]

You know after thinking about it I kinda see why DC is choosing to keep their TV shows and movies separate. Marvel's Agents of Shield is in fact connected to the MCU and during Winter Soldier they revealed SHIELD was heavily compromised by Hydra agents. Which also had a major impact on the SHIELD show.

I think most people would agree that AoS wasn't that great to start with but finished it first season pretty strongly, with the major uptick happening around the time of Winter Soldier. The fall out from Winter Soldier meant that AoS wasn't strongly connected to MCU anymore and that untethering freed the show up.

Now DC is probably avoiding this to not only cause spoilers or confusion among the TV audiences who have yet to see the movies but for numerous other reasons. If the Superman/Batman movie fails like a lot of people are expecting then that could also alienate s lot of people from Flash, Arrow and the other shows that are planned if they are connected to the same universe. Plus what if a director wanted to bring in characters from the show? A movie actor is paid a lot more than a TV one and if you start paying the TV actors for one movie apperance or two they may feel like they deserve more for the regular show and will feel more incline to threaten a departure over it. Then you are not only out of the actor but then you have to figure something out for the character.

It would be one thing to have minor characters make cameo appearences in the other medium but having lead TV characters move just isn't practical in terms of time. A TV show is in production for 9 months a year and major films take around 3 months to shoot, so the TV lead would be working on one set or another for close to 2 years straight which isn't going to work out for anyone.

[SapphireStar]

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. periodically still references other characters from the movies. The organization is being restructed as per Fury's statement at the end of season 1. If the Inhumans movie is still a go, events taking place within Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. pertaining to the Obelisk is a precursor to that movie. As in the episode "What they become", a mist was created by a crystal which references the Terrigen Mist used by the Inhumans. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is still intertwined with the movies bridging gaps which are unable to be filled within the movies themselves.

DC shows can still references events in other cities without having to references the movies. They've used Ra's al Ghul which has primarily been a Batman adversary unless used in a larger story arc like Tower of Babel, etc. And, Talia al Ghul took over Lex Corp when Lex became President. DC comics has done very well on the smaller screen with various shows, compared to the movies. They can showcase other lesser known characters and villains.
 

[TheGlyphstone]

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. periodically still references other characters from the movies. The organization is being restructed as per Fury's statement at the end of season 1. If the Inhumans movie is still a go, events taking place within Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. pertaining to the Obelisk is a precursor to that movie. As in the episode "What they become", a mist was created by a crystal which references the Terrigen Mist used by the Inhumans. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is still intertwined with the movies bridging gaps which are unable to be filled within the movies themselves.

DC shows can still references events in other cities without having to references the movies. They've used Ra's al Ghul which has primarily been a Batman adversary unless used in a larger story arc like Tower of Babel, etc. And, Talia al Ghul took over Lex Corp when Lex became President. DC comics has done very well on the smaller screen with various shows, compared to the movies. They can showcase other lesser known characters and villains.

Yeah. This is where DC can really carve out a niche of their own in the screen market. Marvel got the jump up in theatres, but DC has basically ruled 'superhero TV' for years - Smallville, Arrow, Gotham, and now Flash. They're good at it, and they have lots of practice. Agents of SHIELD is successful, but its role is basically to fill in gaps of story and plot that weren't movie practical, like you said. If DC is smart, they'll use the TV shows as their replacement for Marvel's solo hero movies and build character hype that way.

[mia h]

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. periodically still references other characters from the movies. The organization is being restructed as per Fury's statement at the end of season 1. If the Inhumans movie is still a go, events taking place within Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. pertaining to the Obelisk is a precursor to that movie. As in the episode "What they become", a mist was created by a crystal which references the Terrigen Mist used by the Inhumans. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is still intertwined with the movies bridging gaps which are unable to be filled within the movies themselves.

All I meant was that SHIELD was completely intergrated into all of the MCU films prior to Winter Soilder, so anything that happened on the big screen during AoS season 1 had to be reflected in the show in some way. But with that link being uncoupled what happens in Ant-Man or Age of Ultron doesn't have to be reflected in AoS, they don't have to ignore it either, AoS can now do it's own thing without having to be too concerned about big screen events.

[mia h]

It has nothing to do with there only being one way to build a franchise. It has everything to do with DC trying to play catch-up and claim success that Marvel has trailblazed for.

Show me one press clipping, one quote where anybody from Warner Brothers or DC Entertainment is claiming success for what has happened with MCU. I going to go out on a limb and say you won't find one.

