Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Grendelsbayne]

I assume the reference is to failed starts at cinematic universes e.g. The Amazing Spider-Man 2, the Tom Cruise The Mummy, and Batman v Superman/Suicide Squad/Justice League. The sort of things where they tried to front-load a whole crossover mythology in the first or second film and neglected to make the film itself good enough that the audience wanted more. I think suarezguy is misinterpreting that as a reflexive rejection of non-Marvel CUs, which is certainly not the case. It's just that any cinematic success will spawn a ton of imitators, most of whom do it badly.

Although there are some more successful CUs out there. There's the sprawling Fast and Furious franchise and the Conjuring thing mentioned above. The Legendary MonsterVerse seems to be doing okay. Even Venom seemed to be enough of a box-office success that the "Sony Universe of Marvel Characters" is still going forward, even though it was critically trashed.

I mean, Mummy was one movie. Sure it wanted to start a universe, but it unequivocally failed to do so by a *wide* margin (that obviously can't just be attributed to 'marvel fans'). There is literally no shared universe there to judge. I'd say the same about Spider-man, as well, and that one didn't even spend that much time setting anything up - just a few scenes here and there to let you know the Sinister Six would happen. It was still too much, especially since Rhino made every scene he was in 50 times worse, but most of the movie was about Peter and Gwen/Electro/Goblin, ie, the main story (which also sucked, except for Gwen - and that's why the movie is remembered badly).

I'm honestly kind of confused at the idea that F&F is 'cinematic universe'.. Aren't they all Fast and Furious movies? I mean, I know the cast has changed over time, but is it really that different between the films? (Granted there is a spin-off coming out, so I suppose there's a CU coming if not already there.)

Venom is also not a universe yet, and not really an 'attempt to launch a universe' storywise - the film was pretty much entirely self-contained - though it was definitely a trial balloon and seems very likely to lead to one. That one I actually honestly don't like and hope it's not representative of the Sonyverse to come, but again, I still currently have no CU to judge either way.

And of course, the DCEU was already discussed - though I wouldn't necessarily even guarantee that that one's 'dead' or 'failed' just yet. Those movies clearly did not do what they were supposed to, but they did still successfully launch Wonder Woman and Aquaman plus Harley Quinn and the Suicide Squad at the very least. And while it currently seems highly questionable whether those characters will really still be part of an ongoing CU (IE, actually crossover between each others' films or in team-up films), we don't really know with certainty yet that they won't.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I do think it's interesting that a lot of Marvel Studios fans very much dislike the cinematic universe approach when another studio tries to do it with another concept, and I think the most common explanation is that with the others they were too rushed in trying to set it up. To me even if they are more rushed, too rushed, that shouldn't be the difference between loving one and strongly disliking another.

There's a natural progression/connecton beween say, Man of Steel, Batman v. Superman, Wonder Woman and yes, even the bad misfire that was Justice League. Everything happened for legitimate reasons, and were not overloaded with a concern for Easter Eggs more than the plot of the film they were producing. The hatred of the DCEU is nerd tribalism for the worst of the MCU fans. Another faction has an irrational hatred of the DCEU, for being "dark" (the oft-repeated whine) as if the comics have not taken that path when necessary for nearly 50 years. Its nothing new.

Total failures at developing a cinematic universe would be the awful Garfield Amazing Spider-Man movies, which were so completely misguided and understood next to nothing about who the main characters were--it wall all just a paper-thin set up by the 1st film's last act to yell to the audience, "Y-yeah...Peter ain;t keeping his promise to stay away from Gwen...oooh...do yo wonder what's gonna happen in a sequel?!? Be here next time when Gwen..." along with Garfield acting as if he was an escapee from a rubber room--then rammed his head into a wall. Those two movies earned their criticism, and deserve to remain in the shadow of the Raimi films--even Spider-Man 3.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Re: Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters--Morbius willbe set in the same universe as Venom and I'm still not convinced that the SUoMC won't be grandfathered into the MCU.

 

[Christopher]

I mean, Mummy was one movie. Sure it wanted to start a universe, but it unequivocally failed to do so by a *wide* margin (that obviously can't just be attributed to 'marvel fans'). There is literally no shared universe there to judge.

That's the point, though, isn't it? There were all these big announced plans for the Dark Universe, it got its own special logo and everything, multiple movies were being written and cast and scheduled -- and then the first movie bombed so disastrously that the rest was cancelled.

