You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 08:50:28 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles  (Read 2220 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online MathimTopic starter

Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« on: February 22, 2014, 01:18:54 PM »
For those of you who have seen some or all of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (the Avengers film and its standalone films featuring the individual heroes) and may not be following the news of future releases, there's some big developments in the works that are not exactly as formulaic as people may have predicted, but this creates the dilemma of being a bit risky. Let me summarize these three main points:

1. Guardians of the Galaxy (Coming August 2014)
The next film to debut in the Marvel Cinematic Universe continuity between Captain America's sequel and the Avengers sequel is about yet another team of superheroes, the titular Guardians. Featuring an ensemble cast including some very huge names (Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, John C. Reilly, Glenn Close, Zoe Saldana, Benicio Del Toro, among others), it looks like the budget on this one is going to be very big, particularly since the entire thing is meant to take place in outer space and probably require much more CGI than most of the other films.
Why is this a big gamble for Marvel to take?
Well, not many people have even heard of the Guardians until the news of this film's existence and that in and of itself, amidst all the very popular heroes already with multiple films under their belts, means some people may be hesitant to shell out cash for this relatively unknown group of super misfits. With any luck the star power and story will make it fare better than other special effects-laden stuff getting released every month or so. The other concern is, the Avengers had pretty much at least one film of their own to establish their backstories and abilities before cramming them into their team film; the Guardians are going to have to shoehorn all of that in for each of its five members in the span of a single film. Is this a good idea? Will that hurt the story, the pace or the character development? Only time will tell, but it is something to wonder about. Even as someone looking forward to the film, these things have me reserving judgment about whether or not it will be successful and perhaps affect the future of the franchise as a whole if it fails to meet its budget or rake in a significant box office profit.

2. Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in Avengers 2: Age of Ultron (First half 2015)
These two characters, a brother-sister duo of mutants with the powers of super-speed and 'hexing', respectively, are the children of the mutant Magneto and would be expected to appear in the X-Men universe (owned by Fox) before appearing in the Avengers universe but it was revealed that they will be appearing in the sequel to the Avengers.
Why is this such a big gamble?
Well, it opens a huge can of worms for one thing and on top of that, you've got to share them with the X-Men because Fox won't relent and just play ball (who can blame them when their films aren't making nearly as much cash?); in fact the latest film in their series, Days of Future Past, has already cast someone as Quicksilver (meaning there will be two different versions of him in the two separate universes!) While that in and of itself may not be as bad as all that, the fact that there's not been a single mention of mutants anywhere in the MCU is going to leave a lot of people scratching their heads as to where the two siblings' powers emerged from since they are forbidden from being used in the MCU if anyone mentions 'mutants' or 'X-Men' or 'Magneto'. This really limits their options, and considering Hawkeye and Black Widow are still set to appear in the film, it isn't as though Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are the replacements for the only non-super male and female members of the team. Is this a good idea? Are they just wasting time and effort trying to squeeze the two into the story? Will fans be okay with a half-assed attempt to add to the Avengers ranks with, once again, little or no time to establish these characters' origins?

And finally...
3. Ant-Man (Second half 2015)
Many of you may not even know who Ant-Man is. While he didn't appear in the Avengers film (and isn't even planned to appear in the second), he was originally a founding member of the Avengers in the comics. Hank Pym, creator of a helmet that let him telepathically control insects and developer of a compound called Pym Particles that allow him to change size to that of an insect himself or upwards of 12 feet when he donned his other persona, Giant Man/Goliath. His female love interest, Janet Van Dyne, who became the flying female Avenger the Wasp, was also a significant part of the team alongside him. The two of them would be perfect for replacing Hawkeye and Black Widow once ordinary humans are no longer able to compete with the villains the Avengers team faces.
Why is this one a gamble of the big variety?
More than any of the others, this one is extremely controversial for a lot of reasons. Like Guardians, many are unfamiliar with Ant-Man and his powers don't exactly seem very powerful except for becoming a giant. That can certainly affect box-office performance and that's just the beginning. The casting has already been decided and Michael Douglas is going to portray an elderly Hank Pym who is supposedly passing the mantle on to his successor from the comics, Scott Lang, played by Paul Rudd (I'm even more surprised than you, believe me), a guy in his forties who isn't exactly a RDJ in Tony Stark's shoes; someone closer to Thor or Cap's ages might have been more appropriate but they've gone with him. That should prove to make may others like myself skeptical about the appropriateness of the level of action in the film (being helmed by comedy director Edgar Wright; don't get me wrong, some of his projects are extremely action-packed like Hot Fuzz and Scott Pilgrim) but we'll just need to wait for the trailer to see if they alleviate our apprehensions. Wasp is also yet to be confirmed to appear which is pretty damned important if you think about it (but Evangeline Lilly is rumored to be in the film though not as anyone yet revealed.) To top it all off, Hank Pym created the helmet and the Pym Particles, two amazing ideas that rival even Iron Man's level of technological mastery, and yet there's no mention of him anywhere by SHIELD (who is supposedly really good at keeping track of this kind of thing) or anyone else. It's almost like he's existed outside of there until just now when he's supposed to be part of their overall universe. Was he (or someone else using his equipment) not considered appropriate for the Avengers Initiative? I really want to know what their answer to that is, it's almost as bad as the 'never mentioning mutants' mistake.

