Avengers: Infinity War & Endgame

Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
11,103
Reaction score
237
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
If they did the Hulk properly he could definitely carry a movie, we're talking the proper actor, story line, etc...
I agree. I'm 100% confident that a Mark Ruffalo Hulk movie would work, but they would need to make a couple of changes from the previous two solo movies:

1. Establish the more intelligent Hulk from the comics. Originally, the Hulk was pretty smart. He was able to read, had full command of personal pronouns, could hold down a job, stop an alien invasion, and was even able to maintain a secret identity while still in Hulk form. This was mainly back when Stan Lee was writing the character, but he also exhibited a high level of intelligence during Planet Hulk.

2. Stop acting like the audience is going to be surprised that Bruce Banner turns into the Hulk. We all know it's going to happen, so we don't need to spend half the movie building up to it.

3. Keep him in Hulk form for the majority of the movie. Somewhere between 90-99% of the film should be with the Hulk and Bruce Banner should only make one or two brief appearances. People pay money to see the Hulk, not an hour and a half of Bruce Banner whining about the Hulk. Planet Hulk would be a perfect storyline for this as well.

This is what I think would work (Hulk is my second favorite comic book character, so I have given this a lot of thought). The key to it all is establishing the more intelligent Hulk, though, without that any Hulk movie will just end up retreading familiar territory.

Maybe they can use the next two Avengers films to establish the intelligent Hulk and then shoot him off into space to lead directly into Planet Hulk, followed by World War Hulk.
 
Last edited:

GNT

Moderator
Joined
May 18, 2000
Messages
70,622
Reaction score
257
Location
Australia
I reckon for a separate Hulk movie they'll need to drag in some other characters to help (Hawk and Widow, maybe even Stark). Mark Ruffalo is a great actor and plays a good Hulk but it'll need a bit extra for the film to do well.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
21,646
Reaction score
0
The Planet Hulk mention reminded me that there's a rumor he might be in GOTG2, with something of a Planet Hulk type plot involved.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
33,059
Reaction score
1,594
Location
Oregon
I could see a Hulk/Thor team up, but not so much Iron Man. I think Agents of SMASH is fine for the character's branching out. Even if it's a bit juvenile for my tastes.

I would be more interested if it involved Beta Ray Bill! I'd definitely go see a Planet Hulk type movie, with all the various characters.
But I'm just not interested in another average Hulk loose on the City, running from Ross. And mild romantic interludes with Betsy.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
5
Location
Orange County, New York
I'm barely following these Marvel movies, and I stopped reading their comics late 90's early 2,000's.
But maybe in one of these Avengers movies, the Hulk could go through a time portal, and end up in the future, where they could do the Future Imperfect storyline. Having him face the Maestro would be great. He'd have to be an intelligent Hulk, Basically Banner in the Hulk's form. But that storyline might make for a great solo movie, and would involve a change to the way the Hulk is now, which you could almost look at as a reboot, since that's what the industry is so crazy about. Maybe Tony Stark and Banner work on controlling his transformations during the Avengers movies as a subplot. But you have the Hulk altered from how he is now, then he's facing the Maestro in the future. How you end it or what you do from there can depend on whether they want to continue using the Hulk. But I think that would be a big story line on screen, and a great Hulk movie.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
3,343
Reaction score
1
I agree. I'm 100% confident that a Mark Ruffalo Hulk movie would work, but they would need to make a couple of changes from the previous two solo movies:

1. Establish the more intelligent Hulk from the comics. Originally, the Hulk was pretty smart. He was able to read, had full command of personal pronouns, could hold down a job, stop an alien invasion, and was even able to maintain a secret identity while still in Hulk form. This was mainly back when Stan Lee was writing the character, but he also exhibited a high level of intelligence during Planet Hulk.

2. Stop acting like the audience is going to be surprised that Bruce Banner turns into the Hulk. We all know it's going to happen, so we don't need to spend half the movie building up to it.

3. Keep him in Hulk form for the majority of the movie. Somewhere between 90-99% of the film should be with the Hulk and Bruce Banner should only make one or two brief appearances. People pay money to see the Hulk, not an hour and a half of Bruce Banner whining about the Hulk. Planet Hulk would be a perfect storyline for this as well.