Either way, though, I have no idea why it would have anything to do with Marvel fans. Not everything in movies is about Marvel.

I'm honestly kind of confused at the idea that F&F is 'cinematic universe'.. Aren't they all Fast and Furious movies? I mean, I know the cast has changed over time, but is it really that different between the films? (Granted there is a spin-off coming out, so I suppose there's a CU coming if not already there.)

They're all under that overall title, but my understanding is that some of the early ones had different, unconnected casts that were then crossed over/teamed up in later movies, so that structurally it kind of worked like the MCU. And yes, there was that spinoff earlier this year as well.

Venom is also not a universe yet,

You're talking about what's been released. I'm talking about what's been planned and announced, what's been in development behind the scenes. The release of a movie is the end result of a lot of advance planning, and the whole point is that many of these planned CUs never succeeded in getting past their first films because they were more fixated on setting up sequels than on making the first film good enough by itself. The "Sony Universe of Marvel Characters" seems to be an exception, largely because the first film, Venom, focused more on telling its own story rather than being an extended preview for future movies. That's the way it should be done. Build your audience first, then build the universe gradually.

And of course, the DCEU was already discussed - though I wouldn't necessarily even guarantee that that one's 'dead' or 'failed' just yet.

No, of course not, but its successes have come largely by repudiating the initial attempts to play up the interconnections and focus instead on making solid standalones. This is what I'm saying. The movies that have failed have been the ones that focused on setting up future movies at the expense of their own quality, and the ones that have succeeded have been the ones that focused on being themselves first and foremost -- that have earned the audience's interest in seeing more rather than just presuming it.

And while it currently seems highly questionable whether those characters will really still be part of an ongoing CU (IE, actually crossover between each others' films or in team-up films), we don't really know with certainty yet that they won't.

A shared universe doesn't require actual character team-ups, just a common background and continuity. Shazam! is a good example -- while it's very much a standalone story, it's a story set in a universe where Superman, Batman, and the Justice League exist, and it uses that backdrop effectively.

 

[Masiral]

There's a natural progression/connecton beween say, Man of Steel, Batman v. Superman, Wonder Woman and yes, even the bad misfire that was Justice League. Everything happened for legitimate reasons, and were not overloaded with a concern for Easter Eggs more than the plot of the film they were producing. The hatred of the DCEU is nerd tribalism for the worst of the MCU fans. Another faction has an irrational hatred of the DCEU, for being "dark" (the oft-repeated whine) as if the comics have not taken that path when necessary for nearly 50 years. Its nothing new.

Oh, come on. The only part of Wonder Woman that had any connection to anything else was the completely unnecessary framing device. It's not part of a "natural progression". And when it comes to "nerd tribalism", aren't you doing the exact same thing? I don't think I've ever seen you say something positive about an MCU film.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Oh, come on. The only part of Wonder Woman that had any connection to anything else was the completely unnecessary framing device. It's not part of a "natural progression"

You choose to ignore what is there. Wonder Woman would not exist without all that developed for the character in Dawn of Justice. Hers was no mere cameo or off reference.

I don't think I've ever seen you say something positive about an MCU film.

I will let you sit in your stew of incorrect comments awhile.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

There's a natural progression/connecton beween say, Man of Steel, Batman v. Superman, Wonder Woman and yes, even the bad misfire that was Justice League. Everything happened for legitimate reasons, and were not overloaded with a concern for Easter Eggs more than the plot of the film they were producing. The hatred of the DCEU is nerd tribalism for the worst of the MCU fans. Another faction has an irrational hatred of the DCEU, for being "dark" (the oft-repeated whine) as if the comics have not taken that path when necessary for nearly 50 years. Its nothing new.

Not really. BvS fails almost entirely in exploring the consequences of MoS. Wonder Woman deliberately ignores the BvS setup about how her character 'turned her back on humanity', and Justice League is not a logical character progression for any of the characters based on where they came from before (except the ones we just hadn't been properly introduced to before). Also, the easter eggs in BvS are WAY more in the way and muddling to the plot of that film than any other example I've ever seen. I still don't know what the hell that Flash sequence is even supposed to mean, even after seeing Justice League twice.

You may be slightly less tribalistic than Anwar, but in this case you are 100% doing exactly the same thing you're accusing others of.

