Avengers: Infinity War (2018) (1 Viewer)

Disney announced today that the original plan to split Infinity War into two films (Part I and Part II) has been nixed. Avengers: Infinity War will now be one stand-alone film, while the original release date for Infinity War Part II (May 3, 2019) has been reserved for an "untitled Avengers project" yet to be announced. More details here:

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/d...finity-war-will-be-only-one-movie-1201826862/

[Bryan^H]

I would generally agree with that BUT I think they want to surprise people so they will kill characters off and then they'll have someone new take up the dead character's mantle. So when Robert Downey gets bored & leaves or when Marvel gets tired of paying him the GDP of a small country to be in a movie, Tony Stark will be killed but Riri Williams (or whoever is currently Iron Man in comics) will be in the Iron Man armor in a future movie.

I can see that happening.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I wasn't going to watch this movie, but I still like The Guardians of the Galaxy characters and think their interaction with the other heroes might be quite funny.

I think it is a sad day when I can't get excited about a super hero movie, but I have just seen so many and honestly they don't do much for me anymore. The first Avengers film and two GOTG films are the only ones I care about or would like to revisit on home video--I can't believe I bought every single BD of all the Marvel films released to this point and haven't watched about 95% of them(because I watched most all in the theater). And I don't plan to. That speaks volumes of the disposability of what these films mean to me. I just don't care about them after the first time viewing.

The DC films are a different story because those are the characters I truly like(and grew up reading the comic books), and seeing them all together in JL for the first time was very fresh for me(although some feel the story was stale). So I will continue on with those films as long as they are made...or until I get burned out on them whichever comes first.

Like any film, super hero movies aren't made for everybody. If I felt the way you do about these Marvel films then I wouldn't bother watching any of them except The Guardians of the Galaxy films.

 

[Sean Bryan]

I think part of the genius of the way Marvel has adapted these films is to keep the focus more on the individual character than the superhero that character acts as. So we spend much more time with Tony Stark than Iron Man, and when Stark puts on his suit, we feel that it's a job Stark is doing, not a personality that he's inhabiting (as opposed to Bruce Wayne "becoming" Batman). Even for a character like Captain America, he's better known in the movie world as Steve Rogers.

Avengers 4 will present a great opportunity to the producers to offer take-it-or-leave-it deals to cast members. If Robert Downey is willing to do future cameos in other heroes' films (perhaps similar to his Spider-Man appearance) for less than $20 million a movie, he could be offered a contract for those; if not, Tony Stark could die and someone else could take over. If Chris Evans can't be lured into signing another multiyear deal, then Avengers 4 can be scripted to end with Rogers sacrificing himself to save everyone and Bucky taking over the "Cap" mantle. Etc., etc.

Avengers 4 wraps next month, I believe. Any decisions about who may be lost or retired by the end of that story would have been made quite a while ago when these were being written.

But I could see either Downey or Evens (or both) having decided to make A4 their last. Really any (or several) of the original six could be dead or retired by the end of this. Though Thor has the most potential for future installments with him being "reenergized" by Ragnarok. But personally, I'd love to see one last stand alone Cap movie.

They have said that they plan on focusing more on cosmic stories after A4, and James Gunn is consulting with them on branching out what they do there. Thor would be an obvious fit with the newer cosmic stuff. And he could be used in interesting ways if they ever did stories that are set 1000 years in the future, etc...

But they clearly can't go all cosmic since they still will have stories to tell with Doctor Strange, Spidey, Black-Panther and Ant-Man on Earth (assuming they survive A4, which is likely).

Combined with them doing more cosmic stuff and having a bunch of other Earth-bound heroes there really wouldn't be a need to have someone else take up the mantle of any departing heroes. As you said, the MCU has made the appeal of these characters hinge on the person, not the "hero". So I don't think anyone would really want to see someone else in an Iron Man suit or taking on the mantle of "Captain America". We already have another person in an Iron Man suit, War Machine. But even though he has a similar suit he still doesn't feel very "Iron Many", since the appeal of Iron Man is Stark. So I don't think another variation of that would be worth it.