This is what I think would work (Hulk is my second favorite comic book character, so I have given this a lot of thought). The key to it all is establishing the more intelligent Hulk, though, without that any Hulk movie will just end up retreading familiar territory.

Maybe they can use the next two Avengers films to establish the intelligent Hulk and then shoot him off into space to lead directly into Planet Hulk, followed by World War Hulk.
Nice post! Funny you say hes your second as hes my 1st. I would like to see that movie but Id also like to see Mr.Fixit down the line as well as the 90's smart version and the world war version. Theres so many versions that it would be awesome to see a couple movies of each as long as the story lines up and makes sense.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
11,103
Reaction score
237
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
Nice post! Funny you say hes your second as hes my 1st. I would like to see that movie but Id also like to see Mr.Fixit down the line as well as the 90's smart version and the world war version. Theres so many versions that it would be awesome to see a couple movies of each as long as the story lines up and makes sense.
Well, Beast would be my #1 favorite superhero and another character who has been completely butchered when being translated to film or television. The big difference is that they finally seem to have gotten the Hulk right. I have yet to see a movie or cartoon version of Beast that gets the character right.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,914
Reaction score
278
re: Beast.

when I was 4 years old, I thought Lois Lane had blue hair.

I commented to my dad, how silly it was, that Lois Lane (and Superman, for that matter) was always shown in the comic books with blue hair. he laughed ("ahh, the mind of a child, such a wonderous thing").. he told me it was just a highlight color; her hair is NOT blue; her hair is actually black. but they can't just use black ink to depict black hair in a comic book.. if they just colored it all black, then her hair would just look like an undefined blob of black ink. --> the use of "blue", as a highlight to depict "black", was simply a limitation of the artistic medium -- it was common practice -- in the end, there's no such thing as a woman with 'blue' hair (silly child)-- you had to suspend your disbelief a little bit -- Lois Lane actually had black hair -- but comic books were only printed in three colors -- the color palate was limited.

^^ this made perfect sense, to a four year old child.



apparently it doesn't make sense to Bryan Singer. as soon as I saw the character of Beast with BLUE fur, I knew the entire franchise was in trouble. I was suddenly reminded of my young naive 4-year-old self, c/w the marked inability to see past the limitations of the printed medium. the mind of a four year old would (naturally) translate the images LITERALLY -- to the eye of a four year old, Lois Lane has "blue" hair; the Beast has blue fur; etc.

if there's one thing that Nolan gave us, it was the ability to transcend the printed medium, and bring the characters to life in a way that was consistent with a DIFFERENT medium: not the 3-color printed-page anymore .. but the Silver Screen. it is ONLY NATURAL that a cartoon superhero would look different, in a different medium. Nolan gave us a glimpse of what Batman would look like in tactical gear with body armor and "real world" equipment. cool beans.

Singer, on the other hand, gave us a FOUR YEAR OLD"S impression of "blue hair" (wtf?) as if his movie was printed in "three colors".



when I was four years old I had the ability to understand that "ferocious beasts" were not blue. just like Lois Lane's hair, was not blue.
--> when I see a Superman Movie with BLUE HAIR , then I will accept the blue-fur Beast.

when I see christopher reeve and margot kidder with bright, loud, easter-egg-blue, smurf-colored, "wigs" to depict their characters .. THEN I will accept kelsey grammer dipped-in-indigo as "beast"
until then, the movie-version of "beast" represents EVERYTHING WRONG with comic book movies -- an inability to transcend the medium.

the color palate of comic books can't be translated "literally" onto the screen like that -- it reveals the limited imagination of the film-maker. movies are a different medium. they're NOT printed in three colors.
((and/or: the movie version of Beast looks like it belongs in "batman and robin" right next to tommy lee jones as two-face -- it's absurd)).



when it comes to "getting it right" for these characters, the first step is Translation, from one medium to the next.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
21,646
Reaction score
0
By your reasoning, Superman's costume should be black & red.

The simple fact is, Beast was never supposed to be "black with blue highlights" like Spidey's original costume, or Lois' hair. Beast was meant to be blue, and identified as such frequently back then. He started off gray after he took his serum to enhance mutations, but then this happened:

An encounter with Quasimodo, who was attempting to steal Beast's metabolic abilities so that he could get a step closer to becoming more human, caused a majority of Dr. McCoy's life force to be expelled, which resulted in his gray fur becoming blue and the loss of his new found healing factor.
No limitation to the coloring process. Beast was blue, and has remained blue to this day.
 