So there you have it. Three big risks that stand to hinder the future of the greatest comic film franchise yet. Your thoughts? Concerns? Hopes for the future? You can pretty much say anything you want about the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe here, actually.

Offline Aiden

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2014, 01:24:56 PM »
I do not follow the comics. Most of the characters,besides the majors, I end up looking on the marvel wiki.

But I am ALL in, I don't think Marvel will disappoint me, hell, the new Amazing Spider Man reboot did not. (was not a fan of the other three). - I know Marvel studios is not the one behind the new Spider Man reboot.

I'm not the "average" comic book fan, I don't know if they are following plotlines or messing stuff up. My point of view is from the movie fan who is looking forward to these big summer blockbusters and so far they have not disappointed (Marvel studios).

I am not big on the Xmen movies, nor the Wolverine Origins movies.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2014, 01:42:07 PM »
And don't forget the whole memetic exaggeration of Hank Pym being a wife-beater. You know that will get out into the public image once they start publicizing his inclusion in A2:AoU.

Online Vorian

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2014, 02:27:13 PM »
Guardians of the Galaxy: I don't have much to say about this one, except that I am cautiously optimistic after seeing the trailer.

Avengers 2: Scarlet Witch is pretty central to the Ultron story, so they kinda need her. There's a couple ways to work around Fox with this. Agents of Shield has already established mutants in all but name with the firestarter in episode 5, they could build on that a bit and run with it, and just keep their parents vague/unknown. Alternately, they could expand on the magical element to the Scarlet Witch's powers to explain both of them. I doubt anything Fox will bring to the table will be good enough to distract much from the MCU version, either way. I'm more worried about the rumors of Captain Marvel being included, given how many new characters are already in.

Ant Man: Honestly, I think the Wasp is going to be more important here than Ant Man himself. Given that in most incarnations Hank Pym is even less mentally stable than Tony Stark and that his powerset is more useful for covert operations than superheroing I think it makes a lot of sense for SHIELD to employ him as a technician or agent of some sort and keep him far away from the Avengers. Still risky though, realistically Hawkeye or Black Widow are much more useful in a fight.

Offline Neysha

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2014, 03:05:03 PM »
I don't know why they would have Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch as mutants (albeit still more known as Avengers)  in an Avengers movie instead of Antman and Wasp who are more iconic and directly related to Ultron. With Magneto owned by Fox we're missing out on a lot of Quicks and Scarlets bsckstory and the whole mutant struggle as well. Seems like a misguided opportunity.

Online Vorian

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2014, 03:27:49 PM »
Ideally they should have all four for Ultron, but I think they're switching Ultron's origin over to Tony Stark instead of Hank Pym ... which kinda makes sense in as far as streamlining the plot goes since AI has more to do with what Stark does than Pym, otherwise. Plus it kinda helps shake Pym's reputation as a chronic failure. The Scarlet Witch's tie in to Ultron and Vision is equally strong and harder to replace in my opinion.

As far as iconic Avengers go, Wasp, Quicksilver, and Scarlet Witch are all high on my list given their long history with the team, Pym much less so - he was one of the founding members but it seems to me he's spent more time off the team than on it.