It would be interesting to see Barnes trying to make up for all of the horrible things he's done by doing as much good as he can. I could even see it working if he or Sam Wilson used Cap's shield (if Cap doesn't survive) in his honor. BUT I wouldn't want either of them to be "Captain America".

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Avengers 4 wraps next month, I believe. Any decisions about who may be lost or retired by the end of that story would have been made quite a while ago when these were being written.

While I agree that the decisions about how the movies would end were ultimately decided upon some time ago, I do think that it's possible that the potential deaths of characters could have been used during negotiations or discussions with talent like Downey and Evans. I believe that actors like Downey and Evans were already signed to do Avengers 4, rather than signing on specifically for that picture. It would be very simple to say to the actors, "What are your intentions beyond this film? Do you have interest in continuing for X number of films for Y dollars? If you don't, we will write you out during Avengers 4."

In the past, actors like Downey and Evans had all of the leverage because Disney had a plan leading to the end of Avengers 4, and they needed those people involved. With that plan now complete, Disney has all of the leverage because there's no more "plan" for those characters.

But personally, I'd love to see one last stand alone Cap movie.

I would too, especially since the last one was really anything but -- it was really an Avengers movie. And it was great. But it wasn't really a Cap solo film. Unfortunately, Chris Evans has been saying for a while that he's not as interested in making another solo film. We're lucky to even have him at this point. Around the time of Winter Soldier, he couldn't wait to be done with his contract and was opening discussing that it was too much work and too big of a commitment. Since then, he's changed his tune and seems more enthusiastic about doing these films, but I wonder if the way they got his enthusiasm back was to promise him less solo work and more ensemble pictures that pay just as much but don't require as much work from each individual star.

As you said, the MCU has made the appeal of these characters hinge on the person, not the "hero". So I don't think anyone would really want to see someone else in an Iron Man suit or taking on the mantle of "Captain America".

It just depends on whether they'll follow the comics - in the comics, Tony Stark isn't Iron Man forever, but when he's done, someone else takes over. In the comics, Steve Rogers isn't Captain American forever, and when he's done, Bucky takes over (despite his history as the Winter Soldier). They've been mostly loose with comic canon in the films, which I generally think is the right decision. It's much more fun to recognize the history of the characters without seeing them play out their adventures exactly as they appeared on the page, with no variations or surprises.

But they clearly can't go all cosmic since they still will have stories to tell with Doctor Strange, Spidey, Black-Panther and Ant-Man on Earth (assuming they survive A4, which is likely).

I agree it's likely they'll all survive. Certainly we know that Spidey will survive, since his post-Avengers 4 film has already been announced. Once again, I'd really love to say (to no one in particular) that it would be awesome if Marvel stopped announcing films so far ahead. I think announcing the titles in an individual phase is enough, and they should stop there.

Because Captain American 3 was announced before Avengers 2, for instance, we knew for a fact that Captain America could not die in Avengers 2. Now we know for a fact that Spider-Man can't die in Avengers 4. It's getting to be a bit of a drag to have all of these spoilers coming out now. Do we need to know for a fact that there will be a Spider-Man Homecoming 2 three years in advance? Did we need to know about Captain America 3 two years before its release? I think of these Marvel movies almost as episodes of a big TV series, with each "phase" working as a season. I would be completely in favor of Marvel just releasing them as "Marvel 1", "Marvel 2", "Marvel 3" etc., and being surprised what it was when I went to the theater each time. I know that the marketing people would certainly die of heart attacks if that was ever proposed.

It does seem that Marvel has been a little better about this -- right to not revealing the title of Avengers 4 because it'll certainly be a comment on whatever happens in Avengers 3. That was the right call. It would have been even cooler if we didn't know there was an Avengers 4 until after 3 came out, and then when 3 ended on a cliffhanger or a downer note, we were immediately surprised with a trailer for A4 during the A3 credits. That would've been awesome. But at any rate, it seems the existence of the next Spider-Man movie coming out now is probably more about Sony than Marvel, and the secrecy around the name for A4 shows that they are getting sensitive about this stuff at last.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

EPIC! Can't wait.

 

[Sean Bryan]

EPIC! Can't wait.

