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

[Bosco685]

9 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Obviously it's the same company and the same characters. Feige's whole thing is taking their story beats from the comics. My point is the difference between printed pages and live action. They are definitely separate in that regard and also in the stories they can tell and how to tell it. That should be obvious.

You feel the MCU will never recast key roles. Others think othewise. It is what it is.

Reality will be the future what really happens. None of us will really know until then.

[fantastic_four]

On 4/30/2021 at 11:19 AM, HighVoltage said:

On 4/30/2021 at 11:13 AM, 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.

He was meant to be rather unlikable in the comics, and they mostly did the same in the MCU.  Overall he's more likable in the MCU than he was in the comics...he was a never-ending insufferable Richard in the comics.

[Gatsby77]

17 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

 That Black Panther costume is what sells merchandise and gets people excited.  ...

You're saying in the long run, you can't have Iron Man or Black Panther without Tony Stark or T'Challa so Marvel must eventually recast Stark and T'Challa.

I'm saying the costumed character Iron Man or Black Panther is not expendable, but the character wearing the Iron Man or Black Panther suit is expendable.

You're wrong about this too.

Part of the genius of the MCU movies so far is that they understand the men and women beneath the costumes - and focused on true characterization of them as people - so they're not infinitely fungible.

People cared about Tony Stark, not just whoever was wearing the Iron Man suit.

They cared about Steve Rogers - not just whoever wore the Captain America costume. Proof of this came with the absolute vitriol leveled at John Walker's character on Twitter the moment he was introduced wearing Cap's suit. Critically, this was among general (non comic book audience) fans who didn't yet know the arc of Walker in the comics. Rather, it was just an allergic reaction to seeing *anyone* other than Steve Rogers in the suit. (Note: I said Steve Rogers, not Chris Evans.)

Ditto - people care about T'Challa. If say...M'baku took up the mantle of the next Black Panther (which, given his character's arc, wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility), he could indeed make it his own, but he doesn't (yet) have the backstory or earned emotional resonance that audiences have with T'Challa - even if T'Challa were recast with a different actor.

Put another way, Bruce Wayne is just as important as Batman. And in many ways, is the harder role to play. Michael Keaton and Christian Bale were excellent Bruce Waynes. George Clooney was a good Bruce Wayne but a horrible Batman. In contrast, Ben Affleck was a great Batman but a weak Bruce Wayne. (Granted, most of this was the writer's fault - but it still made his overall portrayal 2nd rate vs. Keaton's or Bale's).

The point? 

The character behind the mask matters - even if it's only the masked version that sells toys.

[drotto]

4 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

You're wrong about this too.

Part of the genius of the MCU movies so far is that they understand the men and women beneath the costumes - and focused on true characterization of them as people - so they're not infinitely fungible.

People cared about Tony Stark, not just whoever was wearing the Iron Man suit.

They cared about Steve Rogers - not just whoever wore the Captain America costume. Proof of this came with the absolute vitriol leveled at John Walker's character on Twitter the moment he was introduced wearing Cap's suit. Critically, this was among general (non comic book audience) fans who didn't yet know the arc of Walker in the comics. Rather, it was just an allergic reaction to seeing *anyone* other than Steve Rogers in the suit. (Note: I said Steve Rogers, not Chris Evans.)

Ditto - people care about T'Challa. If say...M'baku took up the mantle of the next Black Panther (which, given his character's arc, wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility), he could indeed make it his own, but he doesn't (yet) have the backstory or earned emotional resonance that audiences have with T'Challa - even if T'Challa were recast with a different actor.

Put another way, Bruce Wayne is just as important as Batman. And in many ways, is the harder role to play. Michael Keaton and Christian Bale were excellent Bruce Waynes. George Clooney was a good Bruce Wayne but a horrible Batman. In contrast, Ben Affleck was a great Batman but a weak Bruce Wayne. (Granted, most of this was the writer's fault - but it still made his overall portrayal 2nd rate vs. Keaton's or Bale's).

The point? 

The character behind the mask matters - even if it's only the masked version that sells toys.

To add a little to your point, and expanding a little on the Batman point to prove it.  Tim Burton said the key to casting Batman was casting Bruce Wayne, because anyone could be a guy in a suit. So by extension placing so much emphasis on the character title, and forgetting the character that carries the title is not going to create a lasting and loved character.  You can create new characters that will carry on a legacy and inherit the role, but if you forget to make the underlying person interesting, fans will always long for the original. 