Offline Neysha

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2014, 06:48:40 PM »
Fair point, but I do think that an Ant-Man movie is also quite a gamble and it's an opportunity that could be given to another character, including maybe a minority or female one being featured prominently without it being seen as tokenism.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2014, 06:52:35 PM »
I have never picked up a comic book in my life, so like Aiden I have no idea if they filmmakers are following story canon or not, but I am a fan of the Marvel films that have been released so far. Having seen the GOTG trailer, I'm curious as to the marketing strategy for this film. Because to the casual, non-comic fan, this seems to be marketed as a comedy which is quite a departure from the other Marvel films.

Online Vorian

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2014, 07:27:45 PM »
Fair point, but I do think that an Ant-Man movie is also quite a gamble and it's an opportunity that could be given to another character, including maybe a minority or female one being featured prominently without it being seen as tokenism.

Yeah, I'm skeptical at the moment but if they do the Ant Man movie right we'll have the Wasp there. I'm hoping we get Captain Marvel as a solo movie early in phase 3, and I've heard talk of Black Panther in phase 3 as well.  Not sure who else would be good offhand, most of the characters I'm most familiar with Fox owns the movie rights to.  :-\

Offline Neysha

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2014, 07:37:25 PM »
I have never picked up a comic book in my life, so like Aiden I have no idea if they filmmakers are following story canon or not, but I am a fan of the Marvel films that have been released so far. Having seen the GOTG trailer, I'm curious as to the marketing strategy for this film. Because to the casual, non-comic fan, this seems to be marketed as a comedy which is quite a departure from the other Marvel films.

Guardians of the Galaxy is typically written with a fair amount of in-story humor and light hearted dialogue and character. That seems to come out in a lot of Dan Abnett's cosmic comic book work too, not just Guardians of the Galaxy.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide



















« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 08:25:27 PM by Neysha »

Offline SinXAzgard21

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2014, 03:15:36 PM »
I'm so looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy.

Offline RedPhoenix

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2014, 03:47:22 PM »
I look at these movies and I can't help but wonder...who is it that will make money from Marvel films not making films anymore after these come out and completely bomb? I am a lapsed comic book nerd and I am not interested in any of these.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2014, 05:03:53 PM »
I look at these movies and I can't help but wonder...who is it that will make money from Marvel films not making films anymore after these come out and completely bomb? I am a lapsed comic book nerd and I am not interested in any of these.

The total worldwide box office gross for The Avengers - 1.5 Billion dollars.

I don't think "completely bomb" is going to be a factor. The only question is going to be how much money they make.

But bomb? Not a chance. There's too much of a built-in fan base for that to happen. 

Offline RedPhoenix

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2014, 05:20:14 PM »
But the Avengers are a popular group with easy to relate to heroes and they had an all star production team making the movie look awesome. I was super excited about the Avengers, it's a terrific movie. Believable people with awesome skills take out a huge force of nasty aliens while also clashing with a sexy, dastardly villain. Who wouldn't be into that?

That's why it's sort of sad that I don't care about any of these upcoming features at all. I am one of the biggest Marvel dorks you'll ever meet and I barely know who the Guardians of the Galaxy are, I haven't seen anything to make me thing the Scarlet Witch / Quicksilver movie is going to be anything other than the next Daredevil and Ant Man? Seriously? Ant Man? None of these characters have the built in fan base that say, Wolverine does.

When I say completely bomb I mean by industry standards - so read it as not make enough money to encourage additional work on such products. The Avengers put a lot of money into the effects and such, they aren't cheap to make at all, there's plenty of margin for these movies to make so little money that it puts the kibosh on such pictures for years.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2014, 05:23:26 PM by RedPhoenix »

Offline Neysha

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2014, 08:45:55 PM »
Compared to Superman,  Batman and Wonder Woman the only properties of Marvel that approached that popularity (but still fell short of DCs big two) was Spiderman and the Xmen as a whole.

But Marvel made IronMan, Thor, Captain America and the Avengers as a whole successful film properties. Marvel Studios hasn't had a box office bomb yet. Fox and other studios have with Marvel properties but not Marvel Studios yet. No need to doubt them just because the new properties are less well known.

Online MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2014, 05:40:38 PM »
And don't forget the whole memetic exaggeration of Hank Pym being a wife-beater. You know that will get out into the public image once they start publicizing his inclusion in A2:AoU.