Hell yeah!

 

[Jake Lipson]

The first Avengers film and two GOTG films are the only ones I care about or would like to revisit on home video--I can't believe I bought every single BD of all the Marvel films released to this point and haven't watched about 95% of them(because I watched most all in the theater). And I don't plan to. That speaks volumes of the disposability of what these films mean to me. I just don't care about them after the first time viewing.

I am the other way around.

I saw the first Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk in theaters. Liked Iron Man, didn't overwhelmingly love it. I then skipped all the other Phase 1 films until I heard that The Avengers was good, then went back and watched those at home to catch up for Avengers. Since then, I have seen every MCU film in theaters and am happy to continue doing so as long as they maintain their current overall quality level.

However, I'm decidedly pickier about which ones I want to buy and revisit. I own the original Avengers, the two Captain America sequels (but not the first one), and both Guardians of the Galaxy films. That's currently it. Of those, the Guardians films get the most replay, and I think they are head and shoulders above pretty much everything else in the MCU (which I also like very much, but these two are just extra special to me.)

I'll also say that the other Marvel adaptations from other studios which I own don't get a lot of play from me anymore either. I know they're not the MCU, but for X-Men, I have the original trilogy Blu-ray box set, plus First Class and Days of Future Past. For Spider-Man, I've got the Raimi trilogy on DVD and the first Amazing Spider-Man on Blu. I really loved most of those when they were new but I have yet to feel enough impulse to watch them that much to upgrade the first two in the Raimi series. (A barebones copy of the third one came with my original Blu-ray player, not coincidentally a Sony, which was purchased in December 2007.) I'll get them eventually, but as we get more and more of these superhero films, I find myself spending less and less time going back to the older ones, even the older ones I really liked. I'll keep up on what's new, but it's got to be really special to draw me back in. The most frequently-watched superhero film in my collection is The Incredibles.

Also, I have thus far almost completely ignored the Marvel TV side of things. I just don't want to make that much of a commitment. I watched the first few episodes of the first season of Agents of SHIELD while they were airing and it wasn't very good so I stopped watching and haven't felt any desire to get back into it.

Plus, I think the resurrection of Agent Coulson significantly undermines the emotional core of The Avengers film, where Whedon clearly intended to pack a punch by him staying dead, until some network executive said, "Oh, wait, we need a lead for this TV side project and Samuel L. Jackson is too expensive." When I saw The Avengers in the theater, before the TV show was a thing, I was really quite taken aback by Whedon's nerve and bravado in killing him off and making us feel that, and that surprise gut punch is entirely deflated by his return (which, probably not coincidentally, hasn't been mentioned in the films since.)

I'm sure the Netflix shows are better and I've heard good things about them, but they're now doing the team-up thing, too, and I don't want to have to watch every episode of every show to understand one thing on one show that I actually want to watch. It's fun and relatively easy to track connections through movies when it's two or three of them per year, but I don't want to get that deeply involved in a TV side where there's just so much content. I watch enough standalone TV shows without having to add five or six shows that interconnect with each other where you've got to track everything or you might get lost.

 

[Nigel P]

Because Captain American 3 was announced before Avengers 2, for instance, we knew for a fact that Captain America could not die in Avengers 2. Now we know for a fact that Spider-Man can't die in Avengers 4. It's getting to be a bit of a drag to have all of these spoilers coming out now. Do we need to know for a fact that there will be a Spider-Man Homecoming 2 three years in advance? Did we need to know about Captain America 3 two years before its release? I think of these Marvel movies almost as episodes of a big TV series, with each "phase" working as a season. I would be completely in favor of Marvel just releasing them as "Marvel 1", "Marvel 2", "Marvel 3" etc., and being surprised what it was when I went to the theater each time. I know that the marketing people would certainly die of heart attacks if that was ever proposed.

It does seem that Marvel has been a little better about this -- right to not revealing the title of Avengers 4 because it'll certainly be a comment on whatever happens in Avengers 3. That was the right call. It would have been even cooler if we didn't know there was an Avengers 4 until after 3 came out, and then when 3 ended on a cliffhanger or a downer note, we were immediately surprised with a trailer for A4 during the A3 credits. That would've been awesome. But at any rate, it seems the existence of the next Spider-Man movie coming out now is probably more about Sony than Marvel, and the secrecy around the name for A4 shows that they are getting sensitive about this stuff at last.

