Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Hugh Neilson]

3 minutes ago, Starlord said:

Tony gives Steve the shield back, Steve dies heroically, Tony gives Bucky shield at end of Infinity War saying the world needs a Captain America.

 

Bucky plays Cap for a few movies, culminating with the discovery that Steve Rogers' body was experimented on by an alien race, and revived; Steve (new actor) is rescued and returned to Earth; Bucky takes on a new heroic identity (and a new actor) returning the shield to Steve Rogers, whose Super Soldier serum later fades, and he ages into his '90's, passing the shield on to another character...

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Seen any smash hit Superhero movies (with at least one or two sequels earning more $$) whose comics haven't been around for a decade or three?

 

The only thing that comes close is Jessica Jones, but that's not a movie.  

 

And that Superman guy, how many people have played him? Batman?  Three guys have played the Hulk, and nobody rejected the films because of the actor change.

[zslane]

I think the Ed Norton situation is a slightly unusual case because he was in only one movie and hardly anyone remembers that now (the same could be said, I think, for Trevor Howard in the role of Jim Rhodes). Chris Evans has been Captain America for nearly a decade, appearing (in some capacity) in six movies. He is Captain America to audiences, unlike Ed Norton who general audiences have little to no recollection of. I don't expect Marvel/Feige to install another actor and try to convince audiences that he's the same Steve Rogers they've come to know and love since 2011. If they do anything with the character after Evans leaves the role, I predict they will either hand the shield over to Bucky (for a while, to test audience reaction), or retire the character for good and simply move on with the "next generation" of Avengers in phase 4 without a Captain America on the roster.

[Hugh Neilson]

Roger Moore was James Bond for 10 years (1973 - 1983) and again in 1985.  Moviegoers accepted him succeeding Sean Connery (whose tenure was broken with David Niven and George Lazenby), Connery resuming he role in 1983, and then being succeeded by Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig.  And Bond does not wear a mask!

 

I do not think moviegoers will be as quick to reject a new actor in the old role as you believe.  It will be interesting to see the approach they take, and how it is received.

 

Jessica Jones "only" first appeared in 2001, so she has not been around for decades like the rest.  I would agree, however, that the Netflix characters are not nearly as iconic/household names, and have a much more sporadic publishing history than the early Marvel Movie characters.  Unquestionably, MCU is branching out into less known characters, with less publishing history, possible in part because they have established the MCU itself as a "brand".  I still don't see them killing off the better-known (now to moviegoers) characters, outside of characters whose franchise takes a downturn -- kind of like the comics themselves.

 

I wonder when we will see the first Avenger created for the movies, with no prior comic appearances (The Gifted has a few characters with no comic equivalent, but the closest the movies come is Phil Coulson).

 

[Lord Liaden]

Netflix superheroes not as well-known or iconic? I would call that "arguable." Daredevil has been the star of his own title at Marvel since 1964, as well as a big-screen movie. Luke Cage debuted in 1972, the first black superhero to headline a comic series. Iron Fist followed in 1974, having his own series for a while, as well as co-starring with Cage for several years. The Punisher also made his first appearance in 1974, and by the late Eighties and Nineties was one of Marvel's most popular characters. He's also been the protagonist in three feature films. JJ really is the "new kid" by comparison.

[Bazza]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Roger Moore was James Bond for 10 years (1973 - 1983) and again in 1985.  Moviegoers accepted him succeeding Sean Connery (whose tenure was broken with David Niven and George Lazenby), Connery resuming he role in 1683[...]

 

 

Woah... there was a Bond in 1683! 

[Hugh Neilson]

22 minutes ago, Bazza said:

 

Woah... there was a Bond in 1683! 

oops - fixed

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

Netflix superheroes not as well-known or iconic? I would call that "arguable." Daredevil has been the star of his own title at Marvel since 1964, as well as a big-screen movie. Luke Cage debuted in 1972, the first black superhero to headline a comic series. Iron Fist followed in 1974, having his own series for a while, as well as co-starring with Cage for several years. The Punisher also made his first appearance in 1974, and by the late Eighties and Nineties was one of Marvel's most popular characters. He's also been the protagonist in three feature films. JJ really is the "new kid" by comparison.

 

"Recognizable" to comic readers and iconic to the general public are pretty different things.  DD is the biggest of the Netflix characters - how well known is he to the average person compared to, say, Batman or Superman?  But he is the clear big hitter, in continuous publication for 50+ years.  Cage and Iron Fist languished in comic book limbo for a long time.  JJ is definitely the most recent of the bunch - and she dates back more than 15 years.

 

Let's compare - Hulk had a publishing hiatus in the '60s, has been published since and had TV exposure.  Iron Man, Thor, Cap and the Avengers also all published since the '60s.  DD is the only one of the Netflix bunch with comparable publishing history, and up to the dawn of MCU, I'd say no less known to the general public (the Hulk as the obvious exception due to that TV show), but not a lot better known either (that movie didn't do much).  I think the movies (early on, anyway) featured characters with a greater history of long-term success at Marvel. Black Widow and Hawkeye are closer to the Netflix characters in that regard.

