If Boseman had given Marvel a heads-up about how bad his situation had become, I think he would have given his blessing to recast out of his own respect for the character and the world BP created. But he didn't tell them, or let them be told, until the last minute which put them in shock and mourning and they did their best for their friend - not the character. It's a human reaction, and I don't disrespect it. I just wish he'd given them more of a heads-up.
Marvel Cinematic Universe Movies and Streaming Series Discussion
- Thread starter Ru1977
- Start date
Could we see the first trailer for Wonder Man at NYCC this weekend?
comicbookmovie.com
Stay tuned and stuff.
WONDER MAN Star Yahya Abdul-Mateen II Shares New Logo, Possibly Teasing First Trailer This Weekend At NYCC
Though he doesn't outright confirm anything, there's speculation that Wonder Man star Yahya Abdul-Mateen II is hinting that the first trailer will indeed debut this weekend at NYCC...
Stay tuned and stuff.
PanchaMaestro
Studious
What would Boseman know about symbols outliving people? He only played Thurgood Marshall, James Brown, Jackie Robinson & Black Panther.Whenever the Black Panther recasting thing comes up, I think what I would want if I were playing a popular iconic role and then died.
I know I would absolutely, incontrovertibly,want the role to recast and would deeply wish that the character would live on after me.
I’d be SUPER pissed if some folks refused to do that out of “respect”.
Pretty sure the climax of Secret Wars is going to be some techno babble / magic yada yada where to stop all the incursions they have to fuse like the last 3 realities into one. Combining the characters they want to keep with the space for reintroducing characters we want to see again. They will have to recast. They have come to the conclusion the D Listers won't carry the brand. Its the A Listers in the leads with B and C listers supporting is what they will want. It will take years from now anyway. By that time RDJ will have not played Stark in well over a decade. How long did it take for a 2nd James Bond? Maybe it works; maybe it doesn't. Either way they have come to the conclusion that their early delusions that Demolition Man and Stingray movie trilogies aren't going to carry them. GOTG was a fluke.
Probably true, but do they think X-Men and FF are D listers? Along with Spidey, Hulk, Dr Strange, Thor? They have a lot of A-Listers left to play with.
Given they are trying to do less films and shows, do they decide that people want to see Iron Man and Cap not played by Downey and Evans - that assumes the appeal of IM and Cap in the MCU for the more casual fan was those characters as characters, not the charisma of the actors and the main storyline being focused on them from the start (along with Thor). I am not convinced that, outside of the long time comic fans, that a non-Downey IM and a non-Evans Cap will be a big draw.
I believe they have also come to the conclusion that things worked best when there were a half-dozen or so key franchises and a few obvious narrative leads (Cap, IM, Thor and to some extent Fury as the glue) - to me the main problem is that they added too many characters as options and haven't truly established who the new "leads" are. Is it Spidey, who they have isolated? Is it Strange, who likely is meant to be but I think they made him somewhat unlikeable? Was it going to be Sam Cap, Capt Marvel or Yelena? Did they convince anyone that the anti-Fury Valentinia was really the new glue or did we guess from the start she wasn't? The main issue to me is the lack of focus - it is too sprawling and less focused on individual character arcs - of the new focus characters, only Yelena has had a clear personality and story development from appearance to appearance I feel with room still to grow, probably Kamala as well. Sam kind of as the new Cap. Everyone else is sort of just there.
I get fans want to see IM and Cap again, but I just don't think they will go that route yet, when they have all of the X-Men, the FF, Spidey, the "New" Avengers and the "Young" Avengers and more to play with. And I've said before, I think if they decide to bring back Cap or IM, they will do so as standalone film series this time outside the MCU continuity, like they are doing with Batman in the DCU, or kind of how Deadpool had been. Let them have their own look and feel and storytelling and not be encumbered by the current MCU mythos.
It is a shame we didn't get FF with the Avengers and Spidey for instance (X-Men, to me, are like the Guardians in that they work best in their own section and not overlapping too much with the Avengers/FF - but I may be alone on that), or had Silver Surfer around for the cosmic stuff, or had DD to interact with Black Widow or Spidey. But there are still a lot of combos and stories without IM and Cap and BP to explore.
Ru1977
The Irishman
I'm not even a Bond fan, at all, but I find this topic fascinating. Between Connery's last appearance in You only Live Twice and Lazenby taking over in Secret Service, it was only two years. Connery then did Diamonds Are Forever two years after that, then another two years before Moore took over in Live and Let Die. Two years between his final film, A View To A Kill, and Dalton in Living Daylights. His second, and last, movie was six years before Brosnan came on in Goldeneye. Four years between his final movie and Craig's version in Casino Royal, and it has now been four years since his last appearance.
So, 2-6 years but for the very first one? Two years, which apparently wasn't well received but Lazenby's was pretty different. I guess it's kinda like Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man: Different guy, different take, different tone, all that. By the time the third guy came around, audiences were into it.