[TupennyConan]

39 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Ben Affleck was a great Batman but a weak Bruce Wayne. (Granted, most of this was the writer's fault - but it still made his overall portrayal 2nd rate vs. Keaton's or Bale's).

You're correct in your post except for this bit. Ben Affleck is the only person to blame for being Ben Affleck. Ben Affleck is the weakest Ben Affleck there's ever been. He's a 2nd rate Ben Affleck. 

[@therealsilvermane]

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

You're wrong about this too.

Part of the genius of the MCU movies so far is that they understand the men and women beneath the costumes - and focused on true characterization of them as people - so they're not infinitely fungible.

People cared about Tony Stark, not just whoever was wearing the Iron Man suit.

They cared about Steve Rogers - not just whoever wore the Captain America costume. Proof of this came with the absolute vitriol leveled at John Walker's character on Twitter the moment he was introduced wearing Cap's suit. Critically, this was among general (non comic book audience) fans who didn't yet know the arc of Walker in the comics. Rather, it was just an allergic reaction to seeing *anyone* other than Steve Rogers in the suit. (Note: I said Steve Rogers, not Chris Evans.)

Ditto - people care about T'Challa. If say...M'baku took up the mantle of the next Black Panther (which, given his character's arc, wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility), he could indeed make it his own, but he doesn't (yet) have the backstory or earned emotional resonance that audiences have with T'Challa - even if T'Challa were recast with a different actor.

Put another way, Bruce Wayne is just as important as Batman. And in many ways, is the harder role to play. Michael Keaton and Christian Bale were excellent Bruce Waynes. George Clooney was a good Bruce Wayne but a horrible Batman. In contrast, Ben Affleck was a great Batman but a weak Bruce Wayne. (Granted, most of this was the writer's fault - but it still made his overall portrayal 2nd rate vs. Keaton's or Bale's).

The point? 

The character behind the mask matters - even if it's only the masked version that sells toys.

Well, you misunderstand me.

I know full well the importance of the person behind the suit in both Marvel Comics and the MCU. I understand that the real magic that Stan Lee created was making the life of the "real" person behind the super-hero important and that Kevin Feige and co. are continuing that kind of character storytelling in the MCU.

However, as this debate veered into money and business and continuing the Iron Man or Captain America brand to sell merchandise and other money making endeavors for Disney, that's mainly what I was talking about in the my post when I said the person behind the suit is expendable. Iron Man's image sells backpacks and Halloween costumes, not Tony Stark's image.

However, in a way, you also help make my point in your above reply post. Yes, the person of Tony Stark or T'Challa is so important to the appeal of these MCU movies (and a big part of that is the actor, more on that later). As far as the story goes, yes, they are irreplaceable. That's why when Marvel and RDJ and Chris Evans feel they told the perfect stories for MCU Tony Stark and Steve Rogers over 15 films and 10 years and gave them perfect endings, YOU DON"T REPLACE THEM. The only reason a recasting of T'Challa was even considered is because Marvel Studios was not finished telling his story in the MCU the way they did with Tony Stark and Steve Rogers.

The best way for Tony Stark and Steve Rogers to live on in the MCU is not to recast them (which again would mean a reboot of the entire MCU story. Sorry @drotto, a recast means a reboot of the story) but to honor their legacy and have them be an inspiration to the many characters that will come after them. To treat MCU Stark and Rogers like the center points of a ripple that expands out and affects the future storylines to come whether it's Stark tech or Rogers' enduring patriotic legacy.

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[drotto]

17 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Well, you misunderstand me.

I know full well the importance of the person behind the suit in both Marvel Comics and the MCU. I understand that the real magic that Stan Lee created was making the life of the "real" person behind the super-hero important and that Kevin Feige and co. are continuing that kind of character storytelling in the MCU.

However, as this debate veered into money and business and continuing the Iron Man or Captain America brand to sell merchandise and other money making endeavors for Disney, that's mainly what I was talking about in the my post when I said the person behind the suit is expendable. Iron Man's image sells backpacks and Halloween costumes, not Tony Stark's image.

However, in a way, you also help make my point in your above reply post. Yes, the person of Tony Stark or T'Challa is so important to the appeal of these MCU movies (and a big part of that is the actor, more on that later). As far as the story goes, yes, they are irreplaceable. That's why when Marvel and RDJ and Chris Evans feel they told the perfect stories for MCU Tony Stark and Steve Rogers over 15 films and 10 years and gave them perfect endings, YOU DON"T REPLACE THEM. The only reason a recasting of T'Challa was even considered is because Marvel Studios was not finished telling his story in the MCU the way they did with Tony Stark and Steve Rogers.

