Should the MCU kill off characters?


Movies

51 to 100 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
The MCU project has been a long time in the making. It needs transitional sets with such a large scope. Actors "age out" or otherwise become unwilling to continue the role.
More likely we'll see a reboot of the MCU with new actors rather than this complicated killing of heroes you speak of.

I sound like a broken record here, but no. Please no.

To both, but I'd rather see the killing of heroes than a reboot. When the actors leave, write them out for a while, then recast and bring them back, if you want to. Keep things going.

Just don't restart and tell the origins all over again. Please.


Tacticslion wrote:

Banshee. It was a pretty big deal.

Callous Jack wrote:
He's already alive again, thanks to the Apocalypse Twins.
Tacticslion wrote:

He's what thanks to who?

Wh-...

... wwwhhhhaaaaahhhh...?

O.o

I still can't even begin to wrap my head around this nonsense, but what I am saying is that his daughter was right. Bet all those other people who pitied her are feeling like real jerks right now! The jerks!


thejeff wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
The MCU project has been a long time in the making. It needs transitional sets with such a large scope. Actors "age out" or otherwise become unwilling to continue the role.
More likely we'll see a reboot of the MCU with new actors rather than this complicated killing of heroes you speak of.

I sound like a broken record here, but no. Please no.

To both, but I'd rather see the killing of heroes than a reboot. When the actors leave, write them out for a while, then recast and bring them back, if you want to. Keep things going.

Just don't restart and tell the origins all over again. Please.

I suspect that the MCU won't attain a "reboot" threshold anytime soon. If anything, they'll transition to the 'newer heroes' for awhile before new people don the old mantles. Under such circumstances major characters getting killed off works just fine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I take some joy that having reaquired Spider-man... they are NOT doing an official origin story again. This tells me that they have heard the cries of annoyance from fans everywhere about the countless reboots at the theater... and are actually shying away from that. Makes me feel somewhat secure that we won't be seeing a MCU reboot anytime soon.

Sovereign Court

Tacticslion wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Banshee. It was a pretty big deal.

Callous Jack wrote:
He's already alive again, thanks to the Apocalypse Twins.

He's what thanks to who?

Wh-...

... wwwhhhhaaaaahhhh...?

O.o

That about sums it up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:
I take some joy that having reacquired Spider-man... they are NOT doing an official origin story again. This tells me that they have heard the cries of annoyance from fans everywhere about the countless reboots at the theater... and are actually shying away from that. Makes me feel somewhat secure that we won't be seeing a MCU reboot anytime soon.

I was *really* glad to see that in CA: Civil War. Established how long he's been doing it and a budding companionship with Stark. Rather nicely done.

Dark Archive

phantom1592 wrote:
I take some joy that having reaquired Spider-man... they are NOT doing an official origin story again. This tells me that they have heard the cries of annoyance from fans everywhere about the countless reboots at the theater... and are actually shying away from that. Makes me feel somewhat secure that we won't be seeing a MCU reboot anytime soon.

Yeah, I'm super-pleased that we won't have to sit through Spider-Man's origin story again, and kind of surprised that the Black Panther was similarly introduced as already costumed and origined-up (since we haven't seen his origin story twice in the last decade or so). Given that Black Panther is pretty new, that's pretty interesting. I wonder if Captain Marvel might similarly breeze past or skip the origin story and go right into the action, with Carol already suited up and ready for action (resorting to a flashback, at most).


A title sequence flashback will do the necessary telling, leaving the 90-odd necessary minutes to tell the main story for that film.


Set wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
I take some joy that having reaquired Spider-man... they are NOT doing an official origin story again. This tells me that they have heard the cries of annoyance from fans everywhere about the countless reboots at the theater... and are actually shying away from that. Makes me feel somewhat secure that we won't be seeing a MCU reboot anytime soon.

Yeah, I'm super-pleased that we won't have to sit through Spider-Man's origin story again, and kind of surprised that the Black Panther was similarly introduced as already costumed and origined-up (since we haven't seen his origin story twice in the last decade or so). Given that Black Panther is pretty new, that's pretty interesting. I wonder if Captain Marvel might similarly breeze past or skip the origin story and go right into the action, with Carol already suited up and ready for action (resorting to a flashback, at most).

