Marvel Developing Winter Soldier-Falcon Limited Series for Disney’s Streaming Service 3 3

[drotto]

1 hour ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Right, it’s bad business to let a legacy character like Captain America just go away because Steve Rogers is dead or whatever. You have to keep the name going, not just for story purposes, for copyright reasons as well. 

Personally, I think the “lazy” thing to do, in this case, is to just recast Steve Rogers and keep everything the same as if it’s the same guy. How stale is that? I love how the MCU is a living breathing thing where heroes die and retire or grow and evolve. To me, it’s way more interesting to treat Captain America like a legacy and where a worthy hero like Sam tries to live up to that legacy. Falcon Winter Soldier was such a compelling story to me.

You are praising an approach in the MCU that has been a repeated failure in comics.  Every time a popular character is "recast," dies, retires, passes the title, or is just put into limbo, fans always want the original version back.  The new character never sticks, and the new version is never as popular, because of this the original almost always comes back. Now, it is unfortunate that real life people get old, which is something comics never really have to deal with. 

 

With that in mind, recasting may be the better choice in the long run.  There are many cases where popular iconic characters have been replaced and embraced.  James Bond, Doctor Who, Obi Wan, Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men characters and others have been replaced and loved by fans.  You have been saying, the title is bigger than the character, you could just as easily say the character is bigger than the actor or actress. It can be difficult to do this at times, but careful recasting works.  Furthermore, as time goes by, the MCU will start to run out of enough characters or big  enough characters that recasting will become a necessity if you want the MCU to last not just another 5 years, but another 15 or 20. 

Edited April 30, 2021 by drotto

[Gatsby77]

7 hours ago, drotto said:

You are praising an approach in the MCU that has been a repeated failure in comics.  Every time a popular character is "recast," dies, retires, passes the title, or is just put into limbo, fans always want the original version back.  The new character never sticks, and the new version is never as popular, because of this the original almost always comes back. Now, it is unfortunate that real life people get old, which is something comics never really have to deal with. 

Again, I see where you're coming from, but this is literally not true.

Rather, people generally resonate with the version of the character they're exposed to first, regardless of whether it was the original. Like when you hear a song you love by a band and later learn it's a cover - but discover you like it more than the original.

So once-a-generation changes can (and often are) valid.

My Green Lantern is and always will be Hal Jordan (because my first exposure to him was via Super Friends). I didn't even know Alan Scott - or Guy Gardner - or John Stewart - existed until much later. 90s kids may have Kyle Radnor as their Green Lantern. And depending on the choices Warner Brothers chooses to make (and almost did, in Justice League: Mortal and the Snyder cut), it's likely that John Stewart will be the primary (film and TV) Green Lantern for the next decade. That doesn't make Alan Scott or Hal Jordan less valid - or their replacements just a cynical money play by the comics companies.

Ditto The Flash. My Flash is Wally West - full stop - because he was headlining the book in the 80s and 90s when I was reading it. Doesn't matter that he was the third version of the character. I don't care about Jay Garrick at all, and Barry Allen died before I learned how to read.

Perfect (modern) examples: Nick Fury. To modern fandom and the general public, he's black and has the attitude of Samuel L. Jackson. And that's perfectly legit.

Miles Morales is also more popular with Millennials and Gen Z than Peter Parker.

Edited April 30, 2021 by Gatsby77

[Bosco685]

12 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

My Green Lantern is and always will be Hal Jordan (because my first exposure to him was via Super Friends). I didn't even know Alan Scott - or Guy Gardner - or John Stewart - existed until much later. 90s kids may have Kyle Radnor as their Green Lantern. 

Kyle Rayner

Who no matter what was always known to strive toward being Hal Jordan's replacement. And since the creation of the Green Lantern Corps back in 1959, it was always conveyed Earth had a protector that changed hands. So it was naturally built into the Sector 2814 backstory there will always be A being assuming the role of Green Lantern. Just not always the same person.

Not a good example on your part.

[Gatsby77]

3 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Kyle Rayner

Who no matter what was always known to strive toward being Hal Jordan's replacement. And since the creation of the Green Lantern Corps back in 1959, it was always conveyed Earth had a protector that changed hands. So it was naturally built into the Sector 2814 backstory there will always be A being assuming the role of Green Lantern. Just not always the same person.

Not a good example on your part.

?

I don't follow your logic.

Just because it was announced early on that there could be multiple Green Lanterns doesn't make it any less jarring to Hal Jordan fans when the switch happened.

