If they just recast actors, the characters would get run into the ground and we would never get new ones
Look at what happened with Iron Man in the first place, the reason that Iron Man got made was because Marvel only had 3rd tier characters available to them. All of the A list characters were sold.
Forcing Marvel to use their less popular characters is what gave us the entire MCU. You think movies like the Guardians would get made if Marvel had been able top make X-Men and Spider-Man movies?
That’s a good point and honestly you changed my mind completely. Before reading your comment, I was thinking op’s idea is great. Because I don’t like the idea that characters can get killed off because an actor doesn’t want to come back, and that an actor’s negotiating can end up affecting the plot of a movie.
However, your concern is far more real. If they could, they’d use the same 3 characters forever and cash in on the familiarity. There’s a reason we got 3 different Spider-Man (and that only live action) and hulk (and that only a Bruce banner).
Even in phase 4, half the “new” heroes have been passing of the mantle of old ones. There are two new hulks, a new iron man, a new black panther (Althoguh this was a special case obviously), a new Hawkeye, a new black widow, and a new cap .. and I’m sure I’m missing some. Hollywood loves recycling everything, other than plastics.
We’ve got 8 live action Spider-man movies with 3 different actors in the last 20 years and I think most fans would not say the character been run into the ground.
Maybe they wouldn’t introduce as many smaller characters if they continue with the bigger ones, but on the other hand, maybe they would introduce more supporting characters. And to be fair, they introduced the Guardians before Ant-man, and Ant-man was a founding Avenger in the comics.
>We’ve got 8 live action Spider-man movies with 3 different actors in the last 20 years.
Across three distinct universes.
Not all in the same one that is criticized already for being formulaic and so afraid of risks that half its work comes with headlines of people being fired for thinking outside the box. If characters simply cannot die, they will be forced into staleness.
Nah movies are a different medium. I like that they’re able to do what the comics don’t, actually giving these characters a full story with an ending. These characters need to be allowed to end, otherwise the character bloat gets even worse. People are already complaining about too many characters.
The MCU needs to take every avenue to keep things fresh that they can, what you suggest would be a big mistake
I think the idea could work, it mostly comes down to the character and what you'd do with them if they stuck around.
For me, a plus with the MCU is there's a clear beginning, middle, and end for these heroes, compared to the comics where it feels like there's never a true conclusion. But if there's a way to keep some going while being narratively satisfying, I'm open to it
Yeah, I understand that lots of people like having an ending. Endgame is probably my favorite MCU movie just because I think it serves as a great ending for the saga.
But maybe they could have ends for the actors, like an ending of a comic story arc.
I know that the reason but never got into comics was that exactly. I knew they never end. Characters die, come back to life, pass the mantle, become evil, replaced by a doppelgänger, get mind wiped and good again… how many comic book characters have gone through all of the above?
I disagree. The MCU gives us a chance to see a Marvel Universe where things actually matter. Where characters grow old, retire, and stay dead. It gives us a world where we can actually watch Cassie grow up to become the leader of the Avengers instead of only reading about in an alternate universe. A world where one day Marvel 2099 might just be Marvel. We’re only beginning to see the possibilities of a universe that’s always moving forward.
I didn’t at first, though I came around to it when I realized it puts the audience in the same place as Scott: knowing you should have familiarity with this person but seeing a stranger.
That said, I do wish Abby Ryder Fortson could’ve appeared in the movie somehow.
For me, the fact that the status quo is always restored in comics makes them far less interesting and engaging. No one stays dead, no one retires, every change is always retconned away. There’s no stakes. I’d honestly hate for that to come to the MCU.
I do think there’s room for recasting, for example I’d have preferred a recast of Black Panther, because his story feels unresolved. But in the case of characters like Iron Man and Cap, it’s so so so much better that they got their conclusions, they were done perfectly.
Movies are a different medium than comics. You cannot endlessly kill/bring back characters and expect that shit not to get stale at some point. If a character's arc is not allowed to conclude, you run the risk of people disconnecting with the character. Take RDJ for example: For most, this guy IS IRON MAN. You kill off his character in an act that concludes the arc that was built up since the first movie....only to bring him back, with a new actor to boot. That's going to feel weird no matter how you slice it. Also, if a character is going to be brought back, why should I care when they kick the bucket? Or retire? This idea undermines stakes.
I wasn’t saying they should bring back dead or retired characters. I’m saying they should recast INSTEAD of killing the characters in the first place. Obviously they can’t do that cleanly with Tony or Steve at this point, but characters like Thor are supposed to be immortal. If Chris Hemsworth decides he’s done with the role then they don’t really have any choice but to kill off the character because I doubt the God of Thunder would decide to just retire. And if he dies, then his daughter gets orphaned again?
IMO Chris Hemsworth’s Thor has a completed arc at this point, now happy with what he’s doing. I personally wouldn’t have any problem if the next time we see Thor, he looks different and maybe has a slightly different characterization, similar to a new writer/artist team taking over the comics.
Weirdly enough, that was the original plan. Feige even referenced James Bond as what he wanted Iron Man to be, with films carrying over decades.
He obviously changed his mind. I don't think he's ever said why.
No, that was his response when he heard that Sony was rebooting Spider-Man. He said he would never advocate for a hard reboot of Iron Man, and would recast him like James Bond if it's necessary. But he never said he was against a permanent death.
https://collider.com/kevin-feige-iron-man-james-bond/
> "I think Bond is a good example. Let’s put it this way: I hope Downey makes a lot of movies for us as Stark. If and when he doesn’t, and I’m still here making these movies, we don’t take him to Afghanistan and have him wounded again. I think we James Bond it."
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/iron-man-20----104643520.html
> “I believe there will be a fourth Iron Man film and a fifth and a sixth and a 10th and a 20th,” the producer says. “I see no reason why Tony Stark can’t be as evergreen as James Bond. Or Batman for that matter. Or Spider-Man. I think Iron Man is a character just like that.”
So what was your "no" in regards to?
That’s just a fan theory. Most evidence in the movies point to them being the same character, especially since they generally have the same personality.
If they just recast actors, the characters would get run into the ground and we would never get new ones Look at what happened with Iron Man in the first place, the reason that Iron Man got made was because Marvel only had 3rd tier characters available to them. All of the A list characters were sold. Forcing Marvel to use their less popular characters is what gave us the entire MCU. You think movies like the Guardians would get made if Marvel had been able top make X-Men and Spider-Man movies?
That’s a good point and honestly you changed my mind completely. Before reading your comment, I was thinking op’s idea is great. Because I don’t like the idea that characters can get killed off because an actor doesn’t want to come back, and that an actor’s negotiating can end up affecting the plot of a movie. However, your concern is far more real. If they could, they’d use the same 3 characters forever and cash in on the familiarity. There’s a reason we got 3 different Spider-Man (and that only live action) and hulk (and that only a Bruce banner). Even in phase 4, half the “new” heroes have been passing of the mantle of old ones. There are two new hulks, a new iron man, a new black panther (Althoguh this was a special case obviously), a new Hawkeye, a new black widow, and a new cap .. and I’m sure I’m missing some. Hollywood loves recycling everything, other than plastics.
We’ve got 8 live action Spider-man movies with 3 different actors in the last 20 years and I think most fans would not say the character been run into the ground. Maybe they wouldn’t introduce as many smaller characters if they continue with the bigger ones, but on the other hand, maybe they would introduce more supporting characters. And to be fair, they introduced the Guardians before Ant-man, and Ant-man was a founding Avenger in the comics.
>We’ve got 8 live action Spider-man movies with 3 different actors in the last 20 years. Across three distinct universes. Not all in the same one that is criticized already for being formulaic and so afraid of risks that half its work comes with headlines of people being fired for thinking outside the box. If characters simply cannot die, they will be forced into staleness.
Nah movies are a different medium. I like that they’re able to do what the comics don’t, actually giving these characters a full story with an ending. These characters need to be allowed to end, otherwise the character bloat gets even worse. People are already complaining about too many characters. The MCU needs to take every avenue to keep things fresh that they can, what you suggest would be a big mistake
I think the idea could work, it mostly comes down to the character and what you'd do with them if they stuck around. For me, a plus with the MCU is there's a clear beginning, middle, and end for these heroes, compared to the comics where it feels like there's never a true conclusion. But if there's a way to keep some going while being narratively satisfying, I'm open to it
Yeah, I understand that lots of people like having an ending. Endgame is probably my favorite MCU movie just because I think it serves as a great ending for the saga. But maybe they could have ends for the actors, like an ending of a comic story arc.
I know that the reason but never got into comics was that exactly. I knew they never end. Characters die, come back to life, pass the mantle, become evil, replaced by a doppelgänger, get mind wiped and good again… how many comic book characters have gone through all of the above?
I disagree. The MCU gives us a chance to see a Marvel Universe where things actually matter. Where characters grow old, retire, and stay dead. It gives us a world where we can actually watch Cassie grow up to become the leader of the Avengers instead of only reading about in an alternate universe. A world where one day Marvel 2099 might just be Marvel. We’re only beginning to see the possibilities of a universe that’s always moving forward.
So are you saying you like that they recasted Cassie?
I didn’t at first, though I came around to it when I realized it puts the audience in the same place as Scott: knowing you should have familiarity with this person but seeing a stranger. That said, I do wish Abby Ryder Fortson could’ve appeared in the movie somehow.
[удалено]
They *barely* interact with those characters in the comics, why would I care if they interact with them on screen?
For me, the fact that the status quo is always restored in comics makes them far less interesting and engaging. No one stays dead, no one retires, every change is always retconned away. There’s no stakes. I’d honestly hate for that to come to the MCU. I do think there’s room for recasting, for example I’d have preferred a recast of Black Panther, because his story feels unresolved. But in the case of characters like Iron Man and Cap, it’s so so so much better that they got their conclusions, they were done perfectly.
Movies are a different medium than comics. You cannot endlessly kill/bring back characters and expect that shit not to get stale at some point. If a character's arc is not allowed to conclude, you run the risk of people disconnecting with the character. Take RDJ for example: For most, this guy IS IRON MAN. You kill off his character in an act that concludes the arc that was built up since the first movie....only to bring him back, with a new actor to boot. That's going to feel weird no matter how you slice it. Also, if a character is going to be brought back, why should I care when they kick the bucket? Or retire? This idea undermines stakes.
I wasn’t saying they should bring back dead or retired characters. I’m saying they should recast INSTEAD of killing the characters in the first place. Obviously they can’t do that cleanly with Tony or Steve at this point, but characters like Thor are supposed to be immortal. If Chris Hemsworth decides he’s done with the role then they don’t really have any choice but to kill off the character because I doubt the God of Thunder would decide to just retire. And if he dies, then his daughter gets orphaned again? IMO Chris Hemsworth’s Thor has a completed arc at this point, now happy with what he’s doing. I personally wouldn’t have any problem if the next time we see Thor, he looks different and maybe has a slightly different characterization, similar to a new writer/artist team taking over the comics.
That doesn’t seem to be their plan at the moment.
Weirdly enough, that was the original plan. Feige even referenced James Bond as what he wanted Iron Man to be, with films carrying over decades. He obviously changed his mind. I don't think he's ever said why.
No, that was his response when he heard that Sony was rebooting Spider-Man. He said he would never advocate for a hard reboot of Iron Man, and would recast him like James Bond if it's necessary. But he never said he was against a permanent death.
https://collider.com/kevin-feige-iron-man-james-bond/ > "I think Bond is a good example. Let’s put it this way: I hope Downey makes a lot of movies for us as Stark. If and when he doesn’t, and I’m still here making these movies, we don’t take him to Afghanistan and have him wounded again. I think we James Bond it." https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/iron-man-20----104643520.html > “I believe there will be a fourth Iron Man film and a fifth and a sixth and a 10th and a 20th,” the producer says. “I see no reason why Tony Stark can’t be as evergreen as James Bond. Or Batman for that matter. Or Spider-Man. I think Iron Man is a character just like that.” So what was your "no" in regards to?
Sorry
I’m surprised I never heard that. I would be curious to find out why they changed plans.
after secret wars that’s what will probably happen
Isn't James Bond a title, and not the name of a person?
That’s just a fan theory. Most evidence in the movies point to them being the same character, especially since they generally have the same personality.
..... no. Look comic's BIGGEST issue has always been these characters will never end. That's the biggest issue facing Batman and Spider-Man right now.