Either way, though, I have no idea why it would have anything to do with Marvel fans. Not everything in movies is about Marvel.

Agreed.

They're all under that overall title, but my understanding is that some of the early ones had different, unconnected casts that were then crossed over/teamed up in later movies, so that structurally it kind of worked like the MCU. And yes, there was that spinoff earlier this year as well.

Ok. I've never seen them so if that's what people say then I guess that's true.

Still don't see what evidence there is for Marvel fans hating them because they tried to be a non-marvel cinematic universe, but obviously we agree on that and it seems at this point that the poster who started this isn't even interested in making a single attempt to defend this ridiculous claim, so...

You're talking about what's been released. I'm talking about what's been planned and announced, what's been in development behind the scenes. The release of a movie is the end result of a lot of advance planning, and the whole point is that many of these planned CUs never succeeded in getting past their first films because they were more fixated on setting up sequels than on making the first film good enough by itself. The "Sony Universe of Marvel Characters" seems to be an exception, largely because the first film, Venom, focused more on telling its own story rather than being an extended preview for future movies. That's the way it should be done. Build your audience first, then build the universe gradually.

I agree with all that. I'm just talking about what has been released because the original claim was about marvel fans 'hating cinematic universes that aren't marvel'. For my part, there must be a cinematic universe already in public existence for that claim to even be testable, so 1 or 2 films with the promise of a universe to come (whether they are actually still coming or definitely never going to happen) just doesn't seem relevant to the discussion.

No, of course not, but its successes have come largely by repudiating the initial attempts to play up the interconnections and focus instead on making solid standalones. This is what I'm saying. The movies that have failed have been the ones that focused on setting up future movies at the expense of their own quality, and the ones that have succeeded have been the ones that focused on being themselves first and foremost -- that have earned the audience's interest in seeing more rather than just presuming it.

Again, I agree with all that, and I wouldn't even disagree that it is entirely reasonable to believe the future of DC movies likely lies in a far looser continuity or even no more crossover continuity at all. I just thought it was important to point out that the continuity isn't *necessarily* a failed one so far because we still have to wait and see where WB actually goes in the future.

A shared universe doesn't require actual character team-ups, just a common background and continuity. Shazam! is a good example -- while it's very much a standalone story, it's a story set in a universe where Superman, Batman, and the Justice League exist, and it uses that backdrop effectively.

I agree, that was a poor description. It's about continuity crossovers, not character crossovers - Chris Evans in The Dark World is still an example of shared continuity even though the character is really Loki, ditto for the existence of Wayne Enterprises in Man of Steel even though Bruce himself doesn't appear, etc.

That's interesting about Shazam, though. I haven't gotten around to seeing it yet and the last I remember hearing was that it wouldn't share continuity with the other films. So they did have shared continuity after all?

Oh, come on. The only part of Wonder Woman that had any connection to anything else was the completely unnecessary framing device. It's not part of a "natural progression". And when it comes to "nerd tribalism", aren't you doing the exact same thing? I don't think I've ever seen you say something positive about an MCU film.

No, he has praised the Captain America movies fairly consistently. And I think I maybe recall him once speaking well of Black Panther. It's pretty much the one thing that makes him different from Anwar.

 

[Christopher]

I agree with all that. I'm just talking about what has been released because the original claim was about marvel fans 'hating cinematic universes that aren't marvel'. For my part, there must be a cinematic universe already in public existence for that claim to even be testable, so 1 or 2 films with the promise of a universe to come (whether they are actually still coming or definitely never going to happen) just doesn't seem relevant to the discussion.

I think it is, because these movie projects get so much advance hype and publicity these days that the audience reaction before a film's release can be as important to the studio's decisions as the reaction after it. Consider how the fan backlash to the design of the CGI Sonic the Hedgehog character in the first trailer for the upcoming movie was so ferociously negative that they actually delayed the film for months to redo all the animation of the character with a new, more faithful design. All based on a single trailer for a movie that isn't even out yet. So it's no longer valid to judge audience reaction based solely on what happens after a film is released. The advance reaction is very, very relevant to what studios decide to do. That's why so many prospective cinematic universes have been cancelled after their introductory films bombed.

Again, I agree with all that, and I wouldn't even disagree that it is entirely reasonable to believe the future of DC movies likely lies in a far looser continuity or even no more crossover continuity at all. I just thought it was important to point out that the continuity isn't *necessarily* a failed one so far because we still have to wait and see where WB actually goes in the future.