Same thing - we now know Robin is a title rather than a distinct character. But one generation grew up with Grayson; another with Tim Drake. Each served for decades and each is perfectly valid.

Why not the same for Captain America?

[Gatsby77]

It's also explicit in Journey into Mystery # 83 that multiple people can embody Thor ("He who wields this hammer...").

So it makes perfect sense that Thor would take on slightly different attributes depending on who was wielding the hammer. 

But why wouldn't Thor look differently if the hammer's being wielded by Beta Ray Bill, Erik Masterson or Jane Foster rather than by Donald Blake? All of them have been Thor at one point, and all presented differently.

Just because it was set up from the jump doesn't make the switch jarring - or necessarily embraced by longtime fans.

[drotto]

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

It's also explicit in Journey into Mystery # 83 that multiple people can embody Thor ("He who wields this hammer...").

So it makes perfect sense that Thor would take on slightly different attributes depending on who was wielding the hammer. 

But why wouldn't Thor look differently if the hammer's being wielded by Beta Ray Bill, Erik Masterson or Jane Foster rather than by Donald Blake? All of them have been Thor at one point, and all presented differently.

Just because it was set up from the jump doesn't make the switch jarring - or necessarily embraced by longtime fans.

Embraced and replaced and forgotten are two different things.  With Green Lanter, Flash, Spider-Man all the earlier versions are still around and still relevant (ok I will give you Jay Garret, most people even older fans generally see Barry Allen as flash).  But it still remains exceeding rare that the original is completely gone.

 

Also you argue you associate most with the version you were first exposed to, I can agree with that to an extent.  Where your argument here fails is most younger people were exposed to these characters through movies and TV not comics.  In that case, their Spider-Man is Peter Parker.  He is a cornerstone of the MCU and with different actors has been in 10+ movies. While I do like Miles and loved his movie and acknowledge he has a core group of fans, he has one film that make about $250 million. The Flash they have seen is Barry Allen, and most have no clue about Green Lantern, let's be honest. Their Captain America, Thor, Iran Man etc will therefor be the original MCU versions, because as much as it pains comic readers, comics are becoming irrelevant. 

 

For every example you give of successful replacements, I can give you a long list where the character and the title are inseprable; Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Wolverine, Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, and yes Spider-Man. I leave Thor out only because the MCU has never given him an "Earth" identity. They have tried on multiple occasions to replace pretty much all of these characters,  and people still want the originals. 

Edited April 30, 2021 by drotto

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

?

I don't follow your logic.

Just because it was announced early on that there could be multiple Green Lanterns doesn't make it any less jarring to Hal Jordan fans when the switch happened.

Same thing - we now know Robin is a title rather than a distinct character. But one generation grew up with Grayson; another with Tim Drake. Each served for decades and each is perfectly valid.

Why not the same for Captain America?

You were riffing and forgot the logic behind the character.

The Green Lantern character design was made to be changed out since the Silver Age. Even with Hal Jordan assuming the role, who did he get his ring from? Abin Sir. So right out of the gate there is a handing off of the powers and role. Did you forget that?

[Bosco685]

 

[HighVoltage]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

 

Ummm - nope.

[Bosco685]

10 minutes ago, HighVoltage said:

Ummm - nope.

Agreed! This missed the mark as if anything the character in the show was crafted to be unlikeable. Including his 'surprise transition' to U.S. Agent.

[D84]

2 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

 

Well, it depends if you like holes.

[HighVoltage]

4 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Agreed! This missed the mark as if anything the character in the show was crafted to be unlikeable. Including his 'surprise transition' to U.S. Agent.

I never have liked the character in the comics. Didn't like him here either. Wyatt Russell does a good job as an actor of portraying the character, IMO.

[D84]

1 minute ago, HighVoltage said:

I never have liked the character in the comics. Didn't like him here either. Wyatt Russell does a good job as an actor of portraying the character, IMO.

I don't anyone should blame the actors for everything that disappointed me about this show.

[Gatsby77]

2 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

You were riffing and forgot the logic behind the character.

The Green Lantern character design was made to be changed out since the Silver Age. Even with Hal Jordan assuming the role, who did he get his ring from? Abin Sir. So right out of the gate there is a handing off of the powers and role. Did you forget that?

No. As with my Thor example - It's explicit in the first Silver Age appearances of both that their can be multiple people who can take up the mantle.