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
0
apparently it doesn't make sense to Bryan Singer. as soon as I saw the character of Beast with BLUE fur, I knew the entire franchise was in trouble. I was suddenly reminded of my young naive 4-year-old self, c/w the marked inability to see past the limitations of the printed medium. the mind of a four year old would (naturally) translate the images LITERALLY -- to the eye of a four year old, Lois Lane has "blue" hair; the Beast has blue fur; etc.

Singer, on the other hand, gave us a FOUR YEAR OLD"S impression of "blue hair" (wtf?) as if his movie was printed in "three colors".
For someone with the name "cobalt", you really seem to hate the color blue.

What your dad told you about Lois's hair is 100% correct. But that does NOT mean it applies to everything blue in comics. As Toonimator said, Beast is BLUE, not black. He used to (don't know if he still does) refer to himself as "Mother McCoy's blue-furred bouncing baby boy!".

While there are many problems with the X-Films, this isn't one of them. They got Beast's look pretty spot on, both with Kelsey Grammer and with Nicholas Hoult. What they've gotten wrong is his personality.


As for your comments about Batman, I think the black suits are a HUGE problem. Even Tim Burton got that wrong. And the fact that you mentioned the "tactical" look says to me that what you know about anything tactical comes from games or internet. Black is NOT the best option for blending in. There is no solid colour that works well for this, because solid colours stand out, even black on black. Shade and shapes break up outlines and let you hide. My experience? US Army training in camouflage. Nolan's only nod to "tactical" was more "tacticool" internet mall-ninja crap. Burton's was still black, but at least his looked like a suit, not plate-armor.

Batman wears grey, not black. The cowl and cape vary, the shades of grey in the suit vary, but the one thing they aren't is black.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
11,103
Reaction score
237
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
By your reasoning, Superman's costume should be black & red.

The simple fact is, Beast was never supposed to be "black with blue highlights" like Spidey's original costume, or Lois' hair. Beast was meant to be blue, and identified as such frequently back then. He started off gray after he took his serum to enhance mutations, but then this happened:



No limitation to the coloring process. Beast was blue, and has remained blue to this day.
Whatever source you are using for that quote got it wrong. In Amazing Adventures #15 (November 1972), on page 5, panel 1, Beast states that his fur has suddenly changed from grey to black:


If there is a point where Beast's fur mutated again to blue, I have yet to find it and I've read a good chunk of his appearances from those days.

Most likely, as the character got handed off to different writers after he joined the Avengers, this detail was simply forgotten over time and his fur color started being referred to as blue even though it was always intended to be black.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
21,646
Reaction score
0
It's part of the ninja myth, applied to Batman... Ninjas didn't wear black. They didn't even wear camp, they just looked like regular people until one of them killed you, then vanished into the crowd. Batman often has a black cape & cowl, but... dark gray would be much nicer, with lighter gray (or a mix of grays, camp-style) for the suit.

I do prefer Nolan's bat-suit to Burton's, tho... Burton's didn't look like a suit, it looked like black rubber versions of those muscle-sculpted breastplates of old. Nowhere was this more evident than when he unmasks in front of Catwoman & Max Shreck in Batman Returns... dude rips off a rubbed mask, literally tears it apart to reveal himself. It limited his movement way too much, too, so much so that they had to make a big deal about Batman being able to turn his head (a little) in the Dark Knight trilogy, and the torso part of the suit was no better, even before bat-nips.

The X-films got Nightcrawler more inaccurate than Beast in looks. Great character, but they gave him blue skin; he's not called "fuzzy elf" for nothing, his blue-black 'skin' is actually a short, fine coat of fur. Maybe they tried that, failed, and said "screw it, paint him blue, we'll give him tattoos and work that into the script".

Whatever source you are using for that quote got it wrong. In Amazing Adventures #15 (November 1972), on page 5, panel 1, Beast states that his fur has suddenly changed from grey to black:

If there is a point where Beast's fur mutated again to blue, I have yet to find it and I've read a good chunk of his appearances from those days.