I'm not saying the DCEU has failed. On the contrary, I'm saying that it's fixed its early mistakes by changing gears, by refocusing on making each individual film work on its own terms rather than just being a setup for future films like BvS was.

That's interesting about Shazam, though. I haven't gotten around to seeing it yet and the last I remember hearing was that it wouldn't share continuity with the other films. So they did have shared continuity after all?

It's more that it uses the DCEU as a backdrop. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc. are celebrities in the world that Billy Batson and the other characters occupy. The existence of superheroes is an accepted reality, which informs the characters' choices and worldview and a lot of the humor.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Not really. BvS fails almost entirely in exploring the consequences of MoS.

What film were you watching, because every moment of BvS was about the consequences of the world's divided view of Superman in the wake of MoS--some seeing him almost as a "god" figure, while others completely (and realistically) mistrusting him, with Luthor and Wayne reaching logical conclusions about Superman as a threat--but for two reasons born of uncomfortable similarities . The treatment of Superman as an alien threat who answers to no one, and only reluctantly supported by authority figures was exactly how it would play in real life, hence the strength of the film with a realistic treatment of fantasy elements.

Wonder Woman deliberately ignores the BvS setup about how her character 'turned her back on humanity'

No, it did not, as the audience first meets her in the mindset of being distant and wanting little to do with people until she has contact with Wayne. Her post war decision was finally explained in full in the origin film, but she only had a change in heart in helping humanity again once she is convinced not only by Wayne, but by his (and Superman's) dedication to fight what cannot be ignored, even if there's a personal cost. The funeral / photo coda of BvS was the perfect set up for not only the framing story of her own film, but again, explained what caused her to back away in the first place. This was no accident or production coincidence.

You may be slightly less tribalistic than Anwar, but in this case you are 100% doing exactly the same thing you're accusing others of.

Nope.. Anwar despises DC in general, and his endless rants about Nolan's Bat-films and now the Joker reeks of jealousy of the praise those films received, and is such an tribal extremist, he even hates non-Disney/MCU Marvel movies, such as Raimi's Spider-Man films. In other words, if its not the MCU, its whatever "hating comic books" / "setting superhero films back" nonsense he pulls from his nether-regions.

No, he has praised the Captain America movies fairly consistently. And I think I maybe recall him once speaking well of Black Panther. .

Yeah, because in the minds of certain people, nothing says "He's a hatin' the MCU" like my grades for Captain Marvel:

Sitting somewhere between a strong C+ and B-

...and Black Panther:

Black Panther was a good, B+ film

Oh....

 

[Grendelsbayne]

What film were you watching, because every moment of BvS was about the consequences of the world's divided view of Superman in the wake of MoS--some seeing him almost as a "god" figure, while others completely (and realistically) mistrusting him, with Luthor and Wayne reaching logical conclusions about Superman as a threat--but for two reasons born of uncomfortable similarities . The treatment of Superman as an alien threat who answers to no one, and only reluctantly supported by authority figures was exactly how it would play in real life, hence the strength of the film with a realistic treatment of fantasy elements.

No, BvS is driven by Snyder's take on how people in general would respond to the presence of a godlike alien in their midst, in general. It's fairly realistic in that specific respect, I agree, but those elements have absolutely jack shit to do with resolving anything from MoS. The story doesn't confront Clark with any actual argument or confrontation or direct consequence of any kind about anything that happened in that movie, it just endlessly waffles on about 'Devil!' 'Savior!' 'Too powerful!' 'Can we trust him?' with Superman in the middle dying of indecision instead of learning or growing in any way.

Also, nothing about Wayne or Luthor's thought process in BvS was in any way logical. Luthor's thought process is never even clearly put forward by the film. It just kind of vaguely hints that he's jealous of power and that's about it. Wayne's plays more like a totally irrational mental break in which he apparently ceases to understand or care that Clark (and criminals in general) are actually still people. The movie also goes out of its way to hint and hint and hint that Metropolis was just the breaking point, not the actual source of his issue and further undermines any idea of logic with the Martha moment where he just magically flips a switch and suddenly is ok with Superman just because he saw a glimpse of humanity (as if that wasn't there all along).