I agree with what you say, but I am not sure how much of that is possible in the world we live in. I think Marvel do pretty well with keeping secrets, but even now there are articles on who is in what film long before they come out. Personally I would certainly turn up to watch any MCU film totally blind, but it was cool having an announcement that we were getting Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Captain Marvel and Inhumans (RIP). It will be interesting to see what we get post Avengers 4 as Kevin Feige has promised something very different.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

I've been gradually showing these movies to my parents, who are 80ish. They find these movies overwhelming, to say the least. Every time we watch one, their eyes are left smoking and their false teeth fall out.

My mom loves Guardians of the Galaxy and thought Ant-Man was neat. She was impressed by the Nick Fury car chase in The Winter Soldier. She said she's seen a lot of car chases, and that one surprised the hell out of her.

My dad (correctly) wondered how Iron Man's suit could possibly dissipate all the heat it must be generating, and then wondered how much drugs the filmmakers must have taken to produce the images he was seeing on-screen.

 

[Malcolm R]

As you said, the MCU has made the appeal of these characters hinge on the person, not the "hero". So I don't think anyone would really want to see someone else in an Iron Man suit or taking on the mantle of "Captain America".

It will be an interesting "test" of the Marvel brand to see if they can sustain the same level of success when they have to produce a film with a different actor playing a popular character. Many of these characters are pretty iconic and tied to the specific actor in the minds of the public. You say "Thor" and people picture Chris Hemsworth; you say "Iron Man" and they see Robert Downey Jr.

That level of connection and excitement can be difficult to achieve, so they could be hard to replace. If you say "Hulk," no one thinks of Eric Bana. Andrew Garfield wasn't a popular Spidey. We've had three Fantastic Four films, but they've never got them quite right.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

I wonder about Bucky and his arm. When they reattached it (presumably; not a brand-new arm), he was cool with leaving the Soviet red star on? I'd be like, "Yeah, no change it to a unicorn or something else. Maybe an anchor with MOM under it. Bad memories."

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Presumably it was reattached in a hurry, cause, you know, the world was ending and his services were needed.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

GET THIS MAN AN ARM!

 

[Greg_S_H]

I wonder about Bucky and his arm. When they reattached it (presumably; not a brand-new arm), he was cool with leaving the Soviet red star on? I'd be like, "Yeah, no change it to a unicorn or something else. Maybe an anchor with MOM under it. Bad memories."

How about “Wino Forever?”

 

[Sean Bryan]

I wonder about Bucky and his arm. When they reattached it (presumably; not a brand-new arm), he was cool with leaving the Soviet red star on? I'd be like, "Yeah, no change it to a unicorn or something else. Maybe an anchor with MOM under it. Bad memories."

I'm inclined to think that the Wakandans construct him a fancy new vibranium arm after they scrub out his Hydra programming. But I didn't notice the red star on it in the trailer, was there a shot where you can see the red star?

A quick reattachment is a possibility, but I'd find that a little iffy for two reasons:

1) Iron Man's unibeam chest blast didn't seem to be a "clean cut". It looked to me like a good chunk of it was gone.

2) When Cap carried Bucky out of there, neither was holding Bucky's arm. Cap had his shield, which he dropped. And Bucky certainly wasn't holding anything.

I'll have to look through the trailer to see if there is a red star.

 

[Sean Bryan]

I don’t see the star here. I think it’s a new arm.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

I don't see Bucky at all in those pictures..... Oh wait, there he is. Sorry, I must have been distracted.

 

[TravisR]

I don't see Bucky at all in those pictures..... Oh wait, there he is. Sorry, I must have been distracted.

Yeah, the Fantastic Two distracted me.

 

[Sean Bryan]

 

[Jake Lipson]

This, courtesy IGN, is pretty entertaining -- and the footage selected is a pretty decent match most of the time, too, which only makes it funnier.