Getting the audience to care about individual characters is a powerful and intelligent marketing strategy that Marvel followed, building hype individually for Iron Man and Captain America and Thor and Hulk (sort of, poor guy's movies don't work out well) before dropping the big gun of Iron man AND Captain America AND Thor AND Hulk with guest stars Black Widow and Hawkeye. Plus, doing it that way allowed them to, if one of the team members turned out to be a flop, just cut them from the eventual lineup or reduce them to a cameo somehow.

I don't know The Avengers comic history, but I'm guessing there are certain core characters that if they hadn't appeared in the movie then it wouldn't "really" have been The Avengers. I'm guessing that Iron Man, Captain America and Thor are part of that central core group.
So what's happening with The Justice League? There have been various incarnations of the team, but if Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman are missing then it's not "really" the Justice League. MoS introduces the new DC movie reboot, sort of like Iron Man did. But there's no SHIELD to act as a bridge between the films so DC have to do things differently, which where Batman\Superman comes in, with plenty of cameos from characters they are planning on having in the Justice League film. Then there's the Wonder Woman film before the big team outing.

There was no Star Lord movie because, until July 2014, there was no Star Lord comic - who knows, maybe he'll get one down the line now that he has proven his draw power. The individual Guardians aren't franchises with the weight to support a movie in the first place,

And I think every other character in the Justice League film falls in that category.

but that shows you've missed the point. DC is trying to both play follow-the-leader and not play follow-the-leader at the same time, by releasing their team-up movie before their solo films.

You do realize that all off the Justice League spin offs are barely in pre-production? Cyborg and Green Lantern are slated for release until 2020, things will change. The guy playing Cyborg doesn't work out then either they recast or quietly drop the film, the same thing that happened with the Hulk.
Also there is no logic to your statement, someone cannot do A and simultaneously not do A.

If they would pick one instead of trying to ride the fence, I wouldn't be criticizing them at all

Why criticize them at all? It's a pretty safe bet you haven't seen the final version of Batman\Superman or read the final script. So you have no idea what the final product is going to be like, any criticism at this point can only be made on the basis of pre-existing internal bias.

- doing what works is unfortunately one of the smarter things Hollywood tends to do, even when that creates nine million remakes and reboots of franchises. Instead of Marvel's strategy of making the audience care about their characters, they are relying purely on brand name recognition with Superman AND Batman AND Wonder Woman

Yes, because when Marvel released Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk they were in no way relying on the brand name recognition of Robert Downey Jr. and Edward Norton. And of course it is DC's plan to make the audience completely disinterested in their characters because that's been shown to be the best way to make people turn up for the sequel.

and expecting Dawn of Justice to be simultaneously
A) a sequel to Man of Steel,
B) an intro movie to yet another Batman, he of the infinite reboots
C) an intro to Wonder Woman before her own solo film
D) A good movie in its own right.

Iron Man 2 had to be simultaneously
A) a sequel to Iron Man,
B) an intro movie to yet another James Rhodes
C) an intro to Black Widow before her rumoured solo film that never materialized,
D) A good movie in its own right.

I don't think Snyder made all the right choices in MoS - Gritty Superman is not at all my flavor - but it's a competently made movie. I'm much less sanguine about his ability to make a good movie that balances screen time and writing for three big-name heavyweight heroes instead of one, and whose failure will send DC's plans toppling like a house of dominoes. If AffBats can't pull off the role, for instance, it hurts DoJ and also cripples the new Batman franchise before it even gets off the ground.

Same could have be said for Robert Downey Jr. or Chris Evans; if Iron Man had gone down in flames then the MCU is crippled before it's started. If Captain America: The First Avenger flames out at the box office then how can there be a second Avenger or even a whole team of Avengers?

As for three big name heroes, obviously I don't know exactly what the script is but the film title and rumors suggest that Woman Woman isn't really going to heavily involved so only two big name heroes, but DC are putting all of their eggs in Zack Snyder's basket and that is a big risk to take. As for "crippling the new Batman franchise", there are no plans for a solo Batman film, so can it hurt something that doesn't exist?

But their whole DCCU strategy, as it has been revealed to the public, stinks all over of playing catch-up to the MCU.

Of course DC are playing catch up, Iron Man was released same year as The Dark Knight. Where MCU had a plan to build towards The Avengers, DC had to wait for Nolan's trilogy to be over before they could make their own shared universe from scratch.

