Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Jeyl]

Sure, but Guardians was a risk, and so is Ant-Man. Trusting the future of the entire brand on the C-list replacements who don't have nearly the iconic qualities of Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, etc.

You call those risks? When it comes to Captain Marvel, every MCU film that has come out so far are mere hills compared to the Mount Everest of risks that her film is burdened with. There's a reason it took 20 films for Marvel to finally make a movie that is unquestionably about a female character.

If Ant-Man fails? Meh, we've got plenty of other characters to try out. If Captain Marvel fails? Well, I guess female characters don't work as leads so cancel everything we've got planned for the other ones. Cripes, we don't even have to wait for Captain Marvel to fail. If DC's Wonder Woman, which comes out before Captain Marvel fails, you can bet your hard earned dollars that Marvel Studios will get cold feat when it comes time to release their female lead super hero.

 

[JD]

I think they could just retire the characters at this point. There are plenty of other characters they can use, and I think Guardians of the Galaxy was proof that people are happy to see a movie starring characters non-comic book fans have heard of.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Would we rather the charcters be retired or recast ?

Didn't the guys at Marvel already say they were going with recasting if it came to it?

 

[DEWLine]

I'd prefer they be retired.

But I fully expect to be part of yet another Outvoted Majority™ on that point, because Disney.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Why should they retire the characters? The actors aren't the characters.

 

[Star Wolf]

Why should they retire the characters? The actors aren't the characters.

Because they are trying to move more or less in real time and Iron Man as well as Tony Stark, Col. Rhodes and must age, Sam Wilson has time on his side. Thor can be replaced because presumably he doesn't have a human life span. Steve Rogers because whatever was done to him might retard natural aging, the same with Bruce Banner and maybe Natasha Romanoff. However the actors Anthony Mackie and Scarlett Johansson also have time on their side.

 

[Skywalker]

Anthony Mackie is older than Chris Evans.

 

[Star Wolf]

Anthony Mackie is older than Chris Evans.

But as an Afganistan USAF veteran PJ he is playing his age and doesn't face the same restrictions as 50 year old's in Iron Man armored suits do,

 

[Mudd]

^Do you? Watch the first Fantastic Four movie (1994) and see if you can maintain that attitude.

seen it a number of times thanks.

How'd you get through it? Mellow jazz? Bongo drums? Huge bag of weed?



Same here.

Probably "imagination" - same way we used to "get through" the comic books.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Why should they retire the characters? The actors aren't the characters.

Because they are trying to move more or less in real time and Iron Man as well as Tony Stark, Col. Rhodes and must age, Sam Wilson has time on his side. Thor can be replaced because presumably he doesn't have a human life span. Steve Rogers because whatever was done to him might retard natural aging, the same with Bruce Banner and maybe Natasha Romanoff. However the actors Anthony Mackie and Scarlett Johansson also have time on their side.

Are they? First I've heard of it.

 

[kitik]

If Captain Marvel fails? Well, I guess female characters don't work as leads so cancel everything we've got planned for the other ones. Cripes, we don't even have to wait for Captain Marvel to fail. If DC's Wonder Woman, which comes out before Captain Marvel fails, you can bet your hard earned dollars that Marvel Studios will get cold feat when it comes time to release their female lead super hero.

After seeing the money that Lucy made, and after seeing Marvel put out shows like Agent Carter, Alias, and even Agents of Shield, there's little chance of Marvel chickening out of the female super-hero business.

Hell, the current publishing division has gone all-in on female superheroes over the past year or two, with Spider-Gwen, Ms Marvel, Thor, Silk, Captain Marvel, A-Force, and others, seemingly showing a big change in their target demographic.

Would we rather the charcters be retired or recast ?

Didn't the guys at Marvel already say they were going with recasting if it came to it?

Yeah, this is a pointless argument. Marvel is going to recast. That is simply a fact. Marvel sells tons of Iron Man and Captain America merchandise ever year, and there is no way in hell they're going to just put those characters out to pasture in the MCU. The characters of Iron Man and Captain America are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Marvel has every reason to keep those characters front and center in the public eye.

At most expect maybe 1-3 years off from a character while he's being recast/replaced, but they wouldn't want to wait any longer than that.

 

[Venardhi]

I think what we're arguing is that "Iron Man" doesn't have to be retired just because Tony Stark is. Whoever it is (Rhodes, Falcon, Pepper, etc.) would probably not be the genius that Stark is and might need a sidekick who actually does all the engineering for the suits and whatnot, which would create a fresh new dynamic for the series.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm say you can recast Tony Stark with a new actor.

 

[Venardhi]

You can, but why go straight to that when the character looks to be closing in on the end of his arc? Why not let Tony lay fallow for a few years while someone else takes up the suit, then he can come back after a phase or two with RDJ less fresh in people's minds and the world changed enough that it doesn't feel like more of the same.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You can, but why go straight to that when the character looks to be closing in on the end of his arc? Why not let Tony lay fallow for a few years while someone else takes up the suit, then he can come back after a phase or two with RDJ less fresh in people's minds and the world changed enough that it doesn't feel like more of the same.

Nothing wrong with that. But I think they want to keep the Iron Man/Tony Stark connection and not introduce a placeholder.

 

[Venardhi]

Right. My original point was to Kitik. They've said they will recast when necessary, as they already have, but killing off or otherwise retiring Tony doesn't necessarily mean doing the same with "Iron Man."

 

[bbjeg]

Why should they retire the characters? The actors aren't the characters.

I don't think they should retire the characters. I take recasts (Banner, Rhodes, ect.) the same as i take a different artist doing a comic line I read. It's just a different take on the same character.

seen it a number of times thanks.

How'd you get through it? Mellow jazz? Bongo drums? Huge bag of weed?

Probably "imagination" - same way we used to "get through" the comic books.

I was kinda joking. If you missed it, I was quoting Stark from Avengers.

 

[Samurai8472]

It would be funny to introduce the new actor playing stark as reportedly having plastic surgery by the marvel media reporters


We hear the new actor first. We don't see his face. Then reporters swarm him about avengers stuff. One blurts out

"Is it true you had plastic surgery?"

We finally see the new actor playing tony stark and he makes a quip

"That's totally fabricated. Why don't you talk to captain America?

 

[Mage]

I say retire, but mostly because there are plenty of characters to replace the ones we have. At some point, I don't wanna watch the same people over and over. I love the fact that we have a new Avengers team now.

 

[FPAlpha]

but who has also heard from Downey Jr. before he was thrust into the spotlight again with Iron Man (Downey Jr. was a hot thing in the 90s but sabotaged his own career so only a few people knew about him.

He was still pretty well-known when he was cast as IM, it's just that his career was dead. That's not the same thing as people not knowing who he was. I remember a lot of comments at the time about what a perfect casting choice it was, in the context that the people who were making those comments were already familiar with RDJ and his checkered history.

I believe few people in the desired teenager to late 20s group knew who he was/is which makes his casting quite risky.

I knew him but then i'll turn 40 this year and have seen him in the 90s where he already was very likeable in the roles he had (i also believe he may have saved the show Ally McBeal when he was cast because at that point the show was becoming truly bad after it had amazing two seasons from the start but then his drug/alcohol problem got too much and he was fired).

So Marvel went all in with Downey and Iron Man, there was no backup plan that i knew of and they had mapped everything out until Avengers so Downey was a risk. He must have had a killer audition or someone powerful enough to push him through in the hopes he could deliver and fortunately he did.