Most likely, as the character got handed off to different writers after he joined the Avengers, this detail was simply forgotten over time and his fur color started being referred to as blue even though it was always intended to be black.
I got my quote from the Marvel Comics Database wiki, which also has an entry for Amazing Adventures #15 that does say black fur! The editors of the Hank McCoy and AA#15 entries need to communicate more...

You're probably right about it being a forgotten detail as different writers and artists tackled him (like Spidey's Amazing Fantasy #15 costume being red & black). For more than 30 years, tho, Beast has always identified his blue-furred look as "blue", so the movies still didn't fail on that note.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
11,103
Reaction score
237
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
re: Beast.

when I was 4 years old, I thought Lois Lane had blue hair.

I commented to my dad, how silly it was, that Lois Lane (and Superman, for that matter) was always shown in the comic books with blue hair. he laughed ("ahh, the mind of a child, such a wonderous thing").. he told me it was just a highlight color; her hair is NOT blue; her hair is actually black. but they can't just use black ink to depict black hair in a comic book.. if they just colored it all black, then her hair would just look like an undefined blob of black ink. --> the use of "blue", as a highlight to depict "black", was simply a limitation of the artistic medium -- it was common practice -- in the end, there's no such thing as a woman with 'blue' hair (silly child)-- you had to suspend your disbelief a little bit -- Lois Lane actually had black hair -- but comic books were only printed in three colors -- the color palate was limited.

^^ this made perfect sense, to a four year old child.



apparently it doesn't make sense to Bryan Singer. as soon as I saw the character of Beast with BLUE fur, I knew the entire franchise was in trouble. I was suddenly reminded of my young naive 4-year-old self, c/w the marked inability to see past the limitations of the printed medium. the mind of a four year old would (naturally) translate the images LITERALLY -- to the eye of a four year old, Lois Lane has "blue" hair; the Beast has blue fur; etc.

if there's one thing that Nolan gave us, it was the ability to transcend the printed medium, and bring the characters to life in a way that was consistent with a DIFFERENT medium: not the 3-color printed-page anymore .. but the Silver Screen. it is ONLY NATURAL that a cartoon superhero would look different, in a different medium. Nolan gave us a glimpse of what Batman would look like in tactical gear with body armor and "real world" equipment. cool beans.

Singer, on the other hand, gave us a FOUR YEAR OLD"S impression of "blue hair" (wtf?) as if his movie was printed in "three colors".



when I was four years old I had the ability to understand that "ferocious beasts" were not blue. just like Lois Lane's hair, was not blue.
--> when I see a Superman Movie with BLUE HAIR , then I will accept the blue-fur Beast.

when I see christopher reeve and margot kidder with bright, loud, easter-egg-blue, smurf-colored, "wigs" to depict their characters .. THEN I will accept kelsey grammer dipped-in-indigo as "beast"
until then, the movie-version of "beast" represents EVERYTHING WRONG with comic book movies -- an inability to transcend the medium.

the color palate of comic books can't be translated "literally" onto the screen like that -- it reveals the limited imagination of the film-maker. movies are a different medium. they're NOT printed in three colors.
((and/or: the movie version of Beast looks like it belongs in "batman and robin" right next to tommy lee jones as two-face -- it's absurd)).



when it comes to "getting it right" for these characters, the first step is Translation, from one medium to the next.
I can't click the "Like" button enough for this post.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
11,103
Reaction score
237
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
I got my quote from the Marvel Comics Database wiki, which also has an entry for Amazing Adventures #15 that does say black fur! The editors of the Hank McCoy and AA#15 entries need to communicate more...

You're probably right about it being a forgotten detail as different writers and artists tackled him (like Spidey's Amazing Fantasy #15 costume being red & black). For more than 30 years, tho, Beast has always identified his blue-furred look as "blue", so the movies still didn't fail on that note.
I think the problem is that Beast was always associated with the X-Men prior to 1975. As most people know, the X-Men weren't really that popular back then. So, Beast eventually came to be more heavily associated with the Avengers than the X-Men and that's where the "blue and furry" Beast really originated from. Over time, I guess Avengers fans fell in love with the blue fur, that was never supposed to be blue in the first place, and so Marvel just went with it.

