• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

What grade would you give the Marvel Cinematic Universe? (Ever-Changing Question)


  • Total voters
    181
He does seem to take charge somewhat during a battle situation but at the same time it doesn't seem like their is always strategy. Everyone seems to mostly be doing their own thing, though everyone does have the same objective in mind. Of course their also what is going on when not on missions. They only come together when the threat is big enough that they come together.

Avengers (2012) was about the team learning how to work together. At the end of the movie, Cap steps up and becomes at least the field leader of the team. By the time of Ultron, the opening scene seems to imply he's still in this role and they've been working as a team for a while so everyone knows their role. I can't remember if he makes decisions during the final battle, or even throughout, without going back and having myself another watch. In Civil War, he's definitely the field leader at the beginning of the film.
 
Avengers (2012) was about the team learning how to work together. At the end of the movie, Cap steps up and becomes at least the field leader of the team. By the time of Ultron, the opening scene seems to imply he's still in this role and they've been working as a team for a while so everyone knows their role. I can't remember if he makes decisions during the final battle, or even throughout, without going back and having myself another watch. In Civil War, he's definitely the field leader at the beginning of the film.

But is Steve working as a Avenger or working with Shield at the start of Captain America 2? It's him and Black Widow and Fury seems in charge until he his, what would be a fake death. But at this time you have Stark back to working for his company. Bart is sort of retired. Not sure what Banner was doing. But I don't think it was field work were he was going into battle as The Hulk.

The impression I get was Rogers was working for Shield and Avengers is almost like a summer job that people basically take time off from their regular job when they need to come together for a bigger than normal threat. Steve is charge at this point but we are also talking about people who are not military soldiers. It's not a true military style chain of command. Even Rogers has limits as to what he can make anyone do if they don't want to. All of this of course would led to the dividing event in "Civil War." I
 
But is Steve working as a Avenger or working with Shield at the start of Captain America 2? It's him and Black Widow and Fury seems in charge until he his, what would be a fake death. But at this time you have Stark back to working for his company. Bart is sort of retired. Not sure what Banner was doing. But I don't think it was field work were he was going into battle as The Hulk.

The impression I get was Rogers was working for Shield and Avengers is almost like a summer job that people basically take time off from their regular job when they need to come together for a bigger than normal threat. Steve is charge at this point but we are also talking about people who are not military soldiers. It's not a true military style chain of command. Even Rogers has limits as to what he can make anyone do if they don't want to. All of this of course would led to the dividing event in "Civil War." I

How many films do you need to see to understand Rogers was the leader of the Avengers? Even in Civil War, the opening mission has Cap in charge--as always. Later, the entire team looks to / defers to Rogers' leadership during the Accords meeting. Why? Because he's--you guessed it--the leader, not some occasional appointee to the position.
 
It's also worth remembering that he pretty consistently is the person who say "Avengers assemble" and it's pretty much always the team leader who says it.
You have to wonder - to build anticipation - if are they going to cut in a glimpse of some of these returning characters into BNW (and maybe the FF as well).
I wouldn't be surprised if the Brave New World post credits scene sets up Doomsday somehow, probably a glimpse of Doom's mask or something. They usually use them to set up the character's next appearance, and in Sam's case, that will probably be Doomsday.
Actors aren't hired for the timbre of their voices, they're hired for their skill at creating a performance, at conveying emotion, at making us believe in the characters and the story. Mick Wingert is a good impersonator, but Downey is one of the great actors of our generation. The difference should be obvious.
It might not be the only reason, but it's sure as hell a very big one when it comes to voice roles. Especially with a character like Doom they're going to want to find a person with a unique, recognizable voice, who people will hear in Marvel movie, and instantly know it's Doom. I refuse to believe that the uniquness of James Earl Jones voice was not the primary reason he was cast as the voice of Darth Vader, that's the kind of character where you want people know it's him the moment you hear his voice. And a version of Doom where his face is hidden, is going to need to have that same kind of voice, and Robert Downey Jr.'s voice isn't quite at that level.
I, for one, have never heard of Ralph Ineson. But I would assume they cast him because they felt his performance was better suited for the substance of the character than anyone else, not simply because he's famous or has a recognizable voice or whatever.
Inneson was in First Knight, the last three Star Wars sequels, Guardians of the Galaxy, and the first Kingsman.