It's disorganized

Having plans for the next 5 years is always a sign of being disorganized  ::)
MCU have announced their plans over the next 4 years, does that make them more or less disorganized?

and seems to run entirely on 'it worked for Marvel, let's do it too' while also going 'let's do our own thing instead of just copying Marvel'. They need to pick one or else they're going to get neither.

Again there is no logic to that. You criticize DC for copying the MCU blueprint and in the same breath criticize DC for not copying the MCU blueprint. There many ways to describe taking that type of stance but sensible, reasonable and logical are not on the list.

[Mathim]

Show me one press clipping, one quote where anybody from Warner Brothers or DC Entertainment is claiming success for what has happened with MCU. I going to go out on a limb and say you won't find one.
I don't know The Avengers comic history, but I'm guessing there are certain core characters that if they hadn't appeared in the movie then it wouldn't "really" have been The Avengers. I'm guessing that Iron Man, Captain America and Thor are part of that central core group.
So what's happening with The Justice League? There have been various incarnations of the team, but if Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman are missing then it's not "really" the Justice League. MoS introduces the new DC movie reboot, sort of like Iron Man did. But there's no SHIELD to act as a bridge between the films so DC have to do things differently, which where Batman\Superman comes in, with plenty of cameos from characters they are planning on having in the Justice League film. Then there's the Wonder Woman film before the big team outing.
And I think every other character in the Justice League film falls in that category.
You do realize that all off the Justice League spin offs are barely in pre-production? Cyborg and Green Lantern are slated for release until 2020, things will change. The guy playing Cyborg doesn't work out then either they recast or quietly drop the film, the same thing that happened with the Hulk.
Also there is no logic to your statement, someone cannot do A and simultaneously not do A.
Why criticize them at all? It's a pretty safe bet you haven't seen the final version of Batman\Superman or read the final script. So you have no idea what the final product is going to be like, any criticism at this point can only be made on the basis of pre-existing internal bias.
Yes, because when Marvel released Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk they were in no way relying on the brand name recognition of Robert Downey Jr. and Edward Norton. And of course it is DC's plan to make the audience completely disinterested in their characters because that's been shown to be the best way to make people turn up for the sequel.
Iron Man 2 had to be simultaneously
A) a sequel to Iron Man,
B) an intro movie to yet another James Rhodes
C) an intro to Black Widow before her rumoured solo film that never materialized,
D) A good movie in its own right.

Same could have be said for Robert Downey Jr. or Chris Evans; if Iron Man had gone down in flames then the MCU is crippled before it's started. If Captain America: The First Avenger flames out at the box office then how can there be a second Avenger or even a whole team of Avengers?

As for three big name heroes, obviously I don't know exactly what the script is but the film title and rumors suggest that Woman Woman isn't really going to heavily involved so only two big name heroes, but DC are putting all of their eggs in Zack Snyder's basket and that is a big risk to take. As for "crippling the new Batman franchise", there are no plans for a solo Batman film, so can it hurt something that doesn't exist?
Of course DC are playing catch up, Iron Man was released same year as The Dark Knight. Where MCU had a plan to build towards The Avengers, DC had to wait for Nolan's trilogy to be over before they could make their own shared universe from scratch.
Having plans for the next 5 years is always a sign of being disorganized  ::)
MCU have announced their plans over the next 4 years, does that make them more or less disorganized?
Again there is no logic to that. You criticize DC for copying the MCU blueprint and in the same breath criticize DC for not copying the MCU blueprint. There many ways to describe taking that type of stance but sensible, reasonable and logical are not on the list.

Wow. While I find DC's trying to play catch-up with the MCU akin to a naive younger brother attempting to imitate an older brother who is a professional air rescue soldier by jumping off the roof with a bedsheet parachute, one does have to admire their guts. With the failure of Green Lantern to give back the returns they were hoping for, thus scrapping the planned trilogy, one can also understand why that was not then made into the first of their shared DC cinematic universe films. But honestly, one little bump in the road that clearly did not prevent Man of Steel from being made should not mean they have to then be afraid to press on. I mean, the box office for Incredible Hulk wasn't staggering, nor the reception for IM2, but Marvel kept moving forward and people love them for it. DC was too eager to cut off the 'diseased limb' and is now also too eager to shove their big 3 down our throats without a proper introduction to the Bat and the Amazon. You can smell the greed coming off Warner Bros./DC and it's foul. That being said, what else they're doing, the casting, the choice to risk it big going with such an unconventional follow-up like Suicide Squad, and casting other less popular characters like Aquaman already, do have a somewhat redeeming, or perhaps merely 'showing they've got balls' display to be admired.

