Marvel Cinematic Universe Part II

[Dipter]

I think than more than the right approach it was more about the right moment.

Yeeeeeee pretty much. Captain Marvel hitched a ride on the backs of two massively hyped Avengers movies. Those were lightning-in-a-bottle circumstances the MCU may never be able to recreate. Although, even without the extra push, it probably would’ve performed averagely for an MCU solo venture.

Just like all the other superhero movies released last year, The Marvels could have generated a moderate profit if the executives were smart enough to reel in the budget. There is no reason why every film needs to cost close to $300 million. It’s ridiculous.

[marhawkman]

Yeeeeeee pretty much. Captain Marvel hitched a ride on the backs of two massively hyped Avengers movies. Those were lightning-in-a-bottle circumstances the MCU may never be able to recreate. Although, even without the extra push, it probably would’ve performed averagely for an MCU solo venture.

Just like all the other superhero movies released last year, The Marvels could have generated a moderate profit if the executives were smart enough to reel in the budget. There is no reason why every film needs to cost close to $300 million. It’s ridiculous.

Yeah, these inflated budgets are killing the industry. 300m gross used to be good money, but now you have films needing over 500M box office gross just to not be a commercial failure. Let alone making a good profit.

[Albert1981]

Many Hollywood studios shoot their films and shows in the UK, which gives them generous tax breaks of 25%. And yet, even with this "tax relief", I think many of these studios are STILL losing money on these huge franchise films. Expensive blockbusters probably have to make between $500-$600 million in theaters in order to not LOSE money. And many of them aren't doing this. There are so many ways you could spend that money on much more worthwhile causes.

I remember clearly on this thread a few years back posters were saying alternate realities, time travel and magic were gonna make the MCU better than ever. I NEVER believed that. Not unless they made the rules clear and easy to understand. The MCU expanded too quickly and things naturally got inconsistent and convoluted. Hell, I watched a NOVA documentary on PBS about evolutionary biology and paleontolongy last night, and they explained the "real" science there WAY better than the MCU did with its "fake" science. But to be absolutely fair, the NFL also did a lousy job of explaining its Super Bowl overtime rules, so I'm willing to cut Disney some slack here. However, Marvel Studios had way more time to prepare audiences for this complicated science fiction/fantasy stuff, and they totally dropped the ball.

And I don't wanna talk bad about Disney either. I just saw "Free Solo" on Disney+, and I thought that was pretty interesting. It was a movie about climbers, but extremely accessible to non-climbers:



The WAY MCU stories are being told today are becoming more oriented towards comic book readers as opposed to general audiences (in my opinion) and I think that's a huge problem for Marvel going forward.

[Thor-Ul]

Yeeeeeee pretty much. Captain Marvel hitched a ride on the backs of two massively hyped Avengers movies. Those were lightning-in-a-bottle circumstances the MCU may never be able to recreate. Although, even without the extra push, it probably would’ve performed averagely for an MCU solo venture.

Just like all the other superhero movies released last year, The Marvels could have generated a moderate profit if the executives were smart enough to reel in the budget. There is no reason why every film needs to cost close to $300 million. It’s ridiculous.

Indeed. Even a movie about Howard the Duck would had been successful if they would had hinted something being related to the Avengers movie.

But that was the moment for the Black Widow movie. That spot belonged to her. Oh, well, I suppose what is done is done.

[Albert1981]

Wonder if a third Hollywood strike in would force the MCU to cancel projects because they will have delay even more of their movies/shows being released:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...al-1235830684/

[ComicNoobie]

I'm just here to copy what I said in the Young Avengers thread about the Kang problem. If the MCU is really diving away from Kang then a option they can do is kill off all the variants leaving only a teenage Nathaniel Richards left. He becomes Iron Lad with the Young Avengers and eventually grows to become the new MCU Kang the Conqueror if they want to revisit the character and try again without the Majors controversy. A true rebirth of the character and when he turns evil it'll be far more personal.

[Thor-Ul]

I'm just here to copy what I said in the Young Avengers thread about the Kang problem. If the MCU is really diving away from Kang then a option they can do is kill off all the variants leaving only a teenage Nathaniel Richards left. He becomes Iron Lad with the Young Avengers and eventually grows to become the new MCU Kang the Conqueror if they want to revisit the character and try again without the Majors controversy. A true rebirth of the character and when he turns evil it'll be far more personal.

It wouldn't work. Not on the MCU at least. Part of the charm of Iron Lad was he was a young boy fighting against his destiny, rebelling against the future, against what everyone else was telling him he will become. A story than impacts deeply to young people.
For people who have seen the movies, Kang simply don't have that impact. (And he will not have it) He is the guy defeated by ants. Defeated by Loki. Aborted off from the MCU. In and outside the screen.
If you want to use Iron lad in a potentital Young Avengers/Champions film, you have to discard the Kang and replace it. I wouldn't surprised if the would go for an amalgamation of Young Loki and Iron Lad or simply use young Loki from the beginning in the Iron Lad role. Or even if they want to cause a bigger impact in the MCU and use a young Thanos in the Iron Lad role or as the real identity of Iron Lad.
For sure it would attract the attention.