That's what annoys me; Tony Stark getting drunk and operating his IM armor while intoxicated then blowing up his house, and yet we forgive him for the extreme version of something that kills a teenager every 30 seconds but the public is squeamish about a guy with anger problems who doesn't turn green when it happens. Why Hank Pym isn't even getting a single standalone film before passing the torch just doesn't seem right, especially since he's the one the Wasp is involved with.

I don't know why they would have Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch as mutants (albeit still more known as Avengers)  in an Avengers movie instead of Antman and Wasp who are more iconic and directly related to Ultron. With Magneto owned by Fox we're missing out on a lot of Quicks and Scarlets bsckstory and the whole mutant struggle as well. Seems like a misguided opportunity.

That's my whole beef. As Ultron's creator it stands to reason Ant-Man and Wasp ought to be the newest Avengers in that film and yet it's probably going to amount to mere cameo appearances for the two mutants. Will it work? Possibly. But is it the best possible option they could have settled on? Definitely not.

Ideally they should have all four for Ultron, but I think they're switching Ultron's origin over to Tony Stark instead of Hank Pym ... which kinda makes sense in as far as streamlining the plot goes since AI has more to do with what Stark does than Pym, otherwise. Plus it kinda helps shake Pym's reputation as a chronic failure. The Scarlet Witch's tie in to Ultron and Vision is equally strong and harder to replace in my opinion.

As far as iconic Avengers go, Wasp, Quicksilver, and Scarlet Witch are all high on my list given their long history with the team, Pym much less so - he was one of the founding members but it seems to me he's spent more time off the team than on it.

A tad excessive, perhaps? It's hard enough to share screen time with 6+ heroes and the villain, having 8 heroes (assuming BW and Hawkeye are already replaced) is just asking for madness. The appropriate fifth male and female replacements should be superpowered enough to deal with Ultron and I can't think of a better combo than a guy who can become a giant and smash the robot body and one who can fly around with stealth due to her size and attacking the small, vulnerable points of a complex machine from the interior. Maybe Scarlet Witch's power would be the best weapon against it but I don't know how useful Quicksilver would be since I haven't seen him do much either in the comics or on any of the animated incarnations.

Yeah, I'm skeptical at the moment but if they do the Ant Man movie right we'll have the Wasp there. I'm hoping we get Captain Marvel as a solo movie early in phase 3, and I've heard talk of Black Panther in phase 3 as well.  Not sure who else would be good offhand, most of the characters I'm most familiar with Fox owns the movie rights to.  :-\

Without Wasp, yeah, it'll be a colossal failure, even to the non-fans. But yeah, I can't wait for a Ms. Marvel film. With any luck, the next one in the line-up after Ant-Man will be Doctor Strange, followed by Black Panther and then shortly before Avengers 3, Ms. Marvel. Among other sequels.

I look at these movies and I can't help but wonder...who is it that will make money from Marvel films not making films anymore after these come out and completely bomb? I am a lapsed comic book nerd and I am not interested in any of these.

See, this is what I'm worried about. If these are such a big gamble and they don't pay off and there are successive failures (not saying they all are equivalently big risks) then we'll definitely see the repercussions in the future of the franchise. If I had been in charge, I would NOT have done a Guardians film, I would have taken a baby step into the galaxy first with a Nova Corps film. I know it's probably too similar in premise to Green Lantern but does anyone think they could possibly do a WORSE job on a Nova movie than DC did with Green Lantern?

The total worldwide box office gross for The Avengers - 1.5 Billion dollars.

I don't think "completely bomb" is going to be a factor. The only question is going to be how much money they make.

But bomb? Not a chance. There's too much of a built-in fan base for that to happen.

Underperforming, successively, can be the equivalent of a major bomb for one film and if it was only one of them that was in this sort of position I wouldn't say anything but now it's lots of controversial decisions in a row. And since Guardians and Ant-Man clearly don't have the same volume of fanbase as the others, we can't really speak with utmost confidence about them the way we can with the Avengers. Ant-Man was handed to a spectacular director with a great track record and critical acclaim but Guardians has a guy with two films under his belt, neither of which were that successful or popular and yet their cast is loaded with beloved actors and actresses. It's like they couldn't individually form a completely cohesive production team for each film; how is the future going to look if the films don't earn enough and the studios start slashing budgets accordingly?