The best way for Tony Stark and Steve Rogers to live on in the MCU is not to recast them (which again would mean a reboot of the entire MCU story. Sorry @drotto, a recast means a reboot of the story) but to honor their legacy and have them be an inspiration to the many characters that will come after them. To treat MCU Stark and Rogers like the center points of a ripple that expands out and affects the future storylines to come whether it's Stark tech or Rogers' enduring patriotic legacy.

 

So you are saying if 25 years from now if the MCU is still a thing, it is going to be this magic unbroken story with 250 movies and 100 TV shows, never unbroken, never rebooted, and never recast?

 

I just do not buy that. In 25 years a 5 year old is going to have no clue who RDJ is or Chris Evens.  If they do, they will just be some actors from movies my parents or grandparents loved.  They will be meaningless to them.  Tony and Steve will likely still be well known.

 

At some point apelling to a new generation will require a recast or reboot, because the legacy characters will remain known and popular.

Edited May 2, 2021 by drotto

[@therealsilvermane]

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

They cared about Steve Rogers - not just whoever wore the Captain America costume. Proof of this came with the absolute vitriol leveled at John Walker's character on Twitter the moment he was introduced wearing Cap's suit. Critically, this was among general (non comic book audience) fans who didn't yet know the arc of Walker in the comics. Rather, it was just an allergic reaction to seeing *anyone* other than Steve Rogers in the suit. (Note: I said Steve Rogers, not Chris Evans.)

Ditto - people care about T'Challa. If say...M'baku took up the mantle of the next Black Panther (which, given his character's arc, wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility), he could indeed make it his own, but he doesn't (yet) have the backstory or earned emotional resonance that audiences have with T'Challa - even if T'Challa were recast with a different actor.

Put another way, Bruce Wayne is just as important as Batman. And in many ways, is the harder role to play. Michael Keaton and Christian Bale were excellent Bruce Waynes. George Clooney was a good Bruce Wayne but a horrible Batman. In contrast, Ben Affleck was a great Batman but a weak Bruce Wayne. (Granted, most of this was the writer's fault - but it still made his overall portrayal 2nd rate vs. Keaton's or Bale's).

In the MCU, the actor and the character are practically one and the same. Robert Downey Jr IS Tony Stark. Stark has RDJ's mannerisms, comic timing, speech patterns, everything (I think I already said this). Chris Evans IS Steve Rogers. Any attempt to try and recast them and tell their stories over again and attempt to recapture lightning in a bottle all over again will most likely end in failure and Disney knows that. Not only will it probably end in failure, it will completely destroy the continuing MCU story that Marvel has built and wants to keep building.

The Batman comparisons with Michael Keaton and Christian Bale simply don't line up. Warner Bros wasn't creating a Cinematic Universe with those movies. A couple of sequels? Yes. A trilogy? Yes. But not an unending living breathing universe where characters live, grow old, have kids, die, and where fans can equally grow up with these characters like some unending fan favorite TV show.

Back to Marvel, as I said, Robert Downey Jr IS Tony Stark. Gwyneth Paltrow IS Virginia "Pepper" Potts. It needs to stay that way for the illusion of the MCU to work. So you create new characters who are written as interesting as you can make them and cast them with actors, like Robert Downey Jr or Paltrow, who can embue with charm, humor, drama, etc. to tell the best story you can, just like Jon Favreau RDJ and Gwyneth Paltrow did in that first Iron Man movie. You hope Dominique Thorne will help make Ironheart as charming and fun and adventurous a movie that doesn't replace Iron Man, but honors it and hopefully does its own thing to add to the enduring story of the MCU. You hope that again with the next person who wears Iron Man tech in future movies, whether it's Tony Stark's grandson or whoever. That's how RDJ's Tony Stark stays alive, it's how Disney can keep making money off the Iron Man image, and it's how you can keep the MCU's story going without rebooting the whole thing because you don't think any other character outside of those original MCU Avengers is worthy (which is bs).

[drotto]

To be honest, I think that the MCU has 5 and if they do a bang up job mabe 10 years left in it.  That will be, and already is, an amazing run. It may never be matched in its scope and profit.

