Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Christopher]

Again, it's all well and good to say they could've done this instead of that, but they are the ones responsible for earning their cash, making their name and establishing their brand. Is it really that hard to understand that a sequel for a massively popular character might be a more attractive possibility than introducing a new, barely known character? Or to understand the fact that every new, unknown character getting their own movie brings a certain amount of risk, so doing too many of them at once is probably unwise?

None of that explains why they didn't put a Black Widow movie on the schedule as soon as the character became a breakout star in Iron Man 2 and The Avengers. Or why they took a risk on both Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man before taking a risk on something that didn't have a white male lead.

Besides, look at how many characters Marvel has successfully introduced as supporting players in other movies -- Fury, Widow, Hawkeye, War Machine, Falcon, arguably Coulson, and now both Black Panther and Spider-Man. If they were worried about taking a risk on an unknown character, they could've seeded T'Challa or Carol or whoever in a movie several years ago in order to set up their solo film.

So the facts show that they are willing to take a risk on a new male lead character, but have been slow to feature even a popular female character that audiences were already clamoring to see in a solo movie. So if there's any fear of "risk" shaping their decisions, it seems to have more to do with the perceived risk of a non-white or non-male lead than with the risk of an untried premise.

 

[ichab]

Again, it's all well and good to say they could've done this instead of that, but they are the ones responsible for earning their cash, making their name and establishing their brand. Is it really that hard to understand that a sequel for a massively popular character might be a more attractive possibility than introducing a new, barely known character? Or to understand the fact that every new, unknown character getting their own movie brings a certain amount of risk, so doing too many of them at once is probably unwise?

Yeah, I would've rather watched Black Panther over Iron Man 3, as well, but to suggest that Marvel screwed up by not making them in that order is just ridiculous.

As for GotG vs Capt. Marvel - that's the case where I'm still reserving judgement, as I believe I mentioned. They have stated they have significant plans for the character and those plans apparently somehow involve infinity war. So when her movie drops and IW is behind us, then I'll decide for myself if there was actually a good reason to keep her in reserve or not. I don't see much reason to judge them for it now when I don't even have enough facts to understand their decision.

Keeping in mind that there's also something to be said for the fact that Guardians might simply have been a project they had more confidence in - and considering the smash hit status it achieved out of nowhere, it would be hard to say they were wrong about it.




I can think of a couple of really good reasons. First of all, treating Black Panther as a minor secondary character the way Hawkeye has been handled would have been really bad. Secondly, it wouldn't have worked anyway, because Hawkeye and Black Widow could only be shoe-horned in so easily due to the fact that they were believable as 'agents of Shield'. Calling Black Panther an agent of shield would negate half the point of the character.

If Black Panther were to have been included in phase 1, he would've had to replace one of the main Avengers and get his own solo movie. Probably Thor would've been the only option, since Iron Man was the backbone of Marvel Studios, Captain America is the traditional backbone of the Avengers and the Hulk is theoretically the most popular and well known character of the bunch (which didn't help the Hulk movie, but again, hindsight is useless when discussing whether a decision making process that's already happened). I honestly would've enjoyed that. I haven't cared too much for Thor, anyway. Would it have been a better decision for them to make at the time? I'm not sure. If nothing else, I can absolutely see concerns that a Cap, Hawkeye, BW, BP line-up leans way too heavily to the just barely superhuman side of superheroes. And, while I don't really get them, I have experienced a rather bafflingly large Thor fanbase, as well.

Hind site is always easy and its hard to deny Marvels success at the box office. I will say that I would have much preferred a black panther or Captain Marvel movie to Ironman 3. I'm really not sure about a black widow movie as I consider her and hawk to be supporting characters.

 

[theenglish]

A Black Widow movie could easily be done. Making it a James Bond/Alias style of movie would be a huge draw and perhaps bring in people who don't watch super-hero movies. Considering how popular Scarjo is, I can't understand why it hasn't been done already.

 

[Christopher]

Considering how popular Scarjo is, I can't understand why it hasn't been done already.

I've heard it speculated that her popularity may be the problem -- i.e. her asking price for a starring role may be higher than Marvel Studios is willing to pay. Although that doesn't seem to be an issue with Downey.

Honestly, I wonder if maybe a Netflix series would be a better star vehicle for Black Widow than a feature film. Maybe then she could cross over with Daredevil, with whom she has quite a history in the comics.