It's easy to see all the ways this can blow up in their face and much harder to see all the ways it can succeed. But then this is coming from a fan of the characters and not a cynical marketing analyst. But one thing is for sure; you piss off the core fans and you face big consequences. Otherwise, explain how Iron Man 3 is still the highest grosser so far of Phase 2 despite every other film getting equivalent or better reception? DC would be VERY foolish not to take this into consideration. They have had all the time in the world to examine and duplicate Marvel's formulas for success but little to no effort seems to have been expended studying their flaws and weaknesses in order to avoid doing the same. I'm no genius (at least, I haven't been tested for my IQ to confirm one way or another yet) but I'm almost positive that ignoring the latter step is a shitty strategy.

Marvel also has big-time clout. They've got the title for highest-grossing film series ever once Age of Ultron opens and their average reviews and average box office numbers are climax-inducing to most executives. DC doesn't have anywhere near that and they started off weak with an extremely divisive Superman title. To compare Marvel's five-year plan with DC's ten-film announcement is pure folly. While the underlying strategy is the same, to get the fans drooling, in practice it is quite a different matter. Marvel knows for a rock-solid fact that it's going to be continuing this trend but DC has no fucking clue about what the future holds, and will have to suffer serious embarrassment if they need to rescind these boastful announcement, further hurting their future success. Their seemingly boundless optimism is cute, but really, they ought to be thinking with a bit more realism and perhaps have some back-up plans. No one likes hubris, and Marvel is just cool enough about it to play it off without looking like a bunch of dicks. I can't say the same about DC with this cluster of factors going into their cinematic chessboard.

[consortium11]

But honestly, one little bump in the road that clearly did not prevent Man of Steel from being made should not mean they have to then be afraid to press on. I mean, the box office for Incredible Hulk wasn't staggering, nor the reception for IM2, but Marvel kept moving forward and people love them for it.

Green Lantern cost $200 million to make (just to make... not to advertise etc) and only made $219 million with losses estimated at being around $90 million+... apparently making it the 13th biggest box office bomb in history.

That's a rather different situation from Incredible Hulk which was considered a reasonable financial success (even if somewhat disappointing) and Iron Man 2 which despite the reviews not being as strong as the first film still made money hand over fist. Let's also remember the situation Marvel and DC were respectively in; while Incredible Hulk arguably underperformed Marvel still made an absolute boatload of cash from Iron Man that summer. In contrast DC were three years removed from the Dark Knight bringing in a lot of money and the last proper film based on one of their characters was Jonah Hex the year before... which also flopped.

Films that lose $90 odd million tend not to get sequels, let alone be the start of a franchise. If Iron Man had lost $90 million then I rather suspect the current version of Marvel's Cinematic Universe would be rather different if it even existed at all and there certainly wouldn't have been an Iron Man 2.

[mia h]

You can smell the greed coming off Warner Bros./DC and it's foul.

Yes, because every other film ever made was done with intention of losing half the GDP of China on it's release. How dare any company want to make money from a big budget blockbuster movie. ::)

To compare Marvel's five-year plan with DC's ten-film announcement is pure folly.

Why? Both companies have long term plans, the only thing that can be said with any certainty is that both plans will change.

Marvel knows for a rock-solid fact that it's going to be continuing this trend but DC has no fucking clue about what the future holds.

Marvel has no idea if they are going to keep having successful films or not. Ant-Man could completely tank, Age of Ultron is going to have a big opening weekend but after that it could sink without a trace. Half of the Phase 3 films could get pulled tomorrow.
Oh, and if Marvel know "for a rock-solid fact" that it's going to keep having big financial successes at the box office doesn't that just smell of greed? And isn't it foul.

[Mathim]

Yes, because every other film ever made was done with intention of losing half the GDP of China on it's release. How dare any company want to make money from a big budget blockbuster movie. ::)
Why? Both companies have long term plans, the only thing that can be said with any certainty is that both plans will change.
Marvel has no idea if they are going to keep having successful films or not. Ant-Man could completely tank, Age of Ultron is going to have a big opening weekend but after that it could sink without a trace. Half of the Phase 3 films could get pulled tomorrow.
Oh, and if Marvel know "for a rock-solid fact" that it's going to keep having big financial successes at the box office doesn't that just smell of greed? And isn't it foul.