 

If the MCU every reaches the success of Endgame again (I doubt it will), it is not going to be based on characters like Catian Marvel, New Captain America, Kamala Kahn, Riri, or Hawkeye Kate version.  The next highs will most likely be reached when the Fantasic Four and X-Men are introduced to the MCU, and for the most part those are legacy characters. Till then most of this stuff is a place holder.

 

So after this version of the MCU fades in say 10 years, it will likely be left alone for 10 or 15 years, and then the entire thing will be in some form rebooted.

[drotto]

10 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

In the MCU, the actor and the character are practically one and the same. Robert Downey Jr IS Tony Stark. Stark has RDJ's mannerisms, comic timing, speech patterns, everything (I think I already said this). Chris Evans IS Steve Rogers. Any attempt to try and recast them and tell their stories over again and attempt to recapture lightning in a bottle all over again will most likely end in failure and Disney knows that. Not only will it probably end in failure, it will completely destroy the continuing MCU story that Marvel has built and wants to keep building.

The Batman comparisons with Michael Keaton and Christian Bale simply don't line up. Warner Bros wasn't creating a Cinematic Universe with those movies. A couple of sequels? Yes. A trilogy? Yes. But not an unending living breathing universe where characters live, grow old, have kids, die, and where fans can equally grow up with these characters like some unending fan favorite TV show.

Back to Marvel, as I said, Robert Downey Jr IS Tony Stark. Gwyneth Paltrow IS Virginia "Pepper" Potts. It needs to stay that way for the illusion of the MCU to work. So you create new characters who are written as interesting as you can make them and cast them with actors, like Robert Downey Jr or Paltrow, who can embue with charm, humor, drama, etc. to tell the best story you can, just like Jon Favreau RDJ and Gwyneth Paltrow did in that first Iron Man movie. You hope Dominique Thorne will help make Ironheart as charming and fun and adventurous a movie that doesn't replace Iron Man, but honors it and hopefully does its own thing to add to the enduring story of the MCU. You hope that again with the next person who wears Iron Man tech in future movies, whether it's Tony Stark's grandson or whoever. That's how RDJ's Tony Stark stays alive, it's how Disney can keep making money off the Iron Man image, and it's how you can keep the MCU's story going without rebooting the whole thing because you don't think any other character outside of those original MCU Avengers is worthy (which is bs).

Your entire premise is off.  Viewers have already shown they will except new actors in big roles.  Yes, the MCU is the most successful shared universe, but Superman and Batman are still the biggest hero characters ever.  If they can be recast, any character can be recast.  I think fans in the long run will have more loyalty to a character than a specific actor.  So yes RDJ and Chris Evens were great in their roles, so was Christopher Reves, so was Micheal Keaton, so was Toby McGuire.  

 

I remember being a kid and people saying Reves and Keaton could never be replaced.  They were so tied to those roles also. They were.

Edited May 2, 2021 by drotto

[@therealsilvermane]

3 minutes ago, drotto said:

Your entire premise is off.  Viewers have already shown they will except new actors in big roles.  Yes, the MCU is the most successful shared universe, but Superman and Batman are still the biggest hero characters ever.  If they can be recast, any character can be recast.  I think fans in the long run will have more loyalty to a character than a specific actor.  So yes RDJ and Chris Evens were great in their roles, so was Christopher Reves, so was Micheal Keaton, so was Toby McGuire.  

 

I remember being a kid and people saying Reves and Keaton could never be replaced.  They were so tied to those roles also. They were.

I'll say it again: I'm talking about WITHIN THE CURRENT MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE. You understand the current MCU is one big story and one fictional universe, right? Kinda like Harry Potter. And Yes, I know Marvel Studios recast Bruce Banner and James Rhodes way back but those were hiccups early on in the MCU's formative years.

Now, If Disney does indeed redo and reboot all the Marvel movies in 20 years because they feel they lack the creative juice to keep this thing going, then yes indeed, recast away to your heart's content. But right now, I'm talking about the current Marvel Cinematic Universe in the real world that started with the first Iron Man movie. In this Universe, Robert Downey Jr IS Tony Stark, and Tony Stark died at the end of Endgame. That's the story and it's permanent.

[@therealsilvermane]

16 minutes ago, drotto said:

To be honest, I think that the MCU has 5 and if they do a bang up job mabe 10 years left in it.  That will be, and already is, an amazing run. It may never be matched in its scope and profit.