EW.com has posted a new interview with Julia Louis Dreyfus about Thunderbolts*.
https://ew.com/julia-louis-dreyfus-marvel-thunderbolts-2025-preview-exclusive-8741234
Getting a more in depth role for Val is one of the things I'm looking forward to with that movie.
 
Assuming that Downey is going into this as a character role rather than a Stark variant, the goal of a character actor is not to be recognized. If you watch a character actor perform and think of them as the actor instead of the character, then they've failed. The goal of a character actor is to disappear into a role, so that the audience totally buys into the character and their actions and emotions and forgets all about the artifice of the performance.





Actors aren't hired for the timbre of their voices, they're hired for their skill at creating a performance, at conveying emotion, at making us believe in the characters and the story. Mick Wingert is a good impersonator, but Downey is one of the great actors of our generation. The difference should be obvious.

I, for one, have never heard of Ralph Ineson. But I would assume they cast him because they felt his performance was better suited for the substance of the character than anyone else, not simply because he's famous or has a recognizable voice or whatever.
Downey is a good actor, at times a great actor, but one of the greatest actors of our generation? You've obviously never seen Dolittle...

Actually based on his "Welsh" accent in that film I can't wait to see what kind of acting choice he makes for a Latvarian accent!

Honestly there's a big reason Marvel have paid him the earth to come back, and it isn't for him to disappear into an unrecognisable role. But, like I say time will tell on this.

Ineson is perhaps best known for his role in Robert Eggers' The VVitch, and he's worked with Eggers twice more. A respected character actor he's known for a phenomenal voice, so much so that as often as I see him acting on TV, I hear him voicing adverts. Honestly I think his voice is the main reason the MCU have hired him for Galactus, and I think it's nonsense to imagine actors aren't hired, on occasion, for the timbre of their voice.
 
It might not be the only reason, but it's sure as hell a very big one when it comes to voice roles. Especially with a character like Doom they're going to want to find a person with a unique, recognizable voice, who people will hear in Marvel movie, and instantly know it's Doom. I refuse to believe that the uniquness of James Earl Jones voice was not the primary reason he was cast as the voice of Darth Vader, that's the kind of character where you want people know it's him the moment you hear his voice. And a version of Doom where his face is hidden, is going to need to have that same kind of voice, and Robert Downey Jr.'s voice isn't quite at that level.
Yeah there's a reason they didn't just go with David Prowse' voice for Vader.
 
It's also worth remembering that he pretty consistently is the person who say "Avengers assemble" and it's pretty much always the team leader who says it.
Didn't he only get to fully say that in Endgame? At the end of Ultron he starts to say it but the movie cuts him off. And I don't know of any examples of anyone else saying it.
 
It might not be the only reason, but it's sure as hell a very big one when it comes to voice roles. Especially with a character like Doom they're going to want to find a person with a unique, recognizable voice, who people will hear in Marvel movie, and instantly know it's Doom. I refuse to believe that the uniquness of James Earl Jones voice was not the primary reason he was cast as the voice of Darth Vader, that's the kind of character where you want people know it's him the moment you hear his voice. And a version of Doom where his face is hidden, is going to need to have that same kind of voice, and Robert Downey Jr.'s voice isn't quite at that level.

A vocal performance is not just about timbre, and Downey can modulate his voice from role to role. In the Sherlock Holmes films, he gave Holmes a more deep and booming voice than he gave Stark; to an extent, he was recognizably homaging Jeremy Brett's Holmes. I think a voice like that would be pretty good for Doom, though maybe that's because it reminds me of Simon Templeman's Doom voice in the '90s Fantastic Four cartoon.


Inneson was in First Knight, the last three Star Wars sequels, Guardians of the Galaxy, and the first Kingsman.