But the Avengers are a popular group with easy to relate to heroes and they had an all star production team making the movie look awesome. I was super excited about the Avengers, it's a terrific movie. Believable people with awesome skills take out a huge force of nasty aliens while also clashing with a sexy, dastardly villain. Who wouldn't be into that?

That's why it's sort of sad that I don't care about any of these upcoming features at all. I am one of the biggest Marvel dorks you'll ever meet and I barely know who the Guardians of the Galaxy are, I haven't seen anything to make me thing the Scarlet Witch / Quicksilver movie is going to be anything other than the next Daredevil and Ant Man? Seriously? Ant Man? None of these characters have the built in fan base that say, Wolverine does.

When I say completely bomb I mean by industry standards - so read it as not make enough money to encourage additional work on such products. The Avengers put a lot of money into the effects and such, they aren't cheap to make at all, there's plenty of margin for these movies to make so little money that it puts the kibosh on such pictures for years.

Speaking as a Marvel dork, the fact that both you and I haven't got much exposure to Guardians prior to this means people who don't really know the comics at all will really be scratching their heads and that is what worries me. Not everyone (although they should) will find the idea of a talking raccoon with a laser gun appealing.


I guess my main concern is avoiding another Iron Man 3. I was so betrayed by that piece of utter crap that I almost didn't go see Thor: the Dark World. That's how offended I was by the butchering of the story and the craptastic approach of Disney bastardization that I'm glad Thor didn't stoop to. So learning ahead of time how Ant-Man is going in such a radical direction in a similar way, and knowing so little about the Guardians ahead of time and postulating how much screen time is going to be needed to expand on their origins is supremely discouraging as far as them having a good story. Ultron having a completely different origin and the same vagueness surrounding Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver...do I really need to finish that sentence? I'm genuinely concerned for the future of my most beloved film series (and I don't call it that lightly). They can easily make a big fuck-up like the bulk of DC superhero films if they're not careful and from my, and a few others here's perspectives, it looks like it is a very real possibility. Let's keep our fingers crossed that either creativity on their part prevails, or at least that the public is willing to forgive a number of unwise marketing strategies.

Online Vorian

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2014, 06:14:52 PM »
A tad excessive, perhaps? It's hard enough to share screen time with 6+ heroes and the villain, having 8 heroes (assuming BW and Hawkeye are already replaced) is just asking for madness. The appropriate fifth male and female replacements should be superpowered enough to deal with Ultron and I can't think of a better combo than a guy who can become a giant and smash the robot body and one who can fly around with stealth due to her size and attacking the small, vulnerable points of a complex machine from the interior. Maybe Scarlet Witch's power would be the best weapon against it but I don't know how useful Quicksilver would be since I haven't seen him do much either in the comics or on any of the animated incarnations.

I don't actually see Pym's giant form being useful against Ultron, certainly not in a way Iron Man, Thor, or the Hulk can't all do better. Internal sabotage may be an option, but Ultron has always been good about covering that sort of weakness. Scarlet Witch on the other hand has canonically defeated Ultron before, and there's always a use for superspeed in the plot even if not in the stand up fight. Sticking to the core original plot, those four plus Vision are needed, anyone else is optional. That's five, so pick two or three others depending on what's going on with their solo plots and who ties into the core plot the strongest.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2014, 10:22:00 PM »
That's what annoys me; Tony Stark getting drunk and operating his IM armor while intoxicated then blowing up his house, and yet we forgive him for the extreme version of something that kills a teenager every 30 seconds but the public is squeamish about a guy with anger problems who doesn't turn green when it happens. Why Hank Pym isn't even getting a single standalone film before passing the torch just doesn't seem right, especially since he's the one the Wasp is involved with.

I'm going to target this, for a couple of reasons.  One: You're right to be annoyed at this.  However, the reason we don't get upset at Tony's drunkenness (which was played down in the movies) was mainly because he never overtly hurt anyone other than himself.  This is why we can 'forgive' it.  The Hulk has mostly harmed or killed more men in his comics, most of which were either military or bad guys, and his 'excuse' is that he's never in control.

Second reason is that the whole world in general is very sensitive (and always has been) towards violence towards women.  Don't believe what any political group wants to convince you of otherwise, harm a girl for any reason?  And you will get a lynch mob formed in seconds.  Hell, even a hint of it is enough.  So when someone does so, we get upset, and lately we get REALLY upset.