 

If the MCU every reaches the success of Endgame again (I doubt it will), it is not going to be based on characters like Catian Marvel, New Captain America, Kamala Kahn, Riri, or Hawkeye Kate version.  The next highs will most likely be reached when the Fantasic Four and X-Men are introduced to the MCU, and for the most part those are legacy characters. Till then most of this stuff is a place holder.

 

So after this version of the MCU fades in say 10 years, it will likely be left alone for 10 or 15 years, and then the entire thing will be in some form rebooted.

Well, obviously you're a Captain Marvel hater but I won't hold that against you.

The MCU doesn't really need the next event Avengers movie to be as big as Endgame. And I don't think that's a barometer for success or failure either, where if the next big Avengers movie doesn't make 2+ billion that Marvel is going to wrap up its tents and call it quits. Every Marvel movie going forward just needs decent numbers and Disney+ shows just need strong streaming numbers to keep this thing going.

Your estimate of 10 years to the MCU's own Ragnarok is quite negative. You really do have zero faith in any other MCU character outside of Tony Stark and Steve Rogers.

[drotto]

5 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Well, obviously you're a Captain Marvel hater but I won't hold that against you.

The MCU doesn't really need the next event Avengers movie to be as big as Endgame. And I don't think that's a barometer for success or failure either, where if the next big Avengers movie doesn't make 2+ billion that Marvel is going to wrap up its tents and call it quits. Every Marvel movie going forward just needs decent numbers and Disney+ shows just need strong streaming numbers to keep this thing going.

Your estimate of 10 years to the MCU's own Ragnarok is quite negative. You really do have zero faith in any other MCU character outside of Tony Stark and Steve Rogers.

No, I think X-Men and FF are what is going to keep the MCU going with an assist from the more mystical side of thing like Dr Strange and Wanda.  I di no think it is going to be any character created in the last 10 to 15 years.

Edited May 2, 2021 by drotto

[bentbryan]

15 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I'll say it again: I'm talking about WITHIN THE CURRENT MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE. You understand the current MCU is one big story and one fictional universe, right? Kinda like Harry Potter. And Yes, I know Marvel Studios recast Bruce Banner and James Rhodes way back but those were hiccups early on in the MCU's formative years.

Now, If Disney does indeed redo and reboot all the Marvel movies in 20 years because they feel they lack the creative juice to keep this thing going, then yes indeed, recast away to your heart's content. But right now, I'm talking about the current Marvel Cinematic Universe in the real world that started with the first Iron Man movie. In this Universe, Robert Downey Jr IS Tony Stark, and Tony Stark died at the end of Endgame. That's the story and it's permanent.

They introduced time travel and the multi-verse inside the MCU so I would say all options are still on the table.  With X-men and FF coming they can put Iron Man on the shelf for a bit but I would imagine he’ll be back in some form or another.  

[@therealsilvermane]

2 minutes ago, drotto said:

No, I think X-Men and FF are what is going to keep the MCU going with an assist from the more mystical side of thing like Dr Strange and Wanda.  I di no think it is going to be any character created in the last 10 to 15 years.

I wonder what you thought of the Guardians of the Galaxy before their movie debuted and ended up being a turning point for the MCU.

I honestly don't think the X-Men and FF are surefire automatic hits. FF has been a consistent loser in live action and then how does Marvel make its mutants different and unique from the Fox films. I think Marvel Studios has its work cut out for them but I have faith in Keven Feige. I also don't think X-Men (or mutants or something X) proper will arrive for a very long time so maybe that will add a few years to your 10 year MCU doomsday prophecy.

[@therealsilvermane]

10 minutes ago, bentbryan said:

They introduced time travel and the multi-verse inside the MCU so I would say all options are still on the table.  With X-men and FF coming they can put Iron Man on the shelf for a bit but I would imagine he’ll be back in some form or another.  

And I say the only way RDJ's Tony Stark comes back is as an AI. We already saw a hint of it at the end of Endgame. It'd be kind of fitting that the Stark's AI JARVIS came to life as Vision and Stark dies and becomes an AI like JARV. But no way Tony Stark comes back as a flesh and blood character (like he did in the comics over and over again) unless the current MCU is rebooted which is a doomsday scenario for Marvel Studios IMO.

[drotto]

33 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I wonder what you thought of the Guardians of the Galaxy before their movie debuted and ended up being a turning point for the MCU.