PanchaMaestro
Studious
That's the thing. They have their A / B listers set up for After Secret Wars. FF, XMen & hopefully Spider Man (maybe a new one). Throw in perhaps some lingering characters that make sense; Loki, Strange. That's 2028. So the next few years after they are covered and start working on an Avengers plan with their main draw Avengers. Think how long they've been developing the Xmen since acquiring Fox. Multiple years to develop and we are talking 2033-34 or something. It doesn't really matter; not like they can just discard IP assets; we all know comics don't work like that. Some of these actors will be well into their 60s when they could appear again; not to mention they are too expensive. They will go in a different direction. They have to.
Ru1977
The Irishman
Agreed.
Also agreed. Marvel put a lot of care into their casting pretty much across the board, and for good reason. Yes these characters are classic and long lasting for a reason, totally get that. But now, the on screen versions... are their own thing. Just like how a film franchise, even if you get seven sequels... you still cannot tell the rich story with depth a comic series can. Even, say, a 12 issue run. Just a different medium, and the way the characters are handled, what is expected on screen, etc, it's all just going to be different from the comics. And now you have these personas, these faces, and a lot of weight from the performances, baked into it. Yeah, we've had all these Batmen, and Spider-Men, and Bonds, and so on. We've had some Bilbos even, and countless Sherlocks, and you can like one more than the others, or enjoy them all and still be hungry for yet another version, but Marvel did something here, with some of their characters at least, where the performer is a massive part of what makes the character who it is, and why they're so well received.
And that's probably true. Even with a tv series, you can have an A plot, B plot, even C and D, possibly an E sometimes... but if you have plots A-T, it's going to end up being too much, especially when some of those plots get dropped for years. I still think having some kinda culmination, even, or especially maybe, if you don't call it "Avengers", having the characters from each phase do something together. Does it always have to be a world/universe ending event that brings them together? Please, no. But like I said before, Thunderbolts would have been a great kinda template for ending the phases, with the saga coming together for Avengers 5 and 6.
I agree. Some great stuff was introduced, but it's like a spoiled kid at Christmas who admires the present for five seconds, if that, then immediately tears into the next. It would have been cool to play with a few of those for a bit before the next batch. Too many dangling threads is really something I think everyone can agree on. When almost every movie and show ended with a mild to severe cliffhanger with almost all of those not being resolved even still, well... what do you expect?
I don't know that I agree.... I don't disagree, but it's something I wouldn't have chosen, yet I'm interested to see if you're right AND how it plays out.
Nah, I think for the most part you're right. I enjoy when most of the heroes come together for something, but X-Men really are their own thing, except for something really special and monumental.
When Holland goes, we will get Mile Morales (and likely Spider-Gwen) is my guess.
I agree with this, they will circle back to the core Avengers but I think it will be a lot longer than people are hoping for - in Marvel parlance phases 10 to 12, while 7 to 9 are going to be X-Men/FF/Spidey and the characters introduced in Phase 4-6 that got some traction.
But by the 2030's, I think they wrap up the current MCU and go more standalone/less crossover individual franchises - or start out of the gate with a true Avengers run with the team all together in the Mansion and forgo the solo films. I feel like you could milk the Avengers concept of a larger team that has turnover (in the films that could be death, betrayal, new characters) to keep it fresh.
Yeah, that's my feeling - you can recast secondary characters like Rhodey and Ross and even Banner (as the draw if Hulk, not banner), but I would hate to be the actor that had to follow up Evans as a Steve Rogers interacting with non-recast actors.
Only Bond kept some of the supporting cast/bad guys the same from 007 to 007. Lazenby didn't work because he was playing the same Bond as Connery, while Moore seemed like a different Bond in terms of tone - and then after that each one was different, written a bit different, sort of like Dr Who were the personality changes some.
In retrospect, even though I wanted Agents of SHIELD and the Netflix storyline to get pulled into the main MCU during the first three contemporaneous phase, it probably would have been too much.
This is a good way to put it, and I think it became a problem with Phases 4 and 5 that within a minute of the credits finishing (for whatever film or series) we seemed to be directed to how that might fit into the next installment and be ready to move onto the next big thing. Nothing had time to breathe, and no individual storylines seemed to keep their own momentum without some other storyline stepping on it. At least to me - and I know, alot of that was bad circumstances possibly due to pandemics and strikes, but the while phase 1 to 3 felt like a summer Marvel Comic crossover event across multiple books that balanced the big story with the individual books, phase 4 to 6 so far felt like I was reading a months worth of barely connected comics...
It is all guesses of course. I agree that Disney is likely a little unsure of what to do next, and if Doomsday/Secret Wars doesn't generate interest from the casual fans, they may need to really re-evaluate. It doesn't help that the DCU is getting more hype as being fresh and interesting (at least for now) and that FF may not have been the launching pad they hoped for to get casuals back on board (a shame as it was pretty good).
Ru1977
The Irishman
Right, and in that case, going with Sam and John Walker were smart moves.
Maybe... the Netflix stuff were kinda self-contained, or at least within those series. AOS's biggest issue was what fans wanted to be its greatest strength: It's all connected! heh.