Unfortunately, the incident was pretty much the fault of an artist overdoing it, and causing a rather massive misunderstanding.

http://www.jimshooter.com/2011/03/hank-pym-was-not-wife-beater.html

Offline HolyMajigger

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2014, 10:44:28 PM »
That's what annoys me; Tony Stark getting drunk and operating his IM armor while intoxicated then blowing up his house, and yet we forgive him for the extreme version of something that kills a teenager every 30 seconds but the public is squeamish about a guy with anger problems who doesn't turn green when it happens. Why Hank Pym isn't even getting a single standalone film before passing the torch just doesn't seem right, especially since he's the one the Wasp is involved with.

That's my whole beef. As Ultron's creator it stands to reason Ant-Man and Wasp ought to be the newest Avengers in that film and yet it's probably going to amount to mere cameo appearances for the two mutants. Will it work? Possibly. But is it the best possible option they could have settled on? Definitely not.

A tad excessive, perhaps? It's hard enough to share screen time with 6+ heroes and the villain, having 8 heroes (assuming BW and Hawkeye are already replaced) is just asking for madness. The appropriate fifth male and female replacements should be superpowered enough to deal with Ultron and I can't think of a better combo than a guy who can become a giant and smash the robot body and one who can fly around with stealth due to her size and attacking the small, vulnerable points of a complex machine from the interior. Maybe Scarlet Witch's power would be the best weapon against it but I don't know how useful Quicksilver would be since I haven't seen him do much either in the comics or on any of the animated incarnations.

Without Wasp, yeah, it'll be a colossal failure, even to the non-fans. But yeah, I can't wait for a Ms. Marvel film. With any luck, the next one in the line-up after Ant-Man will be Doctor Strange, followed by Black Panther and then shortly before Avengers 3, Ms. Marvel. Among other sequels.

See, this is what I'm worried about. If these are such a big gamble and they don't pay off and there are successive failures (not saying they all are equivalently big risks) then we'll definitely see the repercussions in the future of the franchise. If I had been in charge, I would NOT have done a Guardians film, I would have taken a baby step into the galaxy first with a Nova Corps film. I know it's probably too similar in premise to Green Lantern but does anyone think they could possibly do a WORSE job on a Nova movie than DC did with Green Lantern?

Underperforming, successively, can be the equivalent of a major bomb for one film and if it was only one of them that was in this sort of position I wouldn't say anything but now it's lots of controversial decisions in a row. And since Guardians and Ant-Man clearly don't have the same volume of fanbase as the others, we can't really speak with utmost confidence about them the way we can with the Avengers. Ant-Man was handed to a spectacular director with a great track record and critical acclaim but Guardians has a guy with two films under his belt, neither of which were that successful or popular and yet their cast is loaded with beloved actors and actresses. It's like they couldn't individually form a completely cohesive production team for each film; how is the future going to look if the films don't earn enough and the studios start slashing budgets accordingly?

Speaking as a Marvel dork, the fact that both you and I haven't got much exposure to Guardians prior to this means people who don't really know the comics at all will really be scratching their heads and that is what worries me. Not everyone (although they should) will find the idea of a talking raccoon with a laser gun appealing.


I guess my main concern is avoiding another Iron Man 3. I was so betrayed by that piece of utter crap that I almost didn't go see Thor: the Dark World. That's how offended I was by the butchering of the story and the craptastic approach of Disney bastardization that I'm glad Thor didn't stoop to. So learning ahead of time how Ant-Man is going in such a radical direction in a similar way, and knowing so little about the Guardians ahead of time and postulating how much screen time is going to be needed to expand on their origins is supremely discouraging as far as them having a good story. Ultron having a completely different origin and the same vagueness surrounding Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver...do I really need to finish that sentence? I'm genuinely concerned for the future of my most beloved film series (and I don't call it that lightly). They can easily make a big fuck-up like the bulk of DC superhero films if they're not careful and from my, and a few others here's perspectives, it looks like it is a very real possibility. Let's keep our fingers crossed that either creativity on their part prevails, or at least that the public is willing to forgive a number of unwise marketing strategies.

...I like to forget that the end of Iron Man 3 ever happened. Unless they're going to do something cool with Extremis.