This whole "blue fur vs. black fur" debate has been an uphill battle for me for over 20 years now. So, I'm always pleasantly surprised to see other fans, like Cobalt60, who agree that the fur should be black. However, I always knew that the movie version of Beast was going to have blue fur. As much as I dislike it, there was never a doubt in my mind that they would choose that color. I just wish they hadn't gone with such a bright and unnatural shade of blue for his fur in the movies.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
21,646
Reaction score
0
Even if Beast's fur turned black after gray originally, it's been blue for 30-odd years... why is it still a debate? I don't expect Firestar to look exactly like Mary Jane Watson when she's not in superhero-mode, despite Anjelica looking exactly like MJ in the Spider-Man & His Amazing Friends cartoon.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
11,103
Reaction score
237
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
Even if Beast's fur turned black after gray originally, it's been blue for 30-odd years... why is it still a debate? I don't expect Firestar to look exactly like Mary Jane Watson when she's not in superhero-mode, despite Anjelica looking exactly like MJ in the Spider-Man & His Amazing Friends cartoon.
It's probably getting closer to 40 years by now and most people would agree with you. Which is why it's been nothing but an uphill battle. I understand that my opinion on this is the minority view, but I'm used to that. That doesn't change the fact that it was a mistake that simply got passed on from one writer to the next as the decades passed.

Still, Hulk was only gray for one issue during the 60s, but he became gray again for several years during the 80s. The nice thing about comic books is that eventually everything circles back around. So, we might just see the gray-furred or black-furred Beast return at some point. It took about 24 years for the human Beast to return to the main 616 Marvel continuity, so anything is possible.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
21,646
Reaction score
0
Black-furred Beast did return, sorta, from Age of Apocalypse. Ostensibly he's gray-furred, but it's usually colored so dark that it may well be how they'd depict a black-furred Beast anyway... and one of his aliases is "Black Beast" (tho most know him as "Dark Beast").

I don't see 616 Hank ever becoming black-furred... they only just got rid of the cat-form, for a newer look. Blue's here to stay. A brief and quickly abandoned/forgotten version from so early in the character's existence shouldn't necessarily be brought back for the sake of two fans... that'd be like bringing back the 'whiskers' on Wolverine's original costume outside of flashbacks, or bringing back Savage Wolvie's noseless state. Some iterations are better left in the past, and 616 Beast would look pretty bad with black fur; wouldn't want people confusing him with Black Panther, now, would you? (more appropriate if Cat-Beast got black fur, I suppose!) :awesome:
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
11,103
Reaction score
237
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
Black-furred Beast did return, sorta, from Age of Apocalypse. Ostensibly he's gray-furred, but it's usually colored so dark that it may well be how they'd depict a black-furred Beast anyway... and one of his aliases is "Black Beast" (tho most know him as "Dark Beast").

I don't see 616 Hank ever becoming black-furred... they only just got rid of the cat-form, for a newer look. Blue's here to stay. A brief and quickly abandoned/forgotten version from so early in the character's existence shouldn't necessarily be brought back for the sake of two fans... that'd be like bringing back the 'whiskers' on Wolverine's original costume outside of flashbacks, or bringing back Savage Wolvie's noseless state. Some iterations are better left in the past, and 616 Beast would look pretty bad with black fur; wouldn't want people confusing him with Black Panther, now, would you? (more appropriate if Cat-Beast got black fur, I suppose!) :awesome:
Obviously you are pretty attached to blue-furred Beast, so there's really little point in continuing to argue this. However, you seem to be twisting some facts around in order to reinforce your point. Beast had been around for almost 9 years when he mutated into his black-furred form, so it wasn't really that early on in the character's existence. Also, we don't know how quickly his fur color was forgotten. The black fur first appeared in 1972 and when Beast joined the Avengers in 1975 (issue #137) no mention was made of his fur color. I doubt Steve Englehart (the writer of the Avengers when Beast joined the team) would have referred to the fur as blue since he was the one who turned Beast's fur black, in AA#15, in the first place. So that's at least three years of black fur, so not quite "quickly abandoned." Also, when you look at how Beast's fur is colored in those early Avengers issues, you will see that it's a noticeably darker blue compared to the color used on obviously blue uniforms, like Captain America's. It's actually the same shade of blue used to color Black Panther's uniform, which everyone agrees is supposed to be black.