Oh, I imagine if/when they do the Black Panther movie, we'll have at least a little on the original origins of Black Panther.

As it is (at least for those who know a little of BP), we saw the MCU version of his origin in CA:CW itself.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
And I don't see Natalie Portman ever playing a role with a helmet.

I don't see that happening either with this version of Jane Foster who a) hasn't had cancer, b) isn't a medical doctor, c) hasn't run around with Thor more than a few times and d) really hasn't shown to be much of an independent character like the comic book version has.

Liberty's Edge

GreyWolfLord wrote:
Set wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
I take some joy that having reaquired Spider-man... they are NOT doing an official origin story again. This tells me that they have heard the cries of annoyance from fans everywhere about the countless reboots at the theater... and are actually shying away from that. Makes me feel somewhat secure that we won't be seeing a MCU reboot anytime soon.

Yeah, I'm super-pleased that we won't have to sit through Spider-Man's origin story again, and kind of surprised that the Black Panther was similarly introduced as already costumed and origined-up (since we haven't seen his origin story twice in the last decade or so). Given that Black Panther is pretty new, that's pretty interesting. I wonder if Captain Marvel might similarly breeze past or skip the origin story and go right into the action, with Carol already suited up and ready for action (resorting to a flashback, at most).

Oh, I imagine if/when they do the Black Panther movie, we'll have at least a little on the original origins of Black Panther.

As it is (at least for those who know a little of BP), we saw the MCU version of his origin in CA:CW itself.

2018. And yeah, I expect a cursory discussion of the Panther God and the heart shaped herb.


Sure the MCU should kill off characters. Only if it makes sense and is not for sake of cheap thrills.

Dark Archive

Thomas Seitz wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
And I don't see Natalie Portman ever playing a role with a helmet.
I don't see that happening either with this version of Jane Foster who a) hasn't had cancer, b) isn't a medical doctor, c) hasn't run around with Thor more than a few times and d) really hasn't shown to be much of an independent character like the comic book version has.

Yes to all of that, and also, Natalie Portman apparently doesn't much like the Thor movies (nor Idris Elba, for that matter, which makes me sad, because Heimdall kind of rocks!). She'd be less thrilled with a role that pretty much calls for her to play the meek half of a character that transforms into a hammer-wielding Gwendolyn Christie for all the action scenes.


I am so daggone sick of comic book superhero movies that I sort of wish Marvel would kill them ALL off, just to give us a break.

Sovereign Court

Set wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
And I don't see Natalie Portman ever playing a role with a helmet.
I don't see that happening either with this version of Jane Foster who a) hasn't had cancer, b) isn't a medical doctor, c) hasn't run around with Thor more than a few times and d) really hasn't shown to be much of an independent character like the comic book version has.

Yes to all of that, and also, Natalie Portman apparently doesn't much like the Thor movies (nor Idris Elba, for that matter, which makes me sad, because Heimdall kind of rocks!). She'd be less thrilled with a role that pretty much calls for her to play the meek half of a character that transforms into a hammer-wielding Gwendolyn Christie for all the action scenes.

Source on Natalie not liking Idris! (that's juicy gossip!! :P )


The really neat advantage about Dr. Who is that you can have your cake and eat it too. The Companions are transitory so killing them off is no issue... and in a sense so is The Doctor, himself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

*isn't sick of Comic book heroes* I'm just sick of zombie apocalypses.

Sovereign Court

Thomas Seitz wrote:
*isn't sick of Comic book heroes* I'm just sick of zombie apocalypses.

The only reason the zombie genre has even become a genre is because of the social isolation paradox in our society these days (i.e. people are *more* connected digitally than ever before, which enables a lot of people to eschew real-world, live connections with others; e.g. lonely people still had to go grocery shopping back in the 80's, but now the Internet enables them to order their food online, which pretty much reduces their chance of meeting someone to zero; ditto on pay-per-view, online shopping, going to City Hall for stuff, and pretty much every federal or state services out there).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Purple,

Not sure that's true. People just like killing undead in my book. It's the same thing with vampire movies.


They could take Stark out of the picture by paralyzing him. I know it's not the kindest of solutions, but I could see it. And knowing Stark, he'd respond by finding someone even more obnoxious to take his place. And every time someone comes to complain at him about Iron Man still being active, he just smirks and reminds them he's still paralyzed, so it's not him in the armor.