 

[JD]

Again, it's all well and good to say they could've done this instead of that, but they are the ones responsible for earning their cash, making their name and establishing their brand. Is it really that hard to understand that a sequel for a massively popular character might be a more attractive possibility than introducing a new, barely known character? Or to understand the fact that every new, unknown character getting their own movie brings a certain amount of risk, so doing too many of them at once is probably unwise?

I understand why they made the decisions they did, but that doesn't mean there weren't other decisions that could have been made instead.

Yeah, I would've rather watched Black Panther over Iron Man 3, as well, but to suggest that Marvel screwed up by not making them in that order is just ridiculous.

I don't think they screwed up, I just think they could have done things differently.

I can think of a couple of really good reasons. First of all, treating Black Panther as a minor secondary character the way Hawkeye has been handled would have been really bad. Secondly, it wouldn't have worked anyway, because Hawkeye and Black Widow could only be shoe-horned in so easily due to the fact that they were believable as 'agents of Shield'. Calling Black Panther an agent of shield would negate half the point of the character.

I'm not talking about putting T'Challa into the exact same role as Hawkeye, obviously he is a very different character who would have played a very different role.

If Black Panther were to have been included in phase 1, he would've had to replace one of the main Avengers and get his own solo movie. Probably Thor would've been the only option, since Iron Man was the backbone of Marvel Studios, Captain America is the traditional backbone of the Avengers and the Hulk is theoretically the most popular and well known character of the bunch (which didn't help the Hulk movie, but again, hindsight is useless when discussing whether a decision making process that's already happened). I honestly would've enjoyed that. I haven't cared too much for Thor, anyway. Would it have been a better decision for them to make at the time? I'm not sure. If nothing else, I can absolutely see concerns that a Cap, Hawkeye, BW, BP line-up leans way too heavily to the just barely superhuman side of superheroes. And, while I don't really get them, I have experienced a rather bafflingly large Thor fanbase, as well.

What about Iron Man, Cap, Hulk, Thor, BW, BP?

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I understand why they made the decisions they did, but that doesn't mean there weren't other decisions that could have been made instead. I don't think they screwed up, I just think they could have done things differently.

Right, but everyone always could have done things differently. That doesn't really say anything about whether they 'should' have or not, and if we're not talking about what should have been done, then I don't really understand how criticizing them makes any sense at all.

I'm not talking about putting T'Challa into the exact same role as Hawkeye, obviously he is a very different character who would have played a very different role.
What about Iron Man, Cap, Hulk, Thor, BW, BP?

But he would have to be in the same role. There was only so much time and money available. There was no room for another solo movie, so anyone in Hawkeye's slot would have to be introduced in cameos and fleshed out in the Avengers movie itself. And the only reason that worked for Hawkeye and Black Widow is because they could be easily thrown in without extensive background explanations, because 'agent of shield' already tells us most of what we need to know. How could BP ever be introduced into the first Avengers story without requiring a huge amount of backstory? You have to explain where he came from, what his position is, what his powers are, why someone in his high and isolated position is even cooperating with shield to begin with, etc. Civil War did him justice by making him central to the plot, but that wouldn't have worked in A1 - there is no reason at all for that plot to have anything to do with him.

 

[HarryCanyon1982]

did you just call me a buffon? rdj plays himself to me. his tony stark is neither gripping or complex. he is just a loud mouth with cheesy one liners.

No he is a complex character Dales as is Bruce Banner.

 

[Dales]

No he is a complex character Dales as is Bruce Banner.

complex by disney standards. complex comic book movie characters are characters like batman, wolverine, mystique and magneto.

MCU has one dimensional and two dimensional characters. they can not make anything too difficult, ambiguous or questionable because they have to make sure children understand it and are not bored by it.

 

[Christopher]

MCU has one dimensional and two dimensional characters. they can not make anything too difficult, ambiguous or questionable because they have to make sure children understand it and are not bored by it.

Hardly. Every MCU film has been rated PG-13, which means that they aren't recommended for children under 13.

Besides, there are lots of children's stories out there that have very rich and complicated characters, like Avatar: The Last Airbender/The Legend of Korra. Children aren't stupid.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

As well as all of Pixar films.

 

[Morpheus 02]

Hardly. Every MCU film has been rated PG-13, which means that they aren't recommended for children under 13


Besides, there are lots of children's stories out there that have very rich and complicated characters, like Avatar: The Last Airbender/The Legend of Korra. Children aren't stupid.

Are you a father? Have you had to think through which would be appropriate movies for your child. Despite the same ratings, HUUUUUUGE difference between Hill's Asgardian beat downs in Avengers and X-Men Apocalype's throat slashing.