Some people would have claimed that Green Hulk was "here to stay" before the Gray Hulk was brought back for several years. Some people thought Bucky Barnes would never be brought back from the dead, but he came back and even took over the role of Captain America for a while. This is comics. Never say never.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,914
Reaction score
278
if the movies had gone with a dark, oily, "midnight" blue for Beast's fur .. then OK .. I'd buy that for a dollar.
it would be an "artistic" translation of the blue fur, from one medium to the next --- from the 3-color medium of 1960's comic books, to the "real color" medium of film. cool beans.

but instead they went with a bright, chalky, "Smurf" blue instead .. it looks like a shumacher batman film.
like a "Literal" translation of the 3-color medium, which doesn't make sense outside of that 3-color medium.

(made worse, when they went even BRIGHTER for "first class"; this franchise reboot aims for a more "realistic" feel, in every other aspect -- but somehow, they made Beast look even MORE cartoon-ridiculous than I had ever thought possible -- if we can manage to ignore the "blue beast" in X3, (like we ignore the rest of the film), then there's NO reason to use this color -- they should have used a dark, oily, (black?) Beast for First Class: the "blue fur" in this film looks like a bad joke in context with all the other characters). :\
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
21,646
Reaction score
0
Um, they went with a bluish-gray for First Class.

Also, it's not translating "the 3-color medium of 1960's comic books", it's translating "the multi-color medium of 21st century comic books".

Was it too saturated? Yeah, sure... but "midnight, oily blue" was not the way to go, either... that's Nightcrawler. They just could've pulled a less-saturated blue for Beast.
 

GNT

Moderator
Joined
May 18, 2000
Messages
70,622
Reaction score
257
Location
Australia
Joe and Anthony Russo are Set to Take on Marvel’s Avengers: Infinity War!

Rumored for some time, it now appears to be official that Joe and Anthony Russo, the sibling pair behind Captain America: The Winter Soldier and the upcoming Captain America: Civil War, will take on Marvel Studios’ massive two-part Avengers: Infinity War. The news broke via ****** Digest this morning and is now being reported in the trades as well.

“It’s Thanos against everyone,” star Josh Brolin told us about the “Phase Three” capper late last year, which is believed to involve the Mad Titan’s quest to bring together the six Infinity Stones we’ve seen appear throughout the history of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The Russos, who also directed the comedies You, Me and Dupree and Welcome to Colinwood in addition to episodes of “Arrested Development” and “Community,” recently signed a first look deal at Sony Pictures. There, the pair is attached to direct The Gray Man, a big screen adaptation of Mark Greaney’s 2009 thriller novel, with rumors swirling that they’re also planning a Ghostbusters film with Channing Tatum attached to star.

Production on Captain America: Civil War is set to begin within the next two weeks with the film targeting a May 6, 2016 release. After that, Avengers: Infinity War Part I will see a release on May 4, 2018, with Part II set to follow one year later on May 3, 2019.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
424
Reaction score
0
Location
Caledonia, ON, Canada
This is how i imagine it to be..... (these are not spoilers. just my opinion)

Part 1: It will probably start with Thanos retrieving his last Infinty Stone. Then him raging war against the Avengers. (Which will probably include: Cap, Iron man,Thor, Hulk, Hawkeye, Black Panther, Nick Fury, Ant-man, Widow, Guardians of the Galaxy, Vision, Winter Soldier, Namor, Wolverine (Hopefully) and Spider-man (Hopefully). Alongside Thanos will most likely be the Skrulls and Lady Death.

The Skrulls and the Avengers will fight for a while. Someone will most likely die. My guess is is that Namor, Vision, Fury, or Hawkeye will die. It will most likely end with Thanos coming down to Earth with his Infinity Gauntlet.

Part 2: They'll fight with Thanos. Probably a near death experience for someone and they retreat. Iron man making the call, and not Cap. This will lead into Civil War (I don't remember if Civil War comes out after Infinity War).

Later they go back and fight Thanos and his army of Skrulls. At least two main characters will die by Thanos' Infinity Gauntlet. My guesses are Rocket, Panther, Spider-man, or Wolverine.

In the end, Drax will most likely rip out Thanos' heart just like in the comics.

So that's how i think the movie will go.
 