I honestly don't think the X-Men and FF are surefire automatic hits. FF has been a consistent loser in live action and then how does Marvel make its mutants different and unique from the Fox films. I think Marvel Studios has its work cut out for them but I have faith in Keven Feige. I also don't think X-Men (or mutants or something X) proper will arrive for a very long time so maybe that will add a few years to your 10 year MCU doomsday prophecy.

I think you are placing way to much faith in characters that have repeatedly failed in the comics. They have also failed in video games, and that is the target demo you keep talking about. Kamal Kahn was the lead in the latest Avenger game and that game has struggled to be kind. The last Spider-Man cartoon that concentrated on the latest Spier Characters also lasted one season, if I remember. At least X-Men have a good track record, and I know so many people waiting for a goof FF, and are betting the MCU can finally do it.

 

I really like Into the Spiderverse, I know it won an Oscar. $375 million box office is respectable, but compared to any other recent super hero movie, it did not set the world on fire.

Edited May 2, 2021 by drotto

[Gatsby77]

1 hour ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I'll say it again: I'm talking about WITHIN THE CURRENT MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE. You understand the current MCU is one big story and one fictional universe, right? Kinda like Harry Potter. And Yes, I know Marvel Studios recast Bruce Banner and James Rhodes way back but those were hiccups early on in the MCU's formative years.

Now, If Disney does indeed redo and reboot all the Marvel movies in 20 years because they feel they lack the creative juice to keep this thing going, then yes indeed, recast away to your heart's content. But right now, I'm talking about the current Marvel Cinematic Universe in the real world that started with the first Iron Man movie. In this Universe, Robert Downey Jr IS Tony Stark, and Tony Stark died at the end of Endgame. That's the story and it's permanent.

It’s literally permanent only until Spider-Man: No Way Home comes out.

Will it be an official MCU movie? Yes.

Will it be overseen by Kevin Feige? Yes?

Will it feature multiple Peter Parkers played by multiple actors? (Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland)? Yes.

After this one film - all recasting bets are off, even (ahem - especially) RDJ’s.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Gatsby77

[@therealsilvermane]

9 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

It’s literally permanent only until Spider-Man: No Way Home comes out.

Will it be an official MCU movie? Yes.

Will it be overseen by Kevin Feige? Yes?

Will it feature multiple Peter Parkers played by multiple actors? (Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland)? Yes.

After this one film - all recasting bets are off, even (ahem - especially) RDJ’s.

Well if Tobey Maguire and Garfield do show up in FFH, I see it mainly as a brilliant business move to make the Raimi Trilogy and Amazing SpiderMan 1 & 2 films relevant again. It could also solve the Miles Morales problem. A lot of things will be possible by bringing the Spiderverse into the MCU. Tony Stark doesn't need solving. Neither does Steve Rogers. Their MCU stories were perfect and don't need fixing. Leave them as is and let other worthy souls with their own interesting stories continue their legacy. Maybe a Tony Stark AI if RDJ wants back in but that's it.

[drotto]

1 hour ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I'll say it again: I'm talking about WITHIN THE CURRENT MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE. You understand the current MCU is one big story and one fictional universe, right? Kinda like Harry Potter. And Yes, I know Marvel Studios recast Bruce Banner and James Rhodes way back but those were hiccups early on in the MCU's formative years.

Now, If Disney does indeed redo and reboot all the Marvel movies in 20 years because they feel they lack the creative juice to keep this thing going, then yes indeed, recast away to your heart's content. But right now, I'm talking about the current Marvel Cinematic Universe in the real world that started with the first Iron Man movie. In this Universe, Robert Downey Jr IS Tony Stark, and Tony Stark died at the end of Endgame. That's the story and it's permanent.

It is not always about lacking creativity leading to the need to reboot or recast eventually.  Movies get dated.  Fans at some point will want to see some of the old characters again, because people love nostalgia.  Finally, everything in entertainment will reach a peak and then have a decline.  It is inevitable.  It is why the vast majority of movie have not gone beyond 3 films.  It is the reason a TV show is considered very successful if it makes it past season 5. At some point the MCU, despite remarkable success, will fall into this pattern. Nothing lasts forever, and by hitting 10 plus years the MCU is already historic. Yes, the MCU is still very viable, but I still think its peak was Endgame.

 

The MCU is a money making business.  If the profits are falling, or they have string of underperforming movies or even bombs, they will do whatever makes them money.  They will not care about the past. If recasting or rebooting looks like the best way to make money, they will do it.