In the comics, I think he just pretended for a long time that Iron Man was his bodyguard? That was harder to do for the movies, I think - but it might work if they did it seriously.


Didn't fit his character in the movies either. The ending, where he simply announced he is Iron Man? That was very much in character with everything he had done up to that point.

I've always found the movie Stark to be interesting because he is the one character you can measure the personal growth on, yet still very much see shades of who he was originally. But, at his core, Stark is a troll, and even in Civil War we see that evident in some of what he does.

That's also why it is I think that he would choose his successor based purely on how much it would anger whoever was his target of the week.


I think a lot of it would come down to trust and talent.

"So you're Mr. Stark's bodyguard?"
"Yes."
"So why aren't you... y'know... bodyguarding him?"
"Because [Planetary Disaster of Current Movie that the Avengers are Fighting] is currently the biggest threat to Mr. Stark. If you lose here, he's in trouble too. Also, he can hear you."
"Hi guys. Just hold up a minute while my new home AI gets me a drink - I don't wanna miss any of this. Good luck!"

...

I feel like they'd definitely need to have some characterization and not just be a guy with a super-serious, boring personality... XD


"Aren't you Mr. Stark's bodyguard? Why are you here in an Iron Man suit?"
"Fo' sheezy Stark-reezy wanna-beezy fighteezy!"
"... what?"
"Mr. Stark is paying me to annoy you. And fight evil."
"STAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARK!"


Eh. I just think the thing about Tony Stark, even without being Iron Man, is the fact he is just about the best engineer ever. He might not always be the smartest guy in the room, but he's usually in the top 5.

So having him pretend to be his own body guard...not sure that works.

Now if he got Rhodey to be Iron Man for him, that I could see.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Eh. I just think the thing about Tony Stark, even without being Iron Man, is the fact he is just about the best engineer ever. He might not always be the smartest guy in the room, but he's usually in the top 5.

So having him pretend to be his own body guard...not sure that works.

Now if he got Rhodey to be Iron Man for him, that I could see.

Worked for decades in the comics.


So did racist xenophobic slave owning Inhumans but you see how well that's working for them now if that's ever brought up again, Jeff.


Yeah, I more on board with just retiring characters whose movie series and arcs are basically done and have the MCU move on to newer characters.

In fact after Infinity Wars I'm hoping that most of the Avengers conveniently gone away and younger characters like Spider-Man, Ms. Marvel, Rick Jones and Nova take the wheel.


Delightful,

It's CAPTAIN Marvel, not Ms Marvel. Unless you mean Kamala Khan in which case I'm good for that too.

Nova is in a weird spot since the Nova Corps don't have Nova Force...yet.


Honestly, there doesn't NEED to be an Iron Man. That's the thing that bugs me the most about 'who could replace him' talk. There was no iron man in Winter Soldier... there was no Iron man in any Thor movie... or Ant-man... or Guardians. Doesn't mean Stark is dead. Doesn't mean he's retired... Just means he's busy doing his own thing.

Honestly, Stark is really the FIRST Marvel character I can picture 'retiring'. He's long been obsessed with whatever the newest thing is and gets bored with whatever else he was working on. He 'retired' in Iron Man 3... and he was working on the robo-squad of ultron so the avengers wouldn't be necessary... Signing up in Civil War was basically quiting too.

I really think he has gotten to the point where he doesn't WANT to be Iron Man any more, and would be happier just building something new and fantastic that a dozen other people aren't even thinking of right now.

Same with Spider-man. Two whole phases with no Spider-Man at all... doesn't mean he didn't exist. There was no giant portal that spit him out into the world once Sony made a deal. He was always here, he just didn't get involved with whatever mission was going on at the time.

There are limits to what a connected world can do.... and SHOULD do. We don't really WANT to see EVERY movie be like Civil War with EVERY hero in it... They get croweded. We also don't want to see Doctor Strange show up and rewind time every time Captain America is in a fight... That's boring.