But 1) This itself was a huge diversion from the identity and mythos of the original Green Lantern, Alan Scott; and

2) People who grew up with Hal Jordan didn't respond positively to Kyle RAYNER taking up the mantle and Hal Jordan's becoming first Parallax, then The Spectre; and

It's incredibly likely that the next TV/film version of Green Lantern will see will be John Stewart, not Hal Jordan, anyway.

Similarly, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier made it clear that Captain America is a title, not Steve Rogers.

In contrast, long-time Bond films know that while 007 is a title, James Bond is an actual, singular person - something made explicitly clear (again) in Skyfall.

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

No. As with my Thor example - It's explicit in the first Silver Age appearances of both that their can be multiple people who can take up the mantle.

But 1) This itself was a huge diversion from the identity and mythos of the original Green Lantern, Alan Scott; and

2) People who grew up with Hal Jordan didn't respond positively to Kyle RAYNER taking up the mantle and Hal Jordan's becoming first Parallax, then The Spectre; and

It's incredibly likely that the next TV/film version of Green Lantern will see will be John Stewart, not Hal Jordan, anyway.

Similarly, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier made it clear that Captain America is a title, not Steve Rogers.

In contrast, long-time Bond films know that while 007 is a title, James Bond is an actual, singular person - something made explicitly clear (again) in Skyfall.

Since the showrunners let it out the focus on the Green Lantern Corps show will be on Alan Scott, Jessica Cruz, Simon Baz, Guy Gardner, Kilowog and Sinestro you are most probably right on less of a focus on Hal Jordan. These have all been confirmed.

As far as not accepting Kyle Rayner that was not the big issue at that time. I was buying these books as they were coming out. It was transitioning Hal Jordan to a villain. That set people off leading to more than a few driving the point home they were not happy.

Now as far as Captain America being a plug-and-play role, I have to disagree. Since 1941 the character of Steve Rogers served in the role for decades. And although Captain America is one of those characters you assume is a B-List or C-List character prior to the MCU, his symbolism representing Marvel as a key character has been out there for many decades as well. So you can assume a change like this would come with questions is the role of Captain America truly that interchangeable, or should it have led to a renaming. What the right answer should be isn't as simple as 'Well - they did it so this must be the right approach!'

Edited April 30, 2021 by Bosco685

[@therealsilvermane]

12 hours ago, drotto said:

With that in mind, recasting may be the better choice in the long run.  There are many cases where popular iconic characters have been replaced and embraced.  James Bond, Doctor Who, Obi Wan, Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men characters and others have been replaced and loved by fans.  You have been saying, the title is bigger than the character, you could just as easily say the character is bigger than the actor or actress. It can be difficult to do this at times, but careful recasting works.  Furthermore, as time goes by, the MCU will start to run out of enough characters or big  enough characters that recasting will become a necessity if you want the MCU to last not just another 5 years, but another 15 or 20.

Never mind the comics. It's print paper, ink, and color. Creators can do whatever they want with those stories with no real consequences. Peter Parker can stay forever young or they can kill Kal-El multiple times and bring him back multiple times. No big deal. It's different in the movies, especially if committed to the continuous living breathing universe of the MCU.

Recasting was the obvious thing to do back in the old days of trilogies and such before the MCU was a thing. That's over as far as Marvel Studios movies go. From Iron Man on, the Marvel Movie Universe is a continuous evolving story where we grow with these heroes and this universe in real time. With that, the actors who embody these characters are as tied to them as Mark Hamill or Harrison Ford are to Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. While Chris Evans isn't really Steve Rogers, he IS Steve Rogers. There is no replacing Steve Rogers in this living breathing universe, just as they most likely won't recast T-Challa because Chadwick Boseman is T'Challa. 

So if you're not going to recast the role of Steve Rogers, you let another fictional human being carry on his legacy and carry the Shield and make that part of your continuing story. And in another 10 years or so, Anthony Mackie's Sam Wilson will pass the Cap mantle to another worthy hero, but there will still be a Captain America mantle. That's how it works now. I'm sorry some fans can't get the brilliance of that or won't accept it. I think it's awesome, especially since I'm part of the generation who got to experience live the MCU's greatest generation, which is who characters like Steve Rogers and Tony Stark are now. Generational heroes giving way to a new generation of heroes.

[drotto]

58 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Never mind the comics. It's print paper, ink, and color. Creators can do whatever they want with those stories with no real consequences. Peter Parker can stay forever young or they can kill Kal-El multiple times and bring him back multiple times. No big deal. It's different in the movies, especially if committed to the continuous living breathing universe of the MCU.