 

The newer films?  Dr. Strange has less publishing consistency than DD, but probably more than the others (in the ballpark with the Punisher).  Black Panther, Ant-Man, GoTG?  Much more on a par with the Netflix picks. 

 

Over quite a few years, MCU has made some Marvel characters instantly recognizable to the broader public.  Is it likely they'll abandon those franchises?  Well, it depends how well those franchises continue to do compared to up & comers, but if they are still selling, I don't expect a little thing like casting a new actor to portray the character will stand in the way of more Captain America in the movies. 

 

Still seeing Star Trek movies with Kirk and Spock too - haven't seen Nimoy and Shatner for a while 

 

Now if the new Star Wars movies succeed in passing the torch to all-new characters, rather than re-casting the old roles, other long-running franchises may take note.  Will MCU take a similar approach?  I doubt it - the Star Wars characters originated with specific actors.  Cap and Iron Man were around long before Chris Evans and RDJ.

 

Pre-MCU, I don't know that any Marvel character could truly be called "Iconic" other than Spider-Man - even the Hulk isn't up there with the likes of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.

[Pattern Ghost]

I'd say out of the Netflix MCU characters, Punisher is the best-known to the general public.  I think Spider-Man, Wolverine, Punisher and Hulk were probably the best-known Marvel characters to non-comic readers prior to the MCU.

[death tribble]

There was a James Bond who died in 1762 so there would have been a James Bond in 1683 

[Ternaugh]

18 hours ago, Old Man said:

Just imagine what would happen if they rebooted Spider-Man with a new actor. 

 

18 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Nah, they'll never replace Toby McGuire.

 

[zslane]

No other franchise is like the MCU, and so comparisons tend to be superficial at best. For instance, in the James Bond franchise, Bond is the sole starring hero character. In the MCU, there are many. The MCU can carry on without a Captain America whereas the James Bond franchise can not carry on without a James Bond. It is therefore perfectly feasible to retire the Captain America character after Chris Evans leaves the role. Feige has deliberately arranged things so that there are new heroes to step in when the old ones step away (or die). There is no critical need to keep Captain America (or Iron Man, or Thor, or...) around just to keep the Avengers or the MCU going. Feige knows that, Marvel knows that, Disney knows that, and surely everyone here knows that.

[dmjalund]

King George II was crowned in 1683. coincidence? I think not!

[Lord Liaden]

There's a big difference between "iconic" to fans of comic books and cartoons, vs to the general public. Before this millennium almost all the Marvel and DC heroes were known only among the former. That includes some characters who are famous names now, like Iron Man, Flash, or Wolverine. If you want to talk about heroes with enough longevity and story significance to justifiably be called icons, their history in comics has to be the standard.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Captain America is pretty iconic, even non-comic people knew him.  And Spider-Man, of course.  Wolverine wasn't nearly as well known except to comic fans, nor was Iron Man.  The Flash was known about and of course Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman.

 

Nah, they could easily get away with changing actors on Cap but I really doubt they will go that route even though they ought to.  I think as time goes on the MCU will resemble comic books less and less and just action movies with an occasional odd ability more and more.

[zslane]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Nah, they could easily get away with changing actors on Cap but I really doubt they will go that route even though they ought to.  I think as time goes on the MCU will resemble comic books less and less and just action movies with an occasional odd ability more and more.

 

The only reason a movie studio would replace Chris Evans is if they had to. Feige has seen to it that they will never have to (because he has orchestrated better options), hence they never will. They may hand the shield over to someone else (like Bucky, as in the comics), but they will never try to convince audiences that some other actor is now Steve Rogers. I can envision no circumstances in which that would look like a good idea to Kevin Feige.

 

I think as time goes by the MCU will morph into separate franchises with the only thing tying them together being the occasional cameo from other characters.

[Hugh Neilson]

17 hours ago, zslane said:

No other franchise is like the MCU, and so comparisons tend to be superficial at best. For instance, in the James Bond franchise, Bond is the sole starring hero character. In the MCU, there are many. The MCU can carry on without a Captain America whereas the James Bond franchise can not carry on without a James Bond. It is therefore perfectly feasible to retire the Captain America character after Chris Evans leaves the role. Feige has deliberately arranged things so that there are new heroes to step in when the old ones step away (or die). There is no critical need to keep Captain America (or Iron Man, or Thor, or...) around just to keep the Avengers or the MCU going. Feige knows that, Marvel knows that, Disney knows that, and surely everyone here knows that.

 

No other franchise is exactly like any other franchise, so comparisons have variables.  Star Trek rebooted with new Kirk, Spock, etc. actors (any new characters on the bridge?).  Star Wars is passing the torch to a new generation of main characters - how successfully remains to be seen.  Trek could have moved on to other ships and dynamics (on TV it did, and the movies moved to ST:TNG for a time).

 

Could the Bond franchise continue without James Bond?  More challenging, but we could apply the 007 code number to a new agent replacing the former 007.  We could even use the code name "James Bond" in honour of the fellow who originally held the 007 number (or make it a code name from the outset - didn't Ian Fleming say he deliberately looked for a bland, ordinary name?). 

 

Practically, I would not be unhappy if they let characters die off, move on and be replaced, but that will eventually require them to create new characters, as the comics tend not to have characters depart on anything but a temporary basis.  What a shocker - Wolverine is coming back to life...

 

Recasting or retiring would be infinitely preferable to "a new patriotic hero with strong morals and ethics" who's not Cap but fills exactly the same narrative and dramatic role.

 

14 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

There's a big difference between "iconic" to fans of comic books and cartoons, vs to the general public. Before this millennium almost all the Marvel and DC heroes were known only among the former. That includes some characters who are famous names now, like Iron Man, Flash, or Wolverine. If you want to talk about heroes with enough longevity and story significance to justifiably be called icons, their history in comics has to be the standard.

 

Not an unfair measuring stick,  but I was looking for public recognition.  20 years ago, the public did not recognize Captain America.  Now they do.  He has become "more iconic".  Few Marvel characters could truly be called "iconic" pre-MCU, by that standard.  Not many in DC either.  He has succeeded on film now, though, so do we replace him with a new, less publicly recognized character, or replace the actor and keep the franchise going?

 

Really, Netflix seems to have selected the lower-key SFX characters, presumably for budget reasons, at least in part.

 

On publishing history, of all the characters on the Big Screen today, I believe only Cap dates back to the '40s like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Aquaman (there was a Flash and Green Lantern, but not the same characters - those four date all the way back, although Cap and Aquaman spent some time out of publication).

 

I would agree that, pre-MCU, Iron Man and Flash were far from iconic.  Probably only the Big 3 from DC (oddly, maybe Aquaman thanks to Super-Friends) and Spidey, maybe Hulk, from Marvel.  Not so sure where I would place Wolverine.  Ditto the Punisher, but I don't really perceive him as a "superhero" - he's more an action movie hero in a comic book (despite a background as a minor Spidey villain).

 

9 hours ago, zslane said:

 

The only reason a movie studio would replace Chris Evans is if they had to. Feige has seen to it that they will never have to (because he has orchestrated better options), hence they never will. They may hand the shield over to someone else (like Bucky, as in the comics), but they will never try to convince audiences that some other actor is now Steve Rogers. I can envision no circumstances in which that would look like a good idea to Kevin Feige.

 

I think as time goes by the MCU will morph into separate franchises with the only thing tying them together being the occasional cameo from other characters.

 

I would say "if they feel they have to" - does the studio feel they can make more money if they re-cast Cap than if they let him retire/die and be gone from the screen forever?  That will determine whether Chris Evans' departure will mean Captain America's departure as well.

 

Will they morph to separate franchises?  Maybe - depends a lot how the next Avengers films do compared to the separate franchise films.  Ultimately, the studios are looking for the option that generates the best return on their investment.  Hopefully, good movies generate good profits, so we all win.

[zslane]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I would say "if they feel they have to" - does the studio feel they can make more money if they re-cast Cap than if they let him retire/die and be gone from the screen forever?  That will determine whether Chris Evans' departure will mean Captain America's departure as well.

 

 

Well, Disney may prove me wrong on this, but I don't believe Feige and Co. will apply the same thinking to the MCU that has been applied (historically) to other franchises in Hollywood. It seems to me they believe they can make all the money doing things differently, like allowing characters to retire or die. As such, Chris Evans' departure likely coincides with a plan to retire or kill Steve Rogers, and so the question of replacing Evans won't even come up. Moreover, Feige surely feels empowered to do things with the MCU that conventional wisdom would suggest is foolish, and that's why the MCU is unlike any franchise before it.

[assault]

On 4/2/2018 at 5:29 AM, Bazza said:

 

Woah... there was a Bond in 1683! 

 

Of course there was.

[assault]

On 4/2/2018 at 7:34 AM, dmjalund said:

King George II was crowned in 1683. coincidence? I think not!

 

Born in 1683, so totally coincidental.

 

James II was the king of England and Scotland in 1683. He was deposed in 1688.

 

This would have presented some interesting challenges to James Bond's loyalties.

 

Also, was he Scottish or English? The United Kingdom didn't exist then.

[Bazza]

49 minutes ago, assault said:

 

Of course there was.

 

Not the one I was thinking of. 

 

Edit: he died in 1608

[Christopher R Taylor]

Bond was born in Scotland, but he might have moved to England and served the king there anyway.

[Doc Shadow]

Actually Bond was born in Germany while his father, a Scottish engineer for Metro-Vickers, was helping to dismantle the Kaiser's war machine in 1920. 

 

Read James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007 by John Pearson

 

Worth reading if you can get a hold of it.

[Bazza]

The first 007 was John Dee. 

https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/the-original-007

 

He was marvellous. He taught Nick Fury.

[Bazza]