You clearly did not read the follow-up explanations I gave so I'll just say this: Marve's success so far is earned, DC's is highly dubious and doesn't feel like proper care is being given. If they were both surgeons, one would go out of their way to make sure to save someone's gangrenous limb and the other wouldn't. I'll leave which one up to you to figure out.

Marvel has enough capital to sit on, DC though is rolling the dice big-time. Is there really any question which is on fire and which has yet to really make a spark?

And yes, Ant-Man is probably going to perform below the average for Phase 2 (probably 400-500 million global, I'd estimate, well below the 600 -700 million pulled in by Thor 2, Cap 2 and Guardians) but will still probably double or triple its budget because we'll be riding the high from Avengers 2 and be feeling that same euphoria we went into Iron Man 3 with before it brought us crashing back to earth hard. I'm not saying Marvel can do no wrong but they definitely learn from their mistakes which is key. Let's see if DC can ever figure that out. There's just no real way to make a movie about someone who is, for all intents and purposes, completely invincible, interesting for very long.

DC is just playing a dangerous game, with ill-deserved confidence. Bad timing and other bad luck aside, it's a precarious position. If BvS, which I will not be seeing in theaters unless the trailer blows me away, kicks as much as I'm sure we're all hoping, then DC will have earned some of its own clout. Still, some of the upcoming stuff is a little more risky than even Marvel would do at this point, for good reason. Let's just see if Suicide Squad isn't the wrong move at the wrong time.

Oh, and more interesting tidbits: Chiwetel Elijiofor (I don't know if I spelled it right, he's the one from 12 Years a Slave) has been targeted by Marvel for a role in Doctor Strange. Any guesses on what for? I'm not really into ethnicity-swapping as far as established characters unless it happened in the comics (Nick Fury, for one) so unless they're really going to start pandering, he won't be Mordo (an Eastern European), Wong (obviously Asian) or the Ancient One (wrong age AND ethnicity). Perhaps a villain, one of the demon lords or something like that? Not that ethnicity matters much when your head is made of fire, if he'll be playing the dread Dormammu. Still, Al Pacino was also being approached and some would say his age could lend him to either the Ancient One (god, no!) or maybe the voice of one of the villains if they go pure CGI.

[mia h]

Of the two more immenent DC releases Batman\Superman and Suicide Squad, the Squad is possibly the less risky of the two. I know that sounds counter-intuative but while it's the first outing on the big screen it will be the 3rd live action outing for the team, the Squad has been in both Smallville and Arrow add in that Deadshot has been all over the Arkham games and they are not total unknowns in the way GoG were. Yes, the film seems to running into a few casting problems; Tom Hardy pulling out, but I'm not sure he was a great choice anyway given his connection to the Nolan films and Will Smith seems to be a strange choice for Deadshot but I think it depends on which Will Smith turns up when it comes to filming, he's got the charisma and confidence for the part but can he give it an edge?

[Mathim]

Of the two more immenent DC releases Batman\Superman and Suicide Squad, the Squad is possibly the less risky of the two. I know that sounds counter-intuative but while it's the first outing on the big screen it will be the 3rd live action outing for the team, the Squad has been in both Smallville and Arrow add in that Deadshot has been all over the Arkham games and they are not total unknowns in the way GoG were. Yes, the film seems to running into a few casting problems; Tom Hardy pulling out, but I'm not sure he was a great choice anyway given his connection to the Nolan films and Will Smith seems to be a strange choice for Deadshot but I think it depends on which Will Smith turns up when it comes to filming, he's got the charisma and confidence for the part but can he give it an edge?

The fact that they were that unmemorable to me on Smallville does not inspire the same confidence in them you have. I think you're making a really big leap there considering that you're comparing them to the big 3. Frankly I've never heard of half the Squad they're planning to use, and I seriously doubt Harley Quinn is going to have any of the charm she had in the animated series where she was born. I liked her for being goofy and non-lethal. This new version is...well, I have no idea what they're going to do but I highly doubt a heavily Jewish-accented "Mistah J" is ever going to cross her lips. I mean, if they're giving the Joker his Harley girl, why not then also give Batman a Robin (or at least a Batgirl?) I'd have reconsidered their casting with a different female villain, that's for sure, no matter how popular Harley is. After all, Captain Boomerang and Rick Flagg are complete unknowns to me, and that's not really stopping their appearance for anyone more name-droppable.