GNT

Moderator
Joined
May 18, 2000
Messages
70,622
Reaction score
257
Location
Australia
I doubt we'd see Wolverine in the MCU anytime soon but who knows, we somehow ended up with Spiderman so anything's possible.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
33,059
Reaction score
1,594
Location
Oregon
Possibly, but Fox seam more stingy! And apparently, judging form the new FF4, are trying to make their own stamp on the universe.

Besides, there are plenty of heroes within the MCU to use. That Wolverine isn't a just have. As much as most of us would like it to happen.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
5,721
Reaction score
52
No, please - no Wolverine. And that's assuming they would get back the rights to use him. I don't want the MCU going down the path of the comics universe where Wolverine is a member of every super hero team on Earth and seemingly appears in 20+ books a month.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,914
Reaction score
278
my first real exposure to wolverine was a comic called 'wolverine vs spiderman' which took place before the berlin wall came down. one of the intriguing aspects of his character, for me, was the way they portrayed his 'berserker mode' -- where he would basically just see red and lose all control and become a monster like the Hulk. at NO POINT did any of the Jackson movies even touch on this. we only saw Logan 'lose control' and stab Rogue when he was sleeping -- there's also a few times when Magneto calls him an animal and chastises Xavier for ever taking him in -- but we NEVER see it. the sanitized-for-hollywood version of the wolverine character ignores the one thing that makes him the most interesting (IMO) -- his almost "Banner-Like" self loathing, and the shame he feels when he loses all control of himself. this is why he took up the ways of the samurai and learned discipline through japanese martial arts in the Frank Miller epic -- as a means of self control, over the animal that lives within him -- but hollywood has him go to Japan simply because he was invited. in the original 1970's comics, when he first gets his adamantium, he escapes the facility and lives in a feral state in the woods, naked like an animal until he is found and rescued by some canadians, who took him in like a stray dog and taught him how to be "human" again -- in the movies he just gets up and walks away with his full mental faculties intact, he stays with some old couple, and slices their sink in a scene from Raimi's Spiderman. *yawn*

to be honest, I'm not entirely fond of Jackson's wolverine. ("come at me bro"). I think it's high time that they recast the character and we see a different, more accurate, interpretation. Jackson was hailed as the perfect cinematic casting for Logan.. at a time when the All The Interwebs thought the SAME THING about Toby MacGuire as Spiderman. it was ********* then, and its ********* now. Fox beLIEves that Jackson's Wolverine is some kind of sacred cow, they're afraid to touch it or change it, because they don;t EVEN understand it. IMO it's completely played out. Wolverine needs a new, dark, brooding TRILOGY in the spirit of Dark Knight -- infact, I'd actually LIKE to see what Nolan would do with it (as crazy as that even sounds) -- I think anything would be better than the "Y2K" version that we're still living with, 15 years on. *sigh*
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
33,059
Reaction score
1,594
Location
Oregon
I'm not against Jackman as Wolverine. Think he did quite well with the character, considering who they could have cast. Wolverine 3 will be his last movie, so i guess the point is moot. While a little part of me kind of wanted to see him appear as an Avenger with Spidey and all. I'm fine if he never does. Especially since they would have focused on Logan for 90 minutes, then tried to jam the other 5 actors into 30!

This is partly why I never truly like the X-Men movies that much, it was basically three Wolverine movies before the Wolverine movies. :grin:
As an X-MEN fan, I was eager to see "all" of them shine! Cyclops, Jean, Storm, etc.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
11,103
Reaction score
237
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
I'm not against Jackman as Wolverine. Think he did quite well with the character, considering who they could have cast.
Dougray Scott was originally cast as Wolverine in the 2000 X-Men movie, but he was also shooting Mission Impossible 2 and scheduling conflicts caused them to recast the roll with an unknown: Hugh Jackman.

I would probably not be so resentful of Jackman if Wolverine didn't turn into the central character of almost every X-Men movie he appeared in (sure he didn't take over First Class, but his cameo was totally unnecessary and absolutely ridiculous).

The only good thing that came out of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine was a normalization of Wolverine's appearance in the comics. He had totally gone off the rails in the X-Men books and the popularity of Jackman's portrayal caused the X-Men writers and artists to reign him in to something actually resembling a human being again.