Recasting was the obvious thing to do back in the old days of trilogies and such before the MCU was a thing. That's over as far as Marvel Studios movies go. From Iron Man on, the Marvel Movie Universe is a continuous evolving story where we grow with these heroes and this universe in real time. With that, the actors who embody these characters are as tied to them as Mark Hamill or Harrison Ford are to Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. While Chris Evans isn't really Steve Rogers, he IS Steve Rogers. There is no replacing Steve Rogers in this living breathing universe, just as they most likely won't recast T-Challa because Chadwick Boseman is T'Challa. 

So if you're not going to recast the role of Steve Rogers, you let another fictional human being carry on his legacy and carry the Shield and make that part of your continuing story. And in another 10 years or so, Anthony Mackie's Sam Wilson will pass the Cap mantle to another worthy hero, but there will still be a Captain America mantle. That's how it works now. I'm sorry some fans can't get the brilliance of that or won't accept it. I think it's awesome, especially since I'm part of the generation who got to experience live the MCU's greatest generation, which is who characters like Steve Rogers and Tony Stark are now. Generational heroes giving way to a new generation of heroes.

You honestly believe this?  Just because one show in the MCU has passed on a title that is now how it is always going to be done forever? You honestly think they are forever going to leave Iron Man and Steve Roger's never to be used again, because FaWS has set this new and perfect model? So every generation is going to get its own unique heroes (well not really unique, they are just renamed hand me downs)? 

 

These characters are already multigenerational.   They will be very hard to replace, and to think that one TV show FaWS is so seminal, so important that is going to override long established IP's and characters that are cultural cornerstones is delusional. There is a reason that these characters have survived 70 plus years, in multie mediums.  Replacement and new characters for phase 4 and 5 will be the norm, but eventually most of these characters will be recast.  You only have so many big names, and companies are not going to pass up on cash, and the fans will want it. Iron Man is bigger than RDJ, despite how he is associated with the role.  Kids who see Iron Man do not see RDJ, they see a cool character.  Those kids will easily except a new actor in the role given a little bit of time.

 

History has also shown it is very difficult to create iconic lasting characters, and to think we can successfully do that ever 10 or 15 years, because now every generation wants and demands their own thing is again laughable. The MCU when push comes to shove has created nothing, it has adapted with the highest skill something that has existed for generations.  They still rely on the source material, even if it is very superficially,  and that source material still relys heavily on the established legacy characters despite the constant introduction of new ones. Plus the historic IP's are just too valuable. Every kid knows Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Wonder Woman, etc.  There name recognition is world's above any new character.  They are not going anywhere.

 

As already stated there is a long and successful history of recasting characters, because they are generational.  They are all bigger than an individual who played them.  It will become unavoidable in the MCU. 

 

[drotto]

1 hour ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Never mind the comics. It's print paper, ink, and color. Creators can do whatever they want with those stories with no real consequences. Peter Parker can stay forever young or they can kill Kal-El multiple times and bring him back multiple times. No big deal. It's different in the movies, especially if committed to the continuous living breathing universe of the MCU.

Recasting was the obvious thing to do back in the old days of trilogies and such before the MCU was a thing. That's over as far as Marvel Studios movies go. From Iron Man on, the Marvel Movie Universe is a continuous evolving story where we grow with these heroes and this universe in real time. With that, the actors who embody these characters are as tied to them as Mark Hamill or Harrison Ford are to Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. While Chris Evans isn't really Steve Rogers, he IS Steve Rogers. There is no replacing Steve Rogers in this living breathing universe, just as they most likely won't recast T-Challa because Chadwick Boseman is T'Challa. 

So if you're not going to recast the role of Steve Rogers, you let another fictional human being carry on his legacy and carry the Shield and make that part of your continuing story. And in another 10 years or so, Anthony Mackie's Sam Wilson will pass the Cap mantle to another worthy hero, but there will still be a Captain America mantle. That's how it works now. I'm sorry some fans can't get the brilliance of that or won't accept it. I think it's awesome, especially since I'm part of the generation who got to experience live the MCU's greatest generation, which is who characters like Steve Rogers and Tony Stark are now. Generational heroes giving way to a new generation of heroes.

Finally, these characters are  cultural cornerstones at this point.  They are part of our modern shared mythos.  They are films, and TV shows, and even printed media, that a grandfather can share in with his grandchildren.  They are stories that can be shared between people for different walks of life with nothing else in common.  

 

It is shallow, naive, and kinda sad, that you think that that those shared experiences need to be a can be thrown away so easily.  Our society and culture does not start anew every generation, it is continuously built upon.  And even if it seems silly and trivial many if these characters have become part of that structure. Ot really based on your bias, that the new generation wants to throw that all away.

 

It was Luke Skywalker returning that damn near broke the internet not Sam Wilson becoming Captain America.

Edited April 30, 2021 by drotto

[@therealsilvermane]

1 hour ago, drotto said:

You honestly believe this?  Just because one show in the MCU has passed on a title that is now how it is always going to be done forever? You honestly think they are forever going to leave Iron Man and Steve Roger's never to be used again, because FaWS has set this new and perfect model? So every generation is going to get its own unique heroes (well not really unique, they are just renamed hand me downs)? 

 

These characters are already multigenerational.   They will be very hard to replace, and to think that one TV show FaWS is so seminal, so important that is going to override long established IP's and characters that are cultural cornerstones is delusional. There is a reason that these characters have survived 70 plus years, in multie mediums.  Replacement and new characters for phase 4 and 5 will be the norm, but eventually most of these characters will be recast.  You only have so many big names, and companies are not going to pass up on cash, and the fans will want it. Iron Man is bigger than RDJ, despite how he is associated with the role.  Kids who see Iron Man do not see RDJ, they see a cool character.  Those kids will easily except a new actor in the role given a little bit of time.

 

History has also shown it is very difficult to create iconic lasting characters, and to think we can successfully do that ever 10 or 15 years, because now every generation wants and demands their own thing is again laughable. The MCU when push comes to shove has created nothing, it has adapted with the highest skill something that has existed for generations.  They still rely on the source material, even if it is very superficially,  and that source material still relys heavily on the established legacy characters despite the constant introduction of new ones. Plus the historic IP's are just too valuable. Every kid knows Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Wonder Woman, etc.  There name recognition is world's above any new character.  They are not going anywhere.

 

As already stated there is a long and successful history of recasting characters, because they are generational.  They are all bigger than an individual who played them.  It will become unavoidable in the MCU. 

 

Yes, I believe that. Marvel Studios will not reboot the MCU and recast Tony Stark and Steve Rogers in the near or distant future. It's not going to happen. Their stories in the MCU are done. As far as the Iron Person legacy goes, James Rhodes and Riri Williams will take it up up for a little while. If there needs to be a continuing story to the Stark family, Marvel will give us Morgan Stark or her son or something. The only way Tony Stark/RDJ comes back is as an AI.

I don't see why that's hard to believe. Well I guess I do. Recasting and doing it all over again is how it was done in the old days. This isn't the old days. This is a new kind of cinema and it's not going away. The MCU has enough characters and story combinations to last 100 years if they want. They have the Mutants, the Fantastic Four, Moon Knight, more Avengers. And if you do the character legacy story method they are using with character titles like Iron Man, Captain America, Hawkeye, and Black Widow (all being replaced in Phase Four with new characters), to paraphrase Steve Rogers, "Marvel could do this all day." Even a character like Moon Knight can be handed down from Mark Spector to another character. It's so easy and way more interesting than just recasting the part so you have to watch Mark Spector as Moon Knight until the end of time. Once the Fantastic Four actors start getting old, you let the kids take over to keep the family theme going.

People can say Sam Wilson isn't their Captain America or Kate Bishop isn't their Hawkeye or Yelena Belova isn't their Black Widow until the cows come home, but the fact is these MCU mantles are being passed to a new generation of heroes and Disney is not going backwards with a reboot down the road. If you want to relive the glory days of Tony Stark as Iron Man or Steve Rogers as Cap, you have 10 years of stories in Phase 1-3 you can watch and enjoy on Disney+ where these stories will live.

Plus, reboots were usually done in the old days because the franchise eventually ran itself into the ground with progressively worse sequels to the point it was all scrapped and redone with a new creative team (ie Sony Spider-Man or Burton era Batman). The MCU has not run itself into the ground but only gotten stronger over time with its evolving and connected storylines. 

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[@therealsilvermane]

1 hour ago, drotto said:

It was Luke Skywalker returning that damn near broke the internet not Sam Wilson becoming Captain America.

Yes, and that return of Luke Skywalker worked out real good, didn't it? No it didn't. It ended up angering everybody including Mark Hamill himself. We saw a perfect ending to Steve Rogers and Tony Stark's stories in Endgame. The kind of perfect ending Luke Skywalker should have had if Disney had just left the Skywalker family alone and let the galaxy have its victory at the end of Return of the Jedi.