[ComicNoobie]

It wouldn't work. Not on the MCU at least. Part of the charm of Iron Lad was he was a young boy fighting against his destiny, rebelling against the future, against what everyone else was telling him he will become. A story than impacts deeply to young people.
For people who have seen the movies, Kang simply don't have that impact. (And he will not have it) He is the guy defeated by ants. Defeated by Loki. Aborted off from the MCU. In and outside the screen.
If you want to use Iron lad in a potentital Young Avengers/Champions film, you have to discard the Kang and replace it. I wouldn't surprised if the would go for an amalgamation of Young Loki and Iron Lad or simply use young Loki from the beginning in the Iron Lad role. Or even if they want to cause a bigger impact in the MCU and use a young Thanos in the Iron Lad role or as the real identity of Iron Lad.
For sure it would attract the attention.

I get that, but wouldn't that make the story just as interesting? By making Nathaniel his own character with his own growth the audience wouldn't want him to become Kang just as much as he doesn't want to be. The Kid Loki thing can work too, but Loki's already a established villain turned good guy/anti-hero now. I just thought this would be a interesting redo for Kang given everything going on with him. And a perfect way to recast within the universe.

I personally would not want a young Thanos outside a What If episode. Mainly because Thanos already left his mark. This was a chance to try and salvage what's left of Kang. I'm not a super Kang fan or anything (I mainly just like his Iron Lad story/connection) but I don't think the character should just be scrapped because of Jonathan Majors legal issues. I still think there are some good and interesting things they could have done with him even if I'm tired of multiverse stuff.

[Frontier]

I get that, but wouldn't that make the story just as interesting? By making Nathaniel his own character with his own growth the audience wouldn't want him to become Kang just as much as he doesn't want to be. The Kid Loki thing can work too, but Loki's already a established villain turned good guy/anti-hero now. I just thought this would be a interesting redo for Kang given everything going on with him. And a perfect way to recast within the universe.

I personally would not want a young Thanos outside a What If episode. Mainly because Thanos already left his mark. This was a chance to try and salvage what's left of Kang. I'm not a super Kang fan or anything (I mainly just like his Iron Lad story/connection) but I don't think the character should just be scrapped because of Jonathan Majors legal issues. I still think there are some good and interesting things they could have done with him even if I'm tired of multiverse stuff.

The only way I see a Young Thanos is if we get flashbacks to Eros' time on Titan.

[marhawkman]

The only way I see a Young Thanos is if we get flashbacks to Eros' time on Titan.

that or time travel.... maybe a predestination paradox?

[Albert1981]

I'm not sure fans are going to be interested in even MORE prolonged exposition about time travel in ANOTHER MCU film. Where characters are both alive and dead at the SAME TIME. It was confusing in Endgame, and from what I understand the Young Avengers time travel stuff happened in the SAME timeline? And that would mean Back to the Future is definitely not bullshit then? I do agree with the amalgamation of the Champions/Young Avengers though. I just don't know how Disney fixes the Kang situation here. To me he's like Kingpin. Or Gorr the God Butcher. Or that cult leader from Moon Knight. Or Bob Marley from Secret Invasion. Just really lame.

[Thor-Ul]

I get that, but wouldn't that make the story just as interesting? By making Nathaniel his own character with his own growth the audience wouldn't want him to become Kang just as much as he doesn't want to be. The Kid Loki thing can work too, but Loki's already a established villain turned good guy/anti-hero now. I just thought this would be a interesting redo for Kang given everything going on with him. And a perfect way to recast within the universe.

Eh, no. People already made their veredict on Kang, if you excuse the pun. They were not impresed by him on Quantumania (or by that Kang council) and Loki made a quick edit on him in the series. The impact of Iron Lad in the comics is than he is fighting against his own destiny, that future Kang, who is a great menace for the Avengers. Is that how can be considered Kang in the MCU? Not for a long mile. Maybe a second movie would had helped him to steblish him as a serious menace, but I don't think the MCU is in a situation where they can make another miss.

I personally would not want a young Thanos outside a What If episode. Mainly because Thanos already left his mark. This was a chance to try and salvage what's left of Kang. I'm not a super Kang fan or anything (I mainly just like his Iron Lad story/connection) but I don't think the character should just be scrapped because of Jonathan Majors legal issues. I still think there are some good and interesting things they could have done with him even if I'm tired of multiverse stuff.

Neither I do. I really dislike when characters and creative teams are set aside when there is a creator involved in questionable acts. But it seems like MarvelDisney already made a desicion and Kang will be demoted to minor drawback. The bigger surprise for me would be to see a recasted kang as the villian in Deadpool Wolverine, but I wouldn't be surprised if Deadpool kills Kang in the after post scene.
Honestly, I think it is more possible than Ironheart will be using the spot of Iron Lad in an Young Avengers/Champions because she is not related to Kang and... well, she is the armored one. Yeah, there is no same level of drama because IH have no the existencial crisis than IL have, but hey, as would say a Hollywood producer: "she uses an armour, so she must be pretty much like the same character, right?".

[Maestro 216]

I'm not sure fans are going to be interested in even MORE prolonged exposition about time travel in ANOTHER MCU film. Where characters are both alive and dead at the SAME TIME. It was confusing in Endgame, and from what I understand the Young Avengers time travel stuff happened in the SAME timeline? And that would mean Back to the Future is definitely not bullshit then? I do agree with the amalgamation of the Champions/Young Avengers though. I just don't know how Disney fixes the Kang situation here. To me he's like Kingpin. Or Gorr the God Butcher. Or that cult leader from Moon Knight. Or Bob Marley from Secret Invasion. Just really lame.

By making Kang Hydra from Age of Ultron a dispisable threat.

[Albert1981]

By making Kang Hydra from Age of Ultron a dispisable threat.

At least Baron Strucker and Ultron were funny though.

[Frontier]

At least Baron Strucker and Ultron were funny.

I didn't love quippy Ultron.