IMDb and Wikipedia say he was only in The Last Jedi, though he was also in the last three Harry Potter films, so maybe that's what you're thinking of. Anyway, I don't recognize his character names in either of those or GotG, and I haven't seen the others.

But my point is that it doesn't matter, that actors are not cast solely on the basis of name recognition. Whether you've heard of someone and whether they're the best performer to portray a character are two completely unrelated questions.


Downey is a good actor, at times a great actor, but one of the greatest actors of our generation? You've obviously never seen Dolittle...

First off, nobody bats a thousand, so it's ridiculous and petty to cherrypick one bad example as an indictment of someone's entire career. Second, I said "great," not "greatest."


Honestly there's a big reason Marvel have paid him the earth to come back, and it isn't for him to disappear into an unrecognisable role.

You assume that. As I said, it's foolish to think that audience recognition is the only thing filmmakers consider. Even aside from talent, this is hiring someone to do a job, to work with the filmmakers day after day for several years, possibly a decade or more for a role like this. What the audience will see for 2-3 hours every couple of years is a minor consideration compared to what it would be like for the cast and crew to work with a person regularly for years on end.

That's why it's entirely common for directors and producers to keep hiring the same actors to play different roles, like Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, or Alfred Hitchcock and Jimmy Stewart, or Joe Dante and Robert Picardo, or James Gunn and his brother, or the makers of Star Trek and Jeffrey Combs or Vaughn Armstrong. The actors they've worked well with before are known and trusted commodities, people that they know can not only give a good performance, but can be relied on to meet their professional obligations and are agreeable to work with personally. So it's natural that they'd want to work with them again. The only thing different about Marvel Studios is that all their movies are set in the same continuity. But that's a distinction that only matters to the audience. From the filmmakers' perspective, the continuity that matters is the real-life continuity of working together with someone for years and wanting to keep working with them. Maybe Feige just enjoyed working with Downey and wanted to get back together with his friend.


Ineson is perhaps best known for his role in Robert Eggers' The VVitch, and he's worked with Eggers twice more. A respected character actor he's known for a phenomenal voice, so much so that as often as I see him acting on TV, I hear him voicing adverts. Honestly I think his voice is the main reason the MCU have hired him for Galactus, and I think it's nonsense to imagine actors aren't hired, on occasion, for the timbre of their voice.

Again you misrepresent my words. Obviously timbre is important, but it's foolish to think it's the exclusive consideration.
 
Didn't he only get to fully say that in Endgame? At the end of Ultron he starts to say it but the movie cuts him off. And I don't know of any examples of anyone else saying it.
I could have sworn he said it at some point during The Battle of New York.
A vocal performance is not just about timbre, and Downey can modulate his voice from role to role. In the Sherlock Holmes films, he gave Holmes a more deep and booming voice than he gave Stark; to an extent, he was recognizably homaging Jeremy Brett's Holmes. I think a voice like that would be pretty good for Doom, though maybe that's because it reminds me of Simon Templeman's Doom voice in the '90s Fantastic Four cartoon.
The vocal performance might not be about how their voice sounds, but it's a huge part of why they're hired.
IMDb and Wikipedia say he was only in The Last Jedi, though he was also in the last three Harry Potter films, so maybe that's what you're thinking of. Anyway, I don't recognize his character names in either of those or GotG, and I haven't seen the others.
Yeah I got the Harry Potter movies and The Last Jedi mixed up when I wrote that.
You assume that. As I said, it's foolish to think that audience recognition is the only thing filmmakers consider. Even aside from talent, this is hiring someone to do a job, to work with the filmmakers day after day for several years, possibly a decade or more for a role like this. What the audience will see for 2-3 hours every couple of years is a minor consideration compared to what it would be like for the cast and crew to work with a person regularly for years on end.