No, it did not, as the audience first meets her in the mindset of being distant and wanting little to do with people until she has contact with Wayne. Her post war decision was finally explained in full in the origin film, but she only had a change in heart in helping humanity again once she is convinced not only by Wayne, but by his (and Superman's) dedication to fight what cannot be ignored, even if there's a personal cost. The funeral / photo coda of BvS was the perfect set up for not only the framing story of her own film, but again, explained what caused her to back away in the first place. This was no accident or production coincidence.

No it didn't explain anything. She has a nice little adventure with people. She almost succumbs to learning about the dark side of human nature. But then she gets over it and is totally fine with humans. Her own voiceover specifically says 'I used to want to save the world. To end war and bring peace to mankind. But then I glimpsed the darkness that lives within their mind ...and learned that inside every one of them... ...there will always be both. A choice each must make for themselves. Something no hero will ever defeat.. And now I know... ...that only love can truly save the world. So I stay... ...I fight and I give... ...for the world I know can be. This is my mission now. Forever.' Which is pretty much unequivocally referring to the events of Wonder Woman, not BvS. So this has been her mission for a hundred years now, yet in BvS she claims to have turned her back on humanity for a hundred years now.

Nope.. Anwar despises DC in general, and his endless rants about Nolan's Bat-films and now the Joker reeks of jealousy of the praise those films received, and is such an tribal extremist, he even hates non-Disney/MCU Marvel movies, such as Raimi's Spider-Man films. In other words, if its not the MCU, its whatever "hating comic books" / "setting superhero films back" nonsense he pulls from his nether-regions.

That has literally nothing to do with the paragraph you quoted. I'm not here to defend Anwar.

Yeah, because in the minds of certain people, nothing says "He's a hatin' the MCU" like my grades for Captain Marvel:

...and Black Panther:

Oh....

I literally mentioned you enjoying Black Panther in my post so I don't know what you're trying to prove with that. I'm glad you enjoyed Captain Marvel. I don't think I ever saw you talk about it before, so that's why I didn't mention it.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

No, BvS is driven by Snyder's take on how people in general would respond to the presence of a godlike alien in their midst, in general. It's fairly realistic in that specific respect, I agree, but those elements have absolutely jack shit to do with resolving anything from MoS.

Also, nothing about Wayne or Luthor's thought process in BvS was in any way logical. Luthor's thought process is never even clearly put forward by the film. It just kind of vaguely hints that he's jealous of power and that's about it.

You really missed the obvious; Luthor was not jealous of power in that way, but of an alien being considered a "god" by some of the population--a "god" who has every advantage to alter the destiny of humanity on a whim, yet in his mind, is no benevolent Lord, but an alien who has been just as destructive as he's been helpful, and there's no human authority to stop him (including congress), and what he saw as a negative effect on humanity's self-worth overall. He references this more than once in the film, and it consistently mirrors the hatred of Superman exhibited by Luthor in endless comics and animated productions of the past.

Wayne's plays more like a totally irrational mental break in which he apparently ceases to understand or care that Clark (and criminals in general) are actually still people.

He's level headed, so he would not see Clark as "people" but an overwhelmingly powerful alien force, which in the big picture, Superman is and always will be, no matter how much he tries to assimilate.

The movie also goes out of its way to hint and hint and hint that Metropolis was just the breaking point, not the actual source of his issue and further undermines any idea of logic with the Martha moment where he just magically flips a switch and suddenly is ok with Superman just because he saw a glimpse of humanity (as if that wasn't there all along).

Up to that moment, Superman's first encounter with Batman was to threaten him, asserting how he could kill him if he so desired. Not anything close to a "how do you do, pal?" but Superman proving he's a serious threat to humanity, which is the tragic part of his MoS - BvS journey, since he privately tried to be like humans, but his own instincts (and acknowledgment of his Kryptonian abilities) prevented him from shedding the "alien threat" cloak draped on his shoulders.

No it didn't explain anything. She has a nice little adventure with people. She almost succumbs to learning about the dark side of human nature. But then she gets over it and is totally fine with humans. Her own voiceover specifically says 'I used to want to save the world. To end war and bring peace to mankind. But then I glimpsed the darkness that lives within their mind ...and learned that inside every one of them... ...there will always be both. A choice each must make for themselves. Something no hero will ever defeat.. And now I know... ...that only love can truly save the world. So I stay... ...I fight and I give... ...for the world I know can be. This is my mission now. Forever.' Which is pretty much unequivocally referring to the events of Wonder Woman, not BvS

BvS established that she was not in a loving frame of mind at that point in modern history, That's beyond question. Her WW "love" VO is also about her present day beliefs (which the framing scenes lay out) which were shaped by her contact with Batman and Superman. Until that time, she abandoned that after the war.. .