Pre-X-Men movie, the almost unanimously hated "feral Wolverine":



Post X-Men movie, where you can see that Logan's look has clearly been influenced by the film:


Other than that, I would actually be pretty happy with a complete reboot of Wolverine's character and, while they're at it, the rest of the cinematic X-Men, to something that actually resembles the comic books.
 
Last edited:

GNT

Moderator
Joined
May 18, 2000
Messages
70,622
Reaction score
257
Location
Australia
I'm not against Jackman as Wolverine. Think he did quite well with the character, considering who they could have cast.
According to IMDB Keanu Reeves,Gary Sinise were the studio's preferred choices and Dougray Scott was cast in the role but dropped out. Honestly I don't think any of those choices would've been great, this role was made for Jackman and I'm glad his stuck around for so long which rarely happens.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
5,721
Reaction score
52
I loved Jackman as Wolverine, I just don't want to see Wolverine in an Avengers movie unless it's Avengers v. X-men. That would be a kick-*** movie!
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
15,026
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesa, AZ
AS a comic reader since the 80's I got so sick of seeing Wolverine in everything. At one point, he and Spider-Man were guest appearing in almost everything. There was even a short stint where they were members of the Fantastic Four with Hulk and Ghost Rider. I thought that the only saving grace was that they weren't Avengers, until Bendis started the New Avengers and dragged them both in. I totally face palmed the day that team was announced, and again when I read the issue.

All of that to say, Wolverine has taken over the entire X-Men franchise. I really hope that he makes no appearance in the MCU, because we don't need 3 series about the Wolverine and whoever happens to be hanging out with him during the current emergency.
 
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
0
According to IMDB Keanu Reeves,Gary Sinise were the studio's preferred choices and Dougray Scott was cast in the role but dropped out. Honestly I don't think any of those choices would've been great, this role was made for Jackman and I'm glad his stuck around for so long which rarely happens.
Way, WAY back in 1992, Wizard issue# 7 had a "Dream Cast" for an X-Men movie. While Patrick Stewart was the top choice for Prof X even then, the cast included Arnold Schwarzenegger as Colossus, and Robert De Niro (circa Cape Fear) as Wolverine:



Would have made for an interesting movie, to be sure. If I remember later, I'll grab the old back issue and see who else they had for the cast.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
11,103
Reaction score
237
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
I guess if they wanted to recast Wolverine with a younger star, who is also a bit of a Hugh Jackman lookalike, then they might try Aidan Turner, who played Kili in the recent The Hobbit trilogy:


He's still too tall, 6 feet, but he's only 31 and I'm sure he could pack on some muscle in a short time for the role.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
21,646
Reaction score
0
AS a comic reader since the 80's I got so sick of seeing Wolverine in everything. At one point, he and Spider-Man were guest appearing in almost everything. There was even a short stint where they were members of the Fantastic Four with Hulk and Ghost Rider. I thought that the only saving grace was that they weren't Avengers, until Bendis started the New Avengers and dragged them both in. I totally face palmed the day that team was announced, and again when I read the issue.

All of that to say, Wolverine has taken over the entire X-Men franchise. I really hope that he makes no appearance in the MCU, because we don't need 3 series about the Wolverine and whoever happens to be hanging out with him during the current emergency.
The FF stint was very short: only about an issue & a half, because Johnny's Skrull ex-girlfriend had infiltrated the team & made sure the others were taken out, so you had that weird FF pop up to save the day. Spidey, at least, made sense given his long history with 'em (which was one reason I loved his inclusion when Johnny was thought 'dead' in the Negative Zone).

I didn't mind them being on the Avengers if only because it seemed everyone else already had at least a reserve membership, but it did feel like overkill with Wolvie on so many teams (something they often acknowledged in the various books), but...yeah, even if they got the rights to use Wolvie, I wouldn't want him in the movie team. Didn't much care for all the X-Men films aside from First Class focusing on him.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
33,059
Reaction score
1,594
Location
Oregon
I also recall reading that Mel Gibson was also considered for the role. As well as Joaquin Phoenix. So at the end of the day, I think they did fine with Jackman.

I've been reading some online chatter, that suggests a possible Skrull infiltration. For the recent Iron Man issues. But MCU cannot use them, so probably not. Ms. Marvel is the next person i'd like to see join the Avengers.
 
Top