[CaptainNexus616]

Ladies and Gentlemen of this thread. I give you the first trailer for the new Fantastic Four movie.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-BVs-KCSiA

So who else here feels this Fox will refuse to let go of the few superheroes they have?

[SapphireStar]

There is a rumored date set for a Captain Marvel movie. Could potentially see Carol Danvers starring in the movie. Which would be interesting. Could also tie into the Infinity War movie.

[Mathim]

There is a rumored date set for a Captain Marvel movie. Could potentially see Carol Danvers starring in the movie. Which would be interesting. Could also tie into the Infinity War movie.

It's not rumored, it's one of the 9 films announced for phase 3, so the date (at least the month, if not which week in that month) has already been set, we just don't know who's playing Ms. Marvel or which of her costumes they're going with. And the Capt. Marvel and Inhumans movies are going to debut after the first Infiniti War movie so as to, presumably, give the good guys some additional bodies to fill the ranks to overcome the villains before the finale in Infiniti War Part II.

[Mathim]

Ladies and Gentlemen of this thread. I give you the first trailer for the new Fantastic Four movie.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-BVs-KCSiA

So who else here feels this Fox will refuse to let go of the few superheroes they have?

Well from the look of things, they're going to go the route of the Ultimate Fantastic 4 comics, where they go into the 'N-Zone' instead of into outer space, so the cosmic rays that fry them and make them superhero-y will be more likely the result of their dimension-hopping. Whatever.

I think Fox announced they were going to keep the F4 separate from the X-Men universe which I think is a good idea. For one, they probably plan to keep the X-Men going for as long as profitably possible, and since this F4 is going to be an epic embarrassment and disaster, they'll probably not want it to tarnish the X-Men franchise any more than Brett Ratner was allowed to and just kind of sweep it under the rug after they figure out the hard lesson that a sucky movie, even one with famous superheroes, is still a piece of crap. On the other hand, one could feasibly imagine the combination of the two universes leading to a much better, farther-reaching shared universe. Imagine how much easier it would be for the X-Men to go to the Shii'ar Empire for a proper Phoenix saga, with the assistance of experienced astronauts like the F4. Or all of them teaming up against Galactus. Too bad all that money and those resources can't afford those execs a shred of imagination.

[SapphireStar]

It would by the orange one with the starburst on it. Its the same one the previous Captain Marvel's have used. Proabably won't know on casting for a while. They could pick an unknown to fill the role.

Would be interesting if they would cast Adam Baldwin as Rick Flagg in the Suicide Squad movie. He provided the voice for the character in the Justice League animated series leading Taskforce X to retrieve the Annihilator from Watchtower.

[CaptainNexus616]

It's not rumored, it's one of the 9 films announced for phase 3, so the date (at least the month, if not which week in that month) has already been set, we just don't know who's playing Ms. Marvel or which of her costumes they're going with. And the Capt. Marvel and Inhumans movies are going to debut after the first Infiniti War movie so as to, presumably, give the good guys some additional bodies to fill the ranks to overcome the villains before the finale in Infiniti War Part II.

You know. I am betting Part I is going to end with one maybe two of the Avengers being killed off. I am betting Hulk really or maybe even Thor. If you think about it those two are the strongest members of the team. If they get killed off that is going to make the others think 'Oh crap we are going to need more help to stop Thanos'

With RDJ set to appear in the third Captain America movie I wouldn't be surprised if we see some of the others Avengers heading out to find other heroes. I could see Captain America seeking out Captain Marvel (Oh the irony).


On an unrelated note

I am still waiting for the Avengers to learn Coulson is alive.

Stark: You could have called and told us.

[SapphireStar]

There is also the possibility of Captain America being killed. One of the images revealed was his shattered shield. And, Chris Evans made a statement about how he wanted to give up acting. The torch of Captain America was too be passed on to Falcon.

[TheGlyphstone]

Between the two, I'd bet Thor. Thor 3 comes out in 2017, and Infinity War 1 is in 2018, so Chris Hemsworth doesn't have any more Thor solo movies on contract. Hulk admittedly doesn't have any solo movies, but that just makes Thor the more likely candidate because of the impact killing him off for real would have.

The broken shield of Cap is from Age of Ultron though, isnt it? So if they kill him off, it'll be in Avengers 2.

[CaptainNexus616]

Well I doubt Chris Evan's Captain America will die in the Ultron film since we still have the third Captain movie to go. Which is called Civil War a storyline in Marvel Comics that heavily involve him and Iron man.

[SapphireStar]

He could be seriously wounded from the fight with Ultron which carries over into Captain America 3. And, Tony had taken over S.H.I.E.L.D. in the Civil War comics, which is interesting since in the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. show, Maria Hill went to work for Stark after Hydra was revealed and S.H.I.E.L.D. compromised. In the comic she was his second in command. This could carry over into the tv show too with Maria returning to bring them back in.

[Mathim]

It would by the orange one with the starburst on it. Its the same one the previous Captain Marvel's have used. Proabably won't know on casting for a while. They could pick an unknown to fill the role.

Would be interesting if they would cast Adam Baldwin as Rick Flagg in the Suicide Squad movie. He provided the voice for the character in the Justice League animated series leading Taskforce X to retrieve the Annihilator from Watchtower.

Actually Jake Gyllenhaal was supposed to pick up where Hardy left off. Not that he's that much better of a choice. Would be hilarious if Hardy stay on and he also made a colossal screw-up of yet another DC character like his garble-mouth Bane.

And yeah, it's probably better that they go with Ms. Marvel's full-body costume. It would be hard to justify her skimpy leotard on the big screen, and even harder to find a famous and willing camel toe to fill it.

Speaking of characters dying, I wouldn't be surprised to see Cap croak at the end of Civil War (didn't he also die in the comic version of it, too?) and leave the mantle to Bucky. I would say Falcon, but they fucked up and didn't give him any goddamn powers. Mackie even said in an interview that he was going to have the ability to communicate with birds, but no. I mean, he's not even as good as War Machine at this point because they can both fly but War Machine is more armored and has more weapons. At least if they made him a super-soldier level guy with levitation and bird-communication he'd be at Cap's level and not just fall by the wayside. Such a waste. I was pissed about that.

And Thor Ragnarok definitely suggests he and all the other Asgardians, if not even more denizens of the 9 realms will also be vanishing from existence. That would severely deplete the Avengers' ranks for Infinity War part 1 since the only new heroes that really bring anything to the table are Doctor Strange and Black Panther. So yeah, I'm betting Cap, Thor and possibly also Iron Man will be pushing up daisies even before Thanos gets his fat purple hand inside that Infiniti Gauntlet. Hell, Ragnarok could very well be what puts the gauntlet and Tesseract in a position to be snagged by Thanos.

[SapphireStar]

Gyllenhaal could pull it off. I haven't watched the third Batman movie. The whole plot was out of character, and lots of miscasting. Out of those three, the second was the stronger one. I keep having this feeling that Deadshot is going to wind up kinda mimicing Deadpool.

[CaptainNexus616]

And Thor Ragnarok definitely suggests he and all the other Asgardians, if not even more denizens of the 9 realms will also be vanishing from existence. That would severely deplete the Avengers' ranks for Infinity War part 1 since the only new heroes that really bring anything to the table are Doctor Strange and Black Panther. So yeah, I'm betting Cap, Thor and possibly also Iron Man will be pushing up daisies even before Thanos gets his fat purple hand inside that Infiniti Gauntlet. Hell, Ragnarok could very well be what puts the gauntlet and Tesseract in a position to be snagged by Thanos.

Yeah with how events played out in Thor the Dark World I can definitely see Thanos now in a position to get the cube. Heck we already know Hydra is definitely going to get screwed over the second they reveal they have Loki's scepter if the rumors are true of it also containing an Infinity Gem which seem likely.

Truth be told I always considered the fate of the scepter a plot hole. I mean think about it. Thor knew full well Black Widow had the scepter in her possession at the end of the Avengers.  Thor deliberately left the very thing that was responsible for Loki being able to unleash an army of aliens on Earth on the planet after learning they were going to use the Tesseract to make WMDS. Who knows what someone can unleash with a weapon that can brainwash people and shoot plasma blasts.

I really doubt that Thor was aware of the possibility of the scepter containing an Infinity Gem and would not have taken it back to Asgard over the fear of keeping it near the Tesseract. Leaving the Aether in the Collector's possession was rather questionable too since it was clear he collected people along with relics for a living and tried to get the Gem from the Guardians of the Galaxy's possession.