Avengers: Endgame - April 26, 2019*

There's also been talk that Ant-man movies are done as well, even though the last Ant-man movie was a big hit.

 

Really? The hell? I'd wager that the only other Marvel character that has anything approaching Iron Man-level appeal is Ant-Man . Because people like to LAUGH. That's why Downey's portrayal of Tony Stark is such a draw; there's that balance between awesome heroism and comic relief. Spider-man 3.0 might get there, but so far he's been a little bit too callow.

 

Trailer was mouthwatering. Why the months wait. Ideal Christmas 2018 viewing complete film please.

 

Looks good - glad they didn't show too much - just enough in my book.

 

Will we ever get a third Ant-Man movie? Paul Rudd has a sort-of answer

"Ant-man and the Wasp" grossed over $622 million worldwide. However, it is actually one of the smaller earning Marvel movies, domestically. Ironically, the Ant-man franchise is one of Marvel's biggest in China, the world biggest movie market.

Box Office: Why 'Ant-Man And The Wasp's Huge Debut In China Is So Ironic

 

So is there going to be a new
actors to play IM,CA and Thor ?

X Men seemed to survive.

 

It wouldn't be much worth watching at this stage dude; it hasn't been edited yet, the voluminous VFX work needed has barely scratched the surface (according to one of the Russo brothers last month), it also hasn't been scored, graded, ADR'd, etc, etc... need I go on?

Patience is a virtue, April isn't that far away, be patient young padawan ...

 

Lol.

 

Personally, I'd prefer a Deadpool/Avengers/Ant Man franchise. The only Marvel character
I really still enjoy is Deadpool.

 

I wonder if Stan Lee's death factors into this endgame motif? Not sure how much input he was able to have on each of the Marvel films, but even if it was not much more significant than his cameo, it just won't be the same without him.

I really liked seeing Ant Man reappear. Regarding the success of Ant Man in China, I don't think you can underestimate the setting of San Francisco in the movies. Much of AM&TW took place a stone's throw from my office near Fisherman's Wharf, and I have to wade through literally busloads of tourists from China every day walking to work. I'm sure they arrived by the bus load for the movie, too. The way San Francisco became sort of another character in the AM films was a huge draw in Asia, I'm sure.

I agree that the Stark/Iron Man character is what defined Marvel and the Avengers arc, although Cap appears to be the most popular character. When we saw Infinity War in the theater, the entire crowd cheered when Cap showed up. I didn't even recognize him with the beard, but I'm getting old and I need new glasses.

 

They’re reading too much into Paul’s comment that “it might not happen” — all he is saying is, he doesn’t want to talk about the next movie before it’s definitely going ahead (or until he is allowed to).

 

Seems like everyone's focusing on Cap and Iron Man (Downey & Evans). Didn't I see that Thor (Helmsworth) and Hulk (Ruffalo) are also thinking about leaving the franchise? The crazy thing is, with the current trend in comics to simply make MORE of the existing characters, as opposed to coming up with something new & original. Marvel has alternate versions of EVERY one of the above-mentioned characters! So....who stays, who goes!?

 

Well, there could certainly be a new Captain America. Both Falcon and Bucky have been Captain America in the comments. Sebastian Stan and Anthony Mackie are both very popular online but it remains to be seen whether audiences would accept either as a new Cap. I could possibly get behind one or the other if the story was done right. They could throw anyone in an Iron Man suit (and Tony made the War Machine suit for Rhodey, of course) but it's Tony's tech. I currently think that Steve Rogers is going to die (sob) and they may have one of his best friends take up the Captain America mantel. Meanwhile, I think Tony will live but retire somewhere with Pepper and a kid. That allows the franchise to bring RDJ back for an occasional cameo if they wish.

Thor and Hulk are more interesting because both have unique power sets. Thor is a god. You can't just make anyone into Thor (I know Jane became a Lady Thor in the comics, but I don't really know how that went down). Based on the film franchise alone, I think if Thor dies that would be the end of the Asgardian influence on the Avengers. Hulk is a result of a specific thing happening to Bruce Banner. Same deal--I guess they could make a new Hulk out of anybody, but the interesting thing about that whole character is the fact that it's a giant monster who is really a mild-mannered and brilliant scientist. Plus, the MCU doesn't have the rights to make Hulk movies with him in the lead role so I think they will retire the character eventually.

