The Avengers (SPOILERS BEWARE0

[Azgulor]

Having some spellcheck issues there, Plane?


Never happen. And probably shouldn't happen. Audiences will want new stuff. If nothing else, they'll want to keep seeing superhero-versus-superhero action. Can't have Iron Man, Thor, and Cap mixing it up again, can we?

Since characters can be introduced in Marvel films leading into the Avengers (as you noted) then the concerns you have are largely addressed.

So audiences want new stuff, but need to see the same old stuff (superhero vs. superhero)? Which is it?

And no, intros in other films don't address it. If the Avenger roster doubles, you can't provide a balance of story/screen time to each character. Avengers already clocks in at 2.5 hours. Additionally, if I'm using solo-hero films to intro or develop characters just to avoid future Avenger plot-time, I still have the problem of # of contractual appearances. Also, you've got the budget of a single Avenger film to consider. If Ant Man also showcases an actor for Wasp, Vision, Ultron, etc. I'm adding to the budget of future Avengers installments.

Avengers is a runaway success. While I'd love to see Avengers 2 & 3 have equal success, the odss are against it being of the same magnitude.

For every fan who says "add my personal favorite Avenger", someone else's favorite is getting short shrift or reduced time. And there are a TON of Avengers.

They'd actually be better off doing spin-off Avenger teams ala West Coast Avengers/JL International where they could showcase more characters without mucking with the core team.

Also, my gut tells me that if we see any new Avengers, they'll be trying to diversify the team. My money would be on Scarlet Witch, Ms. Marvel, or Wasp, Falcon, and/or Luke Cage. But yeah, I'd love to see the Vision as well. However, I realize all the plot baggage that entails and think it would be better served in Ant-Man movies.

 

[Azgulor]

Additionally, there's the element of villain character development to consider. In the comics, Loki was the Avengers first opponent. Loki was established in Thor.

Moving forward, they'll likely not have that advantage. The villain characters will need to be established as well. In most cases, establishing the villain is MORE important once the heroes are familiar. (Ala The Dark Knight)

Thanos still feels like a build-up bad guy to me (unless that build-up happens in Thor 2). I could see a Masters of Evil or similar threat in Avengers 2. That could be a lot of characters to introduce right there. (as an example)

 

[Joker]

Having some spellcheck issues there, Plane?


Never happen. And probably shouldn't happen. Audiences will want new stuff. If nothing else, they'll want to keep seeing superhero-versus-superhero action. Can't have Iron Man, Thor, and Cap mixing it up again, can we?

Since characters can be introduced in Marvel films leading into the Avengers (as you noted) then the concerns you have are largely addressed.

I don't think that's true. People generally care about interesting characters in a well written and well developed story. You still need new antagonists, new challenges to overcome and some development in the existing characters.
You might get new characters to fulfill the role of expired characters but it isn't required.

I'm not saying new characters are bad, I just don't think that they are a must in sequels.

 

[Felon]

So audiences want new stuff, but need to see the same old stuff (superhero vs. superhero)? Which is it?

Both. Most moviegoers want to see something fresh and new...as long as it's familia and doesn't defy expectations. They want variation on a theme, not originality. Producers have known this paradox for years, and Avatar is the Q.E.D.

In this case, the Vision shows up, and there's a knock-down drag-out fight. Heck, him and Wonder Man going at it was one of my earliest childhood memories.

Also, my gut tells me that if we see any new Avengers, they'll be trying to diversify the team. My money would be on Scarlet Witch, Ms. Marvel, or Wasp, Falcon, and/or Luke Cage. But yeah, I'd love to see the Vision as well. However, I realize all the plot baggage that entails and think it would be better served in Ant-Man movies.

You left out Black Panter. He's probably the best of the token crowd, because the whole way he's been re-imagined with the Wakandan element over the last twenty years is actually pretty novel amongst superheroes. For a Batmanesque character, he's very un-Batmanesque--in other words, he's a good variation on a theme.

 

[Azgulor]

Gah! Black Panther was the one I was trying to remember! He's a favorite of mine and my kids.

 

[Felon]

You guys watch Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes? BP's under-utilized in terms of spotlight time, but he's pretty formidable nonetheless.

 

[fanboy2000]

In addition to Black Panther, Captain Britain would be a good addition. Both are nationals of other countries, which would add to the the international feel of team.

Also, it might bug Alan Moore a bit.

 

[Jhaelen]

If the Avenger roster doubles, you can't provide a balance of story/screen time to each character.
[...]
Also, my gut tells me that if we see any new Avengers, they'll be trying to diversify the team.

Personally, I want to see different Avengers in every movie, i.e. don't _add_ new characters, _replace_ them.

This was, imho, the most disappointing thing about the Heroes TV show's later seasons (well apart from the bad storyline): The original Heroes got old really fast, I wanted to see completely new Heroes in a new story!

Why aren't there more shows (or movie sequels) that aren't afraid of killing off main - or at least secondary - characters?

This is a rhetorical question, of course. The unwillingness to take any risks by the producers (never change a winning team!) and the cost-effectiveness of signing actors for several seasons/sequels in advance combined with fan-outrage if a favorite character dies pretty much makes such a concept impossible.

At least _I_ would totally love it, though.

 

[Azgulor]

Why aren't there more shows (or movie sequels) that aren't afraid of killing off main - or at least secondary - characters?

1. Because if the characters are done well, they're interesting enough for fans to want to continue watching/reading about the characters. Question for you - do you only run a character once in a RPG and create a new character every session? If not, why not? Same idea.


2. Because often, when new characters are introduced, they're often less interesting than the ones that were replaced. Y'know the characters that grabbed the fans interest in the first place.


3. If fans aren't invested in the characters, their propensity to follow the franchise/series diminishes rapidly. Poor continuity + declining interest = dying/dead franchise/series.

 

[Grimmjow]

i also like the scene with CA and the police