That's why it's entirely common for directors and producers to keep hiring the same actors to play different roles, like Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, or Alfred Hitchcock and Jimmy Stewart, or Joe Dante and Robert Picardo, or James Gunn and his brother, or the makers of Star Trek and Jeffrey Combs or Vaughn Armstrong. The actors they've worked well with before are known and trusted commodities, people that they know can not only give a good performance, but can be relied on to meet their professional obligations and are agreeable to work with personally. So it's natural that they'd want to work with them again. The only thing different about Marvel Studios is that all their movies are set in the same continuity. But that's a distinction that only matters to the audience. From the filmmakers' perspective, the continuity that matters is the real-life continuity of working together with someone for years and wanting to keep working with them. Maybe Feige just enjoyed working with Downey and wanted to get back together with his friend.
That maybe true for some roles, but in this case it's very, very, very, that they brought him back because he's Robert Downey Jr. and he played Tony Stark.
And there have been a ton of cases over the decades where actors were horribly miscast, and only hired because they were recognizable name that would bring people into the theater.
Do you really think John Wayne was hired to play Genghis Khan in The Conquer because he was the best actor for the role, or just because he was John Wayne? I tend to think it's the former.
You seem to take a way more optimistic view of Hollywood than I do. It's business, and the top consideration is always going to be going money, and not what's the best creative choice. Yes a lot of the time we're lucky enough for those two things to line up, but that doesn't change the fact that money is more important the people making these thing than art. So if a movie needs a big name actor to get money out of people, they're going to put them front and center whether it makes sense or not.
 
Actually based on his "Welsh" accent in that film I can't wait to see what kind of acting choice he makes for a Latvarian accent!
Somewhere east of Olsen's Sokovian accent.
Honestly there's a big reason Marvel have paid him the earth to come back, and it isn't for him to disappear into an unrecognisable role. But, like I say time will tell on this.
Eh, the ad campaign will remind everyone that ROBERT DOWNEY, JR. IS VICTOR VON DOOM in Avengers Doomsday.
 
Do you really think John Wayne was hired to play Genghis Khan in The Conquer because he was the best actor for the role, or just because he was John Wayne? I tend to think it's the former.

The former? Apparently, Wayne fought to win the role (he was not the first choice, as it was a project originally intended for Marlon Brando), so his getting the Genghis Khan part was not due to his acting ability (limited range at best), but he was a star name. The rest is Worst Movies of All-Time History.


So if a movie needs a big name actor to get money out of people, they're going to put them front and center whether it makes sense or not.

In the case of Wayne and The Conqueror, it was a disaster of marketing at the time of its release, all thanks to one of the worst examples of miscasting in film history.
 
Sorry, I meant the later. I think I must have stopped writing and when I went back I forgot to check which order I listed the options in. It's one of the stupidest things to ever happen in Hollywood history.
I'm a huge supporter of casting people who fit the character's ethnicity, I'm still pissed they cast Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan. He did a great job, but I'm sure there a lot of Indian actors out there who could have done a great job too.
 
Last edited:
But is Steve working as a Avenger or working with Shield at the start of Captain America 2? It's him and Black Widow and Fury seems in charge until he his, what would be a fake death. But at this time you have Stark back to working for his company. Bart is sort of retired. Not sure what Banner was doing. But I don't think it was field work were he was going into battle as The Hulk.

I have always thought that the Avengers worked under the oversight of SHIELD in the beginning as a kind of elite squad that was called in for specific tasks. I've got nothing really to base that on other than the few lines of dialogue at the end of Iron Man 1 and The Incredible Hulk. Maybe Iron Man 2 mentioned something, but I can't remember. So Captain America worked with SHIELD and the Avengers. When SHIELD fell, The Avengers became more of an independent initiative working under their own authority as we saw in the opening scene of Ultron.
 
I have always thought that the Avengers worked under the oversight of SHIELD in the beginning as a kind of elite squad that was called in for specific tasks. I've got nothing really to base that on other than the few lines of dialogue at the end of Iron Man 1 and The Incredible Hulk. Maybe Iron Man 2 mentioned something, but I can't remember. So Captain America worked with SHIELD and the Avengers. When SHIELD fell, The Avengers became more of an independent initiative working under their own authority as we saw in the opening scene of Ultron.