And I've mentioned before, I had a taste of that even in Phase 2. I can't remember if it was the trailer for Age of Ultron had dropped or casting news or something... something happened that got me REALLY hyped for Age of Ultron the same day I went to see Winter Soldier in the theater, and I had to consciously decide to be excited for the movie I was about to watch rather than let the anticipation for what was coming eclipse it. That really just got worse and worse after Endgame. Like you said, nothing had time to breathe.
Definitely. And another thing... I remember there was a guy who edited Phase 1 (and i think phase 2 later one) into a season of a show with 45-60 minute episodes. First episode introduced Stark, Rogers, Banner, and Thor, following them into their first acts across the first few episodes. Even though these stories didn't tie directly together until the final few 'episodes', they did fit together well, and ultimately did resolve together. I imagine that guy frustratedly tossing his computer across the room when trying to do that with phase 4 or five. Even if you take in bits from the shows, it's just... a mess. And I have never felt like every show and movie need to tie in together, because Phase 1 certainly didn't. Sure you had Fury and Coulson, and you had some artifacts, some mentions, some call outs, but they're really their own stories until they come together in the end. The Multiverse saga... even when things do tie together, they still kinda don't. Even all the multiverse stuff (of which there is actually surprisingly little for having a saga named after it) doesn't really go together all that well. And there is certainly no resolution where the strands, or even some of the strands, come together.
Right, not to take away from the DCU but... I mean, sure, it's probably gonna be great for several more projects, but it's just kinda funny to me how people are declaring it the best ever when we have a movie and a show so far. Hey, they're really well done, definitely, but come on.
but I do think they need to re-evaluate even IF Doomsday and Secret Wars are in the top ten highest grossing films of all time (adjusted for inflation). I will always maintain they need the big budget for that kinda stuff and should have more variety not just in genre but with budgets as well. Do some fun, small stuff that doesn't need to make a billion already.
Nope, still don't agree with that. And I'll tell ya why: Audiences are fickle. They shift like the weather.
Example: When it was announced that Michael Keaton was playing Batman, fandom lost their collective minds. "NOOOOOO!! What are you doing? Have you lost your effin' minds? He has no chin! He's too small! He's a comedy guy! Mr. Mom! He's all wrong!!!!! Boycott, Boycott, Boycott!" Oh, yeah. I remember it well.
Then Batman came out followed of course by Batman Returns. Sanity (such as it is in the world of fandom) returned. And then ... it was announced that Michael Keaton would NOT be returning for Batman Forever. And I shit you not, those very same "he has no chin" people were now jumping up and down and screaming at the top of their lungs "NOOOOOO!!! How DARE you?? Keaton IS Batman! No one can replace him! You fools! You've ruined everything! Boycott, Boycott, Boycott!"
I was talking to a guy at SDCC who was STILL pissed about Kilmer replacing Keaton. "It was such a betrayal" he sighed. "Keaton IS Batman". Yes, he went to see Batman Forever anyway in case you were wondering. And the Clooney Batman and the Bale Batman and and the Affleck Batman. No, I don't know why. It must not have been that big of a betrayal.
Yes, other actors can play Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, Thor Odinson and Bruce Banner. Other actors can even play Indiana Jones and Captain Jack Sparrow, blasphemous as that may seem to some. Yes, there'll be jumping up and down and screaming and wailing and whining. There may even be picketing. But do you think any of that will matter if Disney thinks there might be money to be made?
That's the bottom line with these corporations. It doesn't matter what you think or I think or the Keaton guy at comic con thinks.
Disney is not going to leave money on the table if they think they can keep these franchises going. It isn't just movie ticket sales. It's merchandising, video games, streaming rights, blu rays, video on demand ... It's all about $$$$$ to shareholders. They like their $$$$$ and to them that's all that matters.
This is the world we live in now. Disney's gonna do what Disney's gonna do and that's that. Sad as it is.
PanchaMaestro
Studious
I think there's something to be said for recasting characters that existed in other forms for being easier than recasting characters that were originated by an actor. Its easier to see someone else as Reed Richards than it is Han Solo.
But someone else did play Han Solo. It wasn't a great movie, but it happened.
Again, I don't see Disney leaving Luke, Leia and Han just sitting there. If they think there's money to be made, a reboot there shall be.
I know my corporations. Greed overcomes reason and common sense every single time.
Again, I don't see Disney leaving Luke, Leia and Han just sitting there. If they think there's money to be made, a reboot there shall be.
I know my corporations. Greed overcomes reason and common sense every single time.
altcunningham
Laura Rings Enthusiast
Even in the comics I just never jived with X-Men and the rest of Marvel.
It's so weird that being born is a crime, but everyone else who does drugs or has science accidents or is even born but comes from a magic or supernatural place, that's cool and acceptable.
X-Men is my favorite thing at Marvel, but I feel like it always works best in a vacuum, or at least not constantly bumping into people. And I really blame Bendis for doing that once he got new Avengers. Everyone hanging out, and also everyone suddenly speaking Yiddish slang so they also sounded like ultimate Peter.
Ru1977
The Irishman
I don't think anyone is saying it can't happen or even won't happen, but you kinda just proved why it shouldn't, heh.
Even though I did enjoy Solo.