Online MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2014, 03:17:36 PM »
I'm going to target this, for a couple of reasons.  One: You're right to be annoyed at this.  However, the reason we don't get upset at Tony's drunkenness (which was played down in the movies) was mainly because he never overtly hurt anyone other than himself.  This is why we can 'forgive' it.  The Hulk has mostly harmed or killed more men in his comics, most of which were either military or bad guys, and his 'excuse' is that he's never in control.

Second reason is that the whole world in general is very sensitive (and always has been) towards violence towards women.  Don't believe what any political group wants to convince you of otherwise, harm a girl for any reason?  And you will get a lynch mob formed in seconds.  Hell, even a hint of it is enough.  So when someone does so, we get upset, and lately we get REALLY upset.

Unfortunately, the incident was pretty much the fault of an artist overdoing it, and causing a rather massive misunderstanding.

http://www.jimshooter.com/2011/03/hank-pym-was-not-wife-beater.html

Maybe most people don't get upset by it, but as someone who's been hit by a car twice, I don't feel as forgiving about Iron Man's indiscretions. Why do I get the feeling if it was Loki beating on a woman, people would still forgive HIM? There's such a double-standard about this kind of ethical B.S. that I'm not going to dignify it. You do have a point but it's such a disgustingly hypocritical societal dysfunction that I can't continue to speak about it.

I don't actually see Pym's giant form being useful against Ultron, certainly not in a way Iron Man, Thor, or the Hulk can't all do better. Internal sabotage may be an option, but Ultron has always been good about covering that sort of weakness. Scarlet Witch on the other hand has canonically defeated Ultron before, and there's always a use for superspeed in the plot even if not in the stand up fight. Sticking to the core original plot, those four plus Vision are needed, anyone else is optional. That's five, so pick two or three others depending on what's going on with their solo plots and who ties into the core plot the strongest.

So having Hulk-like strength due to size augmentation isn't useful? Especially against an opponent who can become quite large? I just don't follow that logic.


...I like to forget that the end of Iron Man 3 ever happened. Unless they're going to do something cool with Extremis.

I like to forget the entire fucking thing happened, bro. I even wrote a script that fixed all the glaring errors in execution with that film. Usually when I make edits to each movie's script they're minor but I had to tear down the entire one of IM3 to make any sense of it.

And clearly you've not been watching Agents of SHIELD or you'd see that Extremis is quite a popular commodity among the bad guys. It's actually not very 'cool' what they do with it though, so I guess it doesn't count.

Online Vorian

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2014, 03:57:00 PM »
So having Hulk-like strength due to size augmentation isn't useful? Especially against an opponent who can become quite large? I just don't follow that logic.

If he can reach that size, hold it long enough to accomplish anything, survive any counterattack, and avoid doing more damage than Ultron in the process, maybe. I have never seem him come anywhere close to that, and strength comparable to Spiderman is more typical. Even then Ultron is pretty resistant to physical attack - better to try to shrink and get inside, and let the other strength types try to stall him.

Offline HolyMajigger

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2014, 05:57:15 PM »

I like to forget the entire fucking thing happened, bro. I even wrote a script that fixed all the glaring errors in execution with that film. Usually when I make edits to each movie's script they're minor but I had to tear down the entire one of IM3 to make any sense of it.

And clearly you've not been watching Agents of SHIELD or you'd see that Extremis is quite a popular commodity among the bad guys. It's actually not very 'cool' what they do with it though, so I guess it doesn't count.

Oh poo---really? I liked the Extremis arc in the comics just fine...with Tony being able to harness it and all. I'm saddened to hear that it's still lame. v_v

I know how you feel about Iron Man 3. The only thing that was redeeming (to me) was the candid portrayal of panic attacks and Pepper being a badass, but those are just my views.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #22 on: February 25, 2014, 07:29:33 PM »
Maybe most people don't get upset by it, but as someone who's been hit by a car twice, I don't feel as forgiving about Iron Man's indiscretions. Why do I get the feeling if it was Loki beating on a woman, people would still forgive HIM? There's such a double-standard about this kind of ethical B.S. that I'm not going to dignify it. You do have a point but it's such a disgustingly hypocritical societal dysfunction that I can't continue to speak about it.

Here's the thing, though.  Tony's alcohol problem has always harmed HIM.  He never hit anyone with his car while drunk.  If he did, and especially if it was a woman, I'm pretty sure that we'd not have forgiven him.  Take a look at Hank Pym.