That makes sense. I assume at this point Stark basically funded lots of things like keeping the Avengers building open. I mean someone has to be paying the electric and water bills etc. Granted as we saw in the Falcon and Winter Solider movie, it seems nobody was actually getting a paycheck for being a Avenger. Whatever money they go was from other sources. Though I wonder about Wanda and Vision. It's not like they could hold down regular jobs and I gather they just lived in the Avengers Headquarters.
 
You assume that. As I said, it's foolish to think that audience recognition is the only thing filmmakers consider. Even aside from talent, this is hiring someone to do a job, to work with the filmmakers day after day for several years, possibly a decade or more for a role like this. What the audience will see for 2-3 hours every couple of years is a minor consideration compared to what it would be like for the cast and crew to work with a person regularly for years on end.

That's why it's entirely common for directors and producers to keep hiring the same actors to play different roles, like Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, or Alfred Hitchcock and Jimmy Stewart, or Joe Dante and Robert Picardo, or James Gunn and his brother, or the makers of Star Trek and Jeffrey Combs or Vaughn Armstrong. The actors they've worked well with before are known and trusted commodities, people that they know can not only give a good performance, but can be relied on to meet their professional obligations and are agreeable to work with personally. So it's natural that they'd want to work with them again. The only thing different about Marvel Studios is that all their movies are set in the same continuity. But that's a distinction that only matters to the audience. From the filmmakers' perspective, the continuity that matters is the real-life continuity of working together with someone for years and wanting to keep working with them. Maybe Feige just enjoyed working with Downey and wanted to get back together with his friend.

Oh absolutely directors and producers like to work with regular muses, you could pop Nolan into that category as well given how often he's worked with the same actors, but in the majority of cases as you say they're playing very different roles in completely unconnected films. Yes to can point to the likes of Combs and Armstrong as actors who played multiple parts in the same shared universe but they are, with the best will in the world, jobbing character actors and, were never the main cast of those shows.

I can think of actors who've played multiple roles in the same franchise, Bond is full of returning actors in small roles but the only one who comes close to RDJ returning to Marvel is Maud Adams playing Bond girls in The Man with the Golden Gun and then Octopussy. Even then it's worth noting she was the secondary Bond girl in TMWTGG and I doubt very much Eon had to break the bank to hire her. There was talk of bringing Connery back in Skyfall but thankfully that never materialised.

And that's the huge difference here. I doubt Feige wanted to get back together with his friend enough to shell out (reportedly) a hundred million dollars. and frankly if that was his motivation he shouldn't be in the job he's in. Nobody's that easy to work with, and if RDJ was so eager to work with Feige again why did it take dump trucks worth of money to get him signed on?
 
I can think of actors who've played multiple roles in the same franchise, Bond is full of returning actors in small roles but the only one who comes close to RDJ returning to Marvel is Maud Adams playing Bond girls in The Man with the Golden Gun and then Octopussy. Even then it's worth noting she was the secondary Bond girl in TMWTGG and I doubt very much Eon had to break the bank to hire her. There was talk of bringing Connery back in Skyfall but thankfully that never materialised.

And that's the huge difference here. I doubt Feige wanted to get back together with his friend enough to shell out (reportedly) a hundred million dollars. and frankly if that was his motivation he shouldn't be in the job he's in. Nobody's that easy to work with, and if RDJ was so eager to work with Feige again why did it take dump trucks worth of money to get him signed on?
Joe Don Baker, Whitaker in The Living Daylights and then Wade in the Brosnan films? Only two movies apart, whereas Adams’ appearances were separated by a decade.
 
Joe Don Baker, Whitaker in The Living Daylights and then Wade in the Brosnan films? Only two movies apart, whereas Adams’ appearances were separated by a decade.
Mentioned up-thread, Charles Gray only had a single film (1969's On Her Majesty's Secret Service) in between his Bond appearances as Dikko Henderson from 1967's You Only Live Twice and as Blofeld in 1971's Diamonds Are Forever. Contrary to the opinion (or wish) of some, no moviegoer had the expectation of the actor's first franchise character to have anything to do with the second.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top