TL;DR: I think they could make a new Captain America, but the other characters will all be retired when the actors are done with the franchise.

 

I’m not sure Hemsworth is eager to leave Thor behind, though his contract will be finished. The last Thor movie was the most successful one and he hasn’t quite taken off as a box office draw outside of Marvel, despite several lead roles.

And Ruffalo’s Bruce Banner seems under-explored... he still hasn’t played the character in an actual Hulk movie, though nobody seems eager to make one.

 

Spiderman: Homecoming (the first Tom Holland film) cost $175 million and made $880 million, so it's one of the biggest hit Marvel films ever made. I don't think Marvel Studios cares about "callow" -- I think they care about de money.

There are legal problems between Disney and Universal on making a standalone Incredible Hulk movie. Marvel has the rights to use Hulk as an extra character in a multi-character film, but they can't do a Hulk movie per se. I think Universal is holding out for more money. Universal also has the rights to do a Sub-Mariner film, but so far has not done one (despite announcing one several times in the last 15 years).

 

My comment had nothing to do with whether or not the film made money, I just think that if Spider-man 3.0 was going to take over Iron Man's position as anchor of the MCU, he's got a lot of growing up to do. IMHO they've overdone the "teen" aspect of Spidey a bit too much this time.

Of course, I don't expect that they'll try to make Spider-man the lynchpin of the story if the Iron Man saga comes to an end - I rather expect they'll try to position Captain Marvel in that place, but if anything I hear about Captain Marvel is correct, I think that'll not be as successful as they hope.

 

You spoke of appeal, not a position. If the public likes Spiderman enough to pay $870 million to see it, I'd say they're doing very well. Remember this is about show business, not whether or not you personally like the film or the franchise. And these are fictional characters, not real people. Nobody's leading the Marvel gang except for Kevin Feige in Burbank.

I was also doubtful about Captain Marvel when it was first announced, but I was surprised that the trailer was as good as it was. I wasn't initially planning to, but I'll definitely see it in the theater.

 

Hulk not want retire. 401K still too low.

 

so, where Galactus when all this was happening? What does he think about Thanos? Why doesn't someone put a bug in his ear? "Hey Galactus, Thanos thinks he's stronger than you...."

 

Marvel's Kevin Feige has been keeping the next phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films under wraps for the moment, but the three we know for sure are:

Captain Marvel (March 2019)
Avengers: End Game (April 2019)
Spiderman: Far From Home (July 2019)

I wonder if the public can take three massive $200 million dollar superhero action films coming out in a six-month period. The potential for burnout is pretty intense. If it were me, I would push everything further apart, maybe putting Captain Marvel in February, Avengers in July, and Spiderman in September (Memorial Day weekend). But I've been wrong before -- if the movies are well-done, if they have interesting plots, if they show us stuff we haven't seen before, maybe they could all engage audiences and be big successes. But there are people in Hollywood (particularly the WB execs) who would desperately like to see Marvel fail for a change. There's often a schadenfreude thing that goes on, where their own success is not enough: they also want to see their competition fail.

Now that Disney/Marvel owns the Fantastic Four and Galactus and the Silver Surfer and all that stuff, I bet it's very possible for that entire series to get rebooted and start all over again. And maybe it won't get screwed up this time.

 

Well, as I implied, I don't think that Spider-man is going to continue to gross $870 million if he's a teenage goof in every movie. I'm contrasting the difference between the hero-humor balance in Iron Man and the similar balance in Spider-man and expressing a preference for Iron Man. Not as a character but how that character is treated in their respective movies, so far. No need to fight me to the death on this, I'm just expressing an individual opinion and not claiming entertainment business expertise.

And I don't know where you're trying to get off with the "these are fictional people" comment. I'm pretty sure I understand that.

 

Why is not Universal making a Hulk movie?
Sony and Fox are doing their own Marvel flicks

 

He doesn't have to be a teen forever.
If they are making a third Spiderman movie he could be 20 plus, about the same age as the actor would be no? Just make him a grown man.

 

So are they're giving away part of the story for Endgame [by announcing a new Spiderman movie] before it's been released?