However, would totally agree that some "kids" stuff can be super deep and enjoyable by adults

 

[Christopher]

Are you a father? Have you had to think through which would be appropriate movies for your child. Despite the same ratings, HUUUUUUGE difference between Hill's Asgardian beat downs in Avengers and X-Men Apocalype's throat slashing.

But that's not what we were talking about. Dales made the patently false claim that "MCU has one dimensional and two dimensional characters. they can not make anything too difficult, ambiguous or questionable because they have to make sure children understand it and are not bored by it." Which is wrong both because the MCU films are PG-13 and because, even if they were made for children, that wouldn't require dumbing them down. None of which has anything to do with portrayals of violence. (Personally I think it requires more intelligence to tell a story without violence.)

 

[JD]

But he would have to be in the same role. There was only so much time and money available. There was no room for another solo movie, so anyone in Hawkeye's slot would have to be introduced in cameos and fleshed out in the Avengers movie itself. And the only reason that worked for Hawkeye and Black Widow is because they could be easily thrown in without extensive background explanations, because 'agent of shield' already tells us most of what we need to know. How could BP ever be introduced into the first Avengers story without requiring a huge amount of backstory? You have to explain where he came from, what his position is, what his powers are, why someone in his high and isolated position is even cooperating with shield to begin with, etc. Civil War did him justice by making him central to the plot, but that wouldn't have worked in A1 - there is no reason at all for that plot to have anything to do with him.

I'm not talking about remaking the same movie, just with T'Challa plugged into Clint's spot, it would obviously have to be a very different movie if it was going to be introducing Black Panther into the mythos.

 

[Mage]

I think Marvel may be hesitant about a Black Widow movie, since the biggest story possibilies are within her true profession; spy/assasin. And perhaps they feel that's not the kinda movie that works well within what they have done sofar. Just random speculation on my part really.

 

[Christopher]

I think Marvel may be hesitant about a Black Widow movie, since the biggest story possibilies are within her true profession; spy/assasin. And perhaps they feel that's not the kinda movie that works well within what they have done sofar. Just random speculation on my part really.

I think the biggest possibilities are in the story arc she's already had in the movies -- that of a former spy/assassin trying to atone for the "red in her ledger." And that's definitely the kind of movie that works well within what they've done so far -- as we saw with The Winter Soldier, which was nearly as much a Black Widow movie as a Captain America movie.

 

[Mr Light]

I just watched Winter Soldier again last night. It really feels like the lead-in to a Black Widow movie that never happened.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I think the biggest possibilities are in the story arc she's already had in the movies -- that of a former spy/assassin trying to atone for the "red in her ledger." And that's definitely the kind of movie that works well within what they've done so far -- as we saw with The Winter Soldier, which was nearly as much a Black Widow movie as a Captain America movie.

Personally, I think the Winter Soldier is the biggest reason they didn't do a BW solo movie in phase 2 or early phase 3. Even if they had the idea, probably any BW solo movie would be too similar to what they did in Cap 2, so bringing the two out anywhere near each other on the schedule would seem like a bad idea.

 

[Reverend]

I think Marvel may be hesitant about a Black Widow movie, since the biggest story possibilies are within her true profession; spy/assasin. And perhaps they feel that's not the kinda movie that works well within what they have done sofar. Just random speculation on my part really.

What they've done so far includes a goofball comedy sci-fi romp with anthropomorphic animals and alien plants, a heist movie featuring Thomas the Tank Engine, a period pulp action adventure, several variations on "action comedy" and some VERY gritty crime drama where people get their heads bashed into mush in car doors. Also, rape survival.

I don't see how a Borne style espionage thriller would be a deal breaker.

 

[Mage]

I think the biggest possibilities are in the story arc she's already had in the movies -- that of a former spy/assassin trying to atone for the "red in her ledger." And that's definitely the kind of movie that works well within what they've done so far -- as we saw with The Winter Soldier, which was nearly as much a Black Widow movie as a Captain America movie.

I would love to see that. But, could that work in a continuation of what we've seen sofar? She has atoned a lot really. Would a story set before Iron Man 2 work the best? Her recruitment by SHIELD? Or something set 'now', something involving having a opportunity to delete the last of that red?

 

[Mr Light]

The obvious route would be a present day story where someone she wronged in her KGB days coming after her for revenge, leading to flashbacks to her days as an assassin. Hopefully the flashback would be the story of Fury recruiting her to the good guys as well.