And yes, there is a hell of a lot of double standards.  Twilight, to me, is the prime one.  The Googly handsome Sparklebutt gets to effectively stalk the girl lead and every bleepin' woman moons over how romantic it is.  But if some guy with a pick up and not as handsome?  Gets slapped with a restraining order, gets called a creep (which often, he is) and the police are on his arse for a very, very, very long time.

Online MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2014, 02:53:42 PM »
If he can reach that size, hold it long enough to accomplish anything, survive any counterattack, and avoid doing more damage than Ultron in the process, maybe. I have never seem him come anywhere close to that, and strength comparable to Spiderman is more typical. Even then Ultron is pretty resistant to physical attack - better to try to shrink and get inside, and let the other strength types try to stall him.

I'm sensing a little prejudice against Ant-Man and giving Ultron way too much props for the movie version of him which nobody yet knows the extent of. The latest version of Giant Man doesn't seem to have much of a problem with holding his size (the Ultimate version, which is what a lot of the MCU are drawing from) so to just discount him so quickly seems like just hot air. No offense but I think he deserves a little more credit than that, especially as part of a team ganging up on Ulty.

Oh poo---really? I liked the Extremis arc in the comics just fine...with Tony being able to harness it and all. I'm saddened to hear that it's still lame. v_v

I know how you feel about Iron Man 3. The only thing that was redeeming (to me) was the candid portrayal of panic attacks and Pepper being a badass, but those are just my views.

It's only the movie version of Extremis that I think sucks, and we both know they just pulled it completely out of their asses for that one. And I hated Pepper being a badass without an Iron Maiden suit; plus she already had to emasculate Tony during the first movie by saving him from Obadiah Stane. To let her do it yet a second time was just...does Tony even count as an anatomical male anymore?

Here's the thing, though.  Tony's alcohol problem has always harmed HIM.  He never hit anyone with his car while drunk.  If he did, and especially if it was a woman, I'm pretty sure that we'd not have forgiven him.  Take a look at Hank Pym.

And yes, there is a hell of a lot of double standards.  Twilight, to me, is the prime one.  The Googly handsome Sparklebutt gets to effectively stalk the girl lead and every bleepin' woman moons over how romantic it is.  But if some guy with a pick up and not as handsome?  Gets slapped with a restraining order, gets called a creep (which often, he is) and the police are on his arse for a very, very, very long time.

You're bringing up a lot of bad memories, bro, and rationalizing Tony's bad behavior makes no sense at all. Especially after undergoing his life-affirming experience of becoming Iron Man, to just slip back into his shitty habits was really stretching the forgiveness boundaries, never mind all the comparisons to others.

Anyway, the more I watch the Guardians trailer the more I am appreciating it but I can't help but feel like they're going to just gloss over a lot of each character's backgrounds like with John C. Reilly's character's profiles of each of them in it. Not to mention it seems like a really huge step for our first foray into the larger universe. We haven't really heard of things like the Kree, Skrull, Titans, and any other amount of cosmic weirdness out there that Marvel Studios has the rights to.

Really, a Nova movie would have been a great way to get our feet wet for the leap into space; a genuine alien falls to earth, not unlike Thor, and bestows his armor and rank onto a nearby human who then has to face threats in his place and go beyond the borders of Earth to protect the greater part of the galaxy. Share a little face-time with his homeworld but also primarily expand the range of the galaxy. Nova's powers are actually impressive enough to warrant his own film and facing galactic threats that can potentially destroy whole planets would be an incredible plot for some significant villain(s). A few cameos sprinkled throughout would then help pave the way for a more immersive and ambitious thing like Guardians. I just hope this doesn't alienate too many people, as I'd like to continue seeing things done outside of Earth's atmosphere so if people are too put off by this risky premise, it could spell disaster for future outings.

This is a little off-topic, but I just watched an interesting movie the other day starring Luke Evans and I was like, dude, this guy could totally be Doctor Strange. He's got the look, the talent, and I'm sure he'd work for a reasonable price so that casting him in multiple films wouldn't end up like Robert Downey Jr.'s astronomical salary.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 03:03:23 PM by Mathim »

Offline RedPhoenix

Re: Marvel Films' 3 Upcoming Big Gambles
« Reply #24 on: February 26, 2014, 03:26:50 PM »
They shoulda done the Starjammers. They could go searching for Cyclops after he vanished from the x-men movies. :P