If the Captain America trilogy is over... Stop making Captain America movies. Have him go on one of his road trips across America and let the new avengers have a movie or two without him. Iron man is in a lab somewhere... Thor is fighting frost giants... SPider-man was late and missed the jet to Latveria... There are literally a bazillion excuses about why XXXXX wasn't in YYYYY movie WITHOUT an onscreen death scene... AND leaving things open for a fun cameo or guest star in whatever next massive crossover movie is.


The only reason there needs to be an Iron Man is because the technology not only exists, but has spread outside of Stark. Technology like that doesn't just go away after it's had such a proven success record. They make more of it.

Yes, there has to be an Iron Man. Because if Stark simply retires, someone else will just pick up the name to use the fame for their own ends.


Crusinos wrote:

The only reason there needs to be an Iron Man is because the technology not only exists, but has spread outside of Stark. Technology like that doesn't just go away after it's had such a proven success record. They make more of it.

Yes, there has to be an Iron Man. Because if Stark simply retires, someone else will just pick up the name to use the fame for their own ends.

I didn't say there didn't need to be any armored superheroes... I said there didn't need to be an 'Iron Man' or more realistically a 'tony stark'. Even more specifically there doesn't need to be an Iron Man that has the camera pointed at him on the big screen... Now that the tech exists... there are a TON of Marvel Characters with tech based battlesuits... Armor Wars was based on that principle. 1) They don't need to be called Iron Man... and 2) They don't need to be on the Avengers. Those are characters best used as headlines on CNN or Daily Bugle to let you know they exist... but don't need to be important.

War Machine was a legitimate choice as a replacement... Pepper can get the Rescue armor... Or we can replicate one of the two dozen Avenger teams that Tony didn't bother working with. Before 2008 Iron Man was really a b-list character at best that Marvel had no idea what to do with. The idea of 'Recast or kill him' doesn't really make sense. Tony and Iron Man can easily be written off or ignored for any Phase 4 or 5 movies without the 'finality' of a death scene. I love how they name drop Stark in Agents of Shield, but RDJ never makes an appearance. He's there, the SHIELD deals with him off screen.


phantom1592 wrote:
Crusinos wrote:

The only reason there needs to be an Iron Man is because the technology not only exists, but has spread outside of Stark. Technology like that doesn't just go away after it's had such a proven success record. They make more of it.

Yes, there has to be an Iron Man. Because if Stark simply retires, someone else will just pick up the name to use the fame for their own ends.

I didn't say there didn't need to be any armored superheroes... I said there didn't need to be an 'Iron Man' or more realistically a 'tony stark'. Even more specifically there doesn't need to be an Iron Man that has the camera pointed at him on the big screen... Now that the tech exists... there are a TON of Marvel Characters with tech based battlesuits... Armor Wars was based on that principle. 1) They don't need to be called Iron Man... and 2) They don't need to be on the Avengers. Those are characters best used as headlines on CNN or Daily Bugle to let you know they exist... but don't need to be important.

War Machine was a legitimate choice as a replacement... Pepper can get the Rescue armor... Or we can replicate one of the two dozen Avenger teams that Tony didn't bother working with. Before 2008 Iron Man was really a b-list character at best that Marvel had no idea what to do with. The idea of 'Recast or kill him' doesn't really make sense. Tony and Iron Man can easily be written off or ignored for any Phase 4 or 5 movies without the 'finality' of a death scene. I love how they name drop Stark in Agents of Shield, but RDJ never makes an appearance. He's there, the SHIELD deals with him off screen.

I just have one question: Why does a future Iron Man have to be Tony Stark? As long as the armor is the same and the goals fought for are the same, you could stick just about anyone in that suit.

They don't have to recast or kill him. Just have him hand it off to someone else. It would be easy to justify, after Iron Man 3 and Civil War.

There's also the big problem in the MCU that those other armor characters mostly don't exist. That was made abundantly clear in Iron Man 2. A bunch of people in power armor showing up at any point would need to be explained, and they set it up so that Stark is the explanation. And I bet Stark's ego wouldn't let Iron Man simply vanish. It's his greatest accomplishment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the same reason they don't do that with any character: it's the person in the suit that matters.
In comics, they often play around with supporting characters taking on the heroes role, but that's mostly as contrast for the main character. There have been exceptions, but that's the general rule.

Some bozo gets the armor? He's not a drop in replacement. Why should the Avengers trust him? Hell, Tony was out of the suit as much as in it in most of the movies.


phantom1592 wrote:

Honestly, there doesn't NEED to be an Iron Man. That's the thing that bugs me the most about 'who could replace him' talk. There was no iron man in Winter Soldier... there was no Iron man in any Thor movie... or Ant-man... or Guardians. Doesn't mean Stark is dead. Doesn't mean he's retired... Just means he's busy doing his own thing.

Honestly, Stark is really the FIRST Marvel character I can picture 'retiring'. He's long been obsessed with whatever the newest thing is and gets bored with whatever else he was working on. He 'retired' in Iron Man 3... and he was working on the robo-squad of ultron so the avengers wouldn't be necessary... Signing up in Civil War was basically quiting too.

Some of them are going to be "retired" because actor contracts have run out. Ironman, Captain America, Hulk, come to mind.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Delightful,

Nova is in a weird spot since the Nova Corps don't have Nova Force...yet.

And most likely never will since MCU is setting them up to be space cops, not super heroes. Nova isn't exactly a character who can carry a movie these days.


Crusinos wrote:
I just have one question: Why does a future Iron Man have to be Tony Stark? As long as the armor is the same and the goals fought for are the same, you could stick just about anyone in that suit.

Because for this generation, Ironman is Robert Downey Jr.


Turin the Mad wrote:
A title sequence flashback will do the necessary telling, leaving the 90-odd necessary minutes to tell the main story for that film.

Now I'm thinking of an Up styled origin story.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Delightful,

Nova is in a weird spot since the Nova Corps don't have Nova Force...yet.

And most likely never will since MCU is setting them up to be space cops, not super heroes. Nova isn't exactly a character who can carry a movie these days.

A lot of people think that with the Nova Corps getting the infinity stone it will be the source of their Nova Force.


Caineach wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Delightful,

Nova is in a weird spot since the Nova Corps don't have Nova Force...yet.

And most likely never will since MCU is setting them up to be space cops, not super heroes. Nova isn't exactly a character who can carry a movie these days.
A lot of people think that with the Nova Corps getting the infinity stone it will be the source of their Nova Force.

Save for the fact that Thanos will be taking the stone away from them.

And like I said the movie pretty much locks the Nova Force as ordinary space cops, the way they never were in the comics.


Drah's right that I don't see how they could harness the power of the Power stone accurately enough to ensure they create the Nova Force before Thanos comes along and takes it. (Cause you know it's on the list.)

So while I am a little bummed they are space cops, I still hope maybe down the road, if there is a kind "reboot" coming, they fix that little thing. Whether or not said reboot also includes Mutants, Eternals, Galactus, FF, Skrulls, and/or Shi'ar...we'll have to wait and see.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Drah's right that I don't see how they could harness the power of the Power stone accurately enough to ensure they create the Nova Force before Thanos comes along and takes it. (Cause you know it's on the list.)

So while I am a little bummed they are space cops, I still hope maybe down the road, if there is a kind "reboot" coming, they fix that little thing. Whether or not said reboot also includes Mutants, Eternals, Galactus, FF, Skrulls, and/or Shi'ar...we'll have to wait and see.

Why would you need to "reboot" to add any of those?

The next alien race that shows up is the Shi'ar. That's all.


Jeff,

Because I also want the Phoenix Force and it's hard to get without mutants.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Jeff,

Because I also want the Phoenix Force and it's hard to get without mutants.

Wow, 2 things I absolutely hope don't make it into the MCU.


The first Avengers movie worked because the individual characters all had their own storylines in other movies, and finally, BAM! you get all of them at once. It's a lot of investment and buildup for a big finale. But now they're all there, and there's nowhere left to go. Just adding MOAR! random superheroes to the mix, like it will make a difference, still makes any post-Avengers I mashups a letdown for everyone who isn't a comics geek.

From an outsider's viewpoint, the Marvel universe seems to me to be absolutely overrun with superheroes now; it's amazing there's room for anyone else. When Iron Man stops for a cup of coffee, the barrista turns out to be MegaBarrista, who is ALSO a costumed superhero! (And all the other Starbucks employees worldwide are agents of Hydra, of course.) Keeping the X-men separate, in their own little universe, is helping to mitigate that somewhat (yeah, I know it's contractual rather than strategic, but it's also a stroke of good fortune). Keeping Spiderman and all his assorted supervillains, and Fantastic Four and their nemeses separate helps, too.

But fans love cross-over stuff and new characters, so it's constantly a losing battle to keep the number of superheroes to a reasonable level. I'd argue that they're already way past the point where any non-comics fans know or care who 9/10 of the existing MCU superheroes even are anymore. Killing them off in droves might help that. Call in an exterminator to deal with the superhero infestation!

DC is sadly following suit. The Nolan Batman movies were good because he was more or less self-contained. Adding Superman to the same universe makes Batman pointless and obsolete, but, fine. Full Justice League only works for a cartoon. Trying to make a series of movies starring EVERY DC HERO EVAR!!! would be an exercise in onanism on their part. But if it makes money, that's good enough, I suppose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Caine,

Aw! But then I get to see my ultimate villain cabal, Thanos, Apocalypse and Kang the Conqueror!

Kirth,

Nolan's Batman worked because no one thought to make Batman have friends. He barely had co-workers. Now it's like you can't stop it.

Also I don't want to see deaths of all these heroes. Mostly because I already see a world without them. It's pretty damn grim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

The first Avengers movie worked because the individual characters all had their own storylines in other movies, and finally, BAM! you get all of them at once. It's a lot of investment and buildup for a big finale. But now they're all there, and there's nowhere left to go. Just adding MOAR! random superheroes to the mix, like it will make a difference, still makes any post-Avengers I mashups a letdown for everyone who isn't a comics geek.

From an outsider's viewpoint, the Marvel universe seems to me to be absolutely overrun with superheroes now; it's amazing there's room for anyone else. When Iron Man stops for a cup of coffee, the barrista turns out to be MegaBarrista, who is ALSO a costumed superhero! (And all the other Starbucks employees worldwide are agents of Hydra, of course.) Keeping the X-men separate, in their own little universe, is helping to mitigate that somewhat (yeah, I know it's contractual rather than strategic, but it's also a stroke of good fortune). Keeping Spiderman and all his assorted supervillains, and Fantastic Four and their nemeses separate helps, too.

But fans love cross-over stuff and new characters, so it's constantly a losing battle to keep the number of superheroes to a reasonable level. I'd argue that they're already way past the point where any non-comics fans know or care who 9/10 of the existing MCU superheroes even are anymore. Killing them off in droves might help that. Call in an exterminator to deal with the superhero infestation!

DC is sadly following suit. The Nolan Batman movies were good because he was more or less self-contained. Adding Superman to the same universe makes Batman pointless and obsolete, but, fine. Full Justice League only works for a cartoon. Trying to make a series of movies starring EVERY DC HERO EVAR!!! would be an exercise in onanism on their part. But if it makes money, that's good enough, I suppose.

If the Nolan movies were good because they were self-contained, I assume pretty much all previous superhero movies were good for the same reason? That's pretty much always been the setup before the Marvel movies. You might have a team (X-Men, FF), but they shared an origin and a purpose, not a bunch of solo heroes teaming up, like the Avengers or the League.

You may not like the way it's going, but Marvel's new approach to superhero movies has been a far bigger success than anything else ever done with them. Functioning as a brand it's also let them sell movies and shows with characters who would never have gotten greenlit in the past - some of them excellent.

I'm certainly not coming at it from an outsider perspective, so I could be biased, but judging by how well they're doing, I doubt all the non-comics geeks have been driven away.


Speaking as a guy who has never read a comic book but likes well made super hero movies, Marvel's larger movies are getting to unwieldy with characters. The first Avengers movie was awesome partially because it had a decent but not huge team. As much as I liked civil war there were too many major characters. The nonsense that the infinity war movies could have 60-70 major characters would be completely unworkable.


I like Jeff's interpretation! :)


Browman wrote:
Speaking as a guy who has never read a comic book but likes well made super hero movies, Marvel's larger movies are getting to unwieldy with characters. The first Avengers movie was awesome partially because it had a decent but not huge team. As much as I liked civil war there were too many major characters. The nonsense that the infinity war movies could have 60-70 major characters would be completely unworkable.

60-70 major characters?

Who are we expecting to see in it? How many more are going to be introduced before then?

51 to 100 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Should the MCU kill off characters? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.