That has literally nothing to do with the paragraph you quoted. I'm not here to defend Anwar.

You commented on him, and I'm being very clear about the galaxy-wide differences between his views and my own.

I'm glad you enjoyed Captain Marvel. I don't think I ever saw you talk about it before, so that's why I didn't mention it.

It was in the CM review thread.

 

[Anwar]

You really missed the obvious; Luthor was

A nut. He's constantly babbling on about God and infallibility and how he hates that Superman is perfect.

Yet if he had any rational thought process, his views on Superman being a God would've gone out the window as soon as he discovered Kryptonite.

You're describing someone closer to Zemo from Civil War.

He's level headed, so he would not see Clark as "people" but an overwhelmingly powerful alien force, which in the big picture, Superman is and always will be, no matter how much he tries to assimilate.

And then flip flops and calls Superman his friend after "Martha".

BvS established that she was not in a loving frame of mind at that point in modern history, That's beyond question. Her WW "love" VO is also about her present day beliefs (which the framing scenes lay out) which were shaped by her contact with Batman and Superman. Until that time, she abandoned that after the war...

Gal Gadot herself said that they were going to ignore what Snyder said about her doing nothing for 100 years. WW 1984 shows so. That stuff about "Love will save the world" is her feelings thinking about Steve, not Batman or Superman.

 

[Turtletrekker]

*sigh*

Anyway, Jeff Goldblum has confirmed that he has provided the voice for The Grandmaster for an episode of What If...? that will also feature Taika Waititi and the return of Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark.

https://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/1110355-robert-downey-jr-returning-as-iron-man-what-if-series

What if Iron Man fought in the contest of champions instead of the Hulk?

 

[Booji]

What if Iron Man fought in the contest of champions instead of the Hulk?

I see Tony turning his suit into Rumble from Transformers and piledriving Thor's head into the ground.

 

[Marsden]

I don't want this to sound too mean but maybe we should put Anwar and Trek God in a salt mine and give them mortae and see who survives.

I bet 500 quatloos on Answar!

And now for an on topic-ish post....

I've been wanting to ask the opinions of the posters here about a minor point of the MCU regarding something that's rather dear to me, Iron Man, and not the guy. The song. Black Sabbath is a thing in the MCU, Tony was wearing a shirt based on the Never Say Die album cover in Avengers. Also, when speaking to Rhodey in IM3 he is being critical of War Machine's new handle and paint job saying "I am Iron Patriot" vaguely like the intro of the song when Ozzy's heavily distorted voice says, "I am Iron Man".
Geezer Butler wrote the lyrics to Iron Man (in c 1970) to specifically not reference the Marvel Comics character that came out in 1963ish. Yes, I'm not a historian. So Iron Man the character existed before the song in our "universe" but in the MCU Tony becomes Iron Man in 2008, much after the song.

So, did Tony name himself Iron Man after the song?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Sure, why not?

 

[Samurai8472]

I think more out of the box. "What if...." Tony Stark was Ant-man?

Ant-man hall of armor?

Mark 3 Ant-man suit?

Basically Iron Man with an Ant-man twist. Howard Stark could have figured out how to make Pym Particles or after Hank Pym left in 1989.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

*sigh*

Anyway, Jeff Goldblum has confirmed that he has provided the voice for The Grandmaster for an episode of What If...? that will also feature Taika Waititi and the return of Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark.

https://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/1110355-robert-downey-jr-returning-as-iron-man-what-if-series

What if Iron Man fought in the contest of champions instead of the Hulk?

Hoozah! More Jeff Goldblum the better! And I like that idea for an episode.

 

[Christopher]

So, did Tony name himself Iron Man after the song?

Maybe, I guess, but the phrase "iron man" existed in the language long before either the song or the character. It actually appears in Shakespeare's King Henry IV Part 2, Act 4 Scene ii, as a metaphor for a man wearing armor! (Specifically the Archbishop of York during his rebellion against the king.)

 

[Turtletrekker]

He was given the name Iron Man by the press.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies