ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
They can digitally change all the walkie-talkies to Kangs.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Isn't Kang a time-travelling villain? If he gets a two-part Avengers movie, at the end of Part 1 he should have some plan to go back in time and change history that's under way and working. Then in-between the two movies Marvel releases limited-time special-editions of all the MCU movies to date with Kang edited in. There would be Kang posters and people in Kang t-shirts, the Statue of Liberty becomes the Statue of Kang, SHIELD becomes SKIELD, New York City is New Kang City, etc. Then Part 2 resolves the plot and cancels all the changes, and all the special editions are pulled from the shelves.
+8
Options
Mego Thor"I say thee...NAY!"Registered Userregular
So Kang was the villain of the Star Wars Original Trilogy all along?
Isn't Kang a time-travelling villain? If he gets a two-part Avengers movie, at the end of Part 1 he should have some plan to go back in time and change history that's under way and working. Then in-between the two movies Marvel releases limited-time special-editions of all the MCU movies to date with Kang edited in. There would be Kang posters and people in Kang t-shirts, the Statue of Liberty becomes the Statue of Kang, SHIELD becomes SKIELD, New York City is New Kang City, etc. Then Part 2 resolves the plot and cancels all the changes, and all the special editions are pulled from the shelves.
OH MAN
The SENATE HEARING IN IM2
Is just Kang hmmm YEEESSS
.
I don't ever think they'll do Kang. But Kang is a firm number 2 behind Loki for favorite Avenger's villans.
When they introduce Kang they will re-release special versions of all the previous MCU films with Kang digitally inserted in the background of a few key shots, to retroactively justify how he knows a bunch of stuff about the heroes.
It's revealed that Stan Lee has been Kang using holograms.
When they introduce Kang they will re-release special versions of all the previous MCU films with Kang digitally inserted in the background of a few key shots, to retroactively justify how he knows a bunch of stuff about the heroes.
It's revealed that Stan Lee has been Kang using holograms.
Time travel would explain how he manages to look the same in the 1940s and the present.
When they introduce Kang they will re-release special versions of all the previous MCU films with Kang digitally inserted in the background of a few key shots, to retroactively justify how he knows a bunch of stuff about the heroes.
It's revealed that Stan Lee has been Kang using holograms.
Time travel would explain how he manages to look the same in the 1940s and the present.
And space
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
Isn't Kang a time-travelling villain? If he gets a two-part Avengers movie, at the end of Part 1 he should have some plan to go back in time and change history that's under way and working. Then in-between the two movies Marvel releases limited-time special-editions of all the MCU movies to date with Kang edited in. There would be Kang posters and people in Kang t-shirts, the Statue of Liberty becomes the Statue of Kang, SHIELD becomes SKIELD, New York City is New Kang City, etc. Then Part 2 resolves the plot and cancels all the changes, and all the special editions are pulled from the shelves.
Kang is just built for wacky time-travel shenanigans. Personally I want to see a big chase sequence where the Avengers are either pursuing Kang or fleeing from his super-powerful future troops, and both parties are running through a series of time portals. Avengers battling future-troops in the middle of the Napoleonic wars, then ancient Egypt, then they start running afoul of dinosaurs... You get the idea. It'd be a great chance for weird cameos. Devil Dinosaur, anyone?
I'm sceptical of Marvel ever going for the time-travel stuff. Seems like a can of worms.
They're about to introduce magic after they did space crazy silliness with GOTG. I can see them having time travel once they're sure they can get away with it.
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
People were wildly accepting of time travel in Days of Future Past. I wouldn't rule out Marvel giving it a shot.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
It'll work so long as they keep a largely light-hearted, "Back to the Future meets superheroes" tone.
The main reason I expect them to go to time travel is that they are slowly trying to bring as much of the Marvel Universe to the screen intact as they legally can. Kang is one of the biggest villains they still have rights to, so we'll probably see him soon after Kang goes down.
With the current Marvel Universe inching toward a Secret Wars redo, I'm starting to wonder if we're going to see The Beyonder on the big screen. Never considered it before, but Secret Wars would make good fodder for the next big Avengers arc.
time travel could be a great way of bringing back some of the villains they've killed off. nothing like an alternate time-line to shore up the continuity.
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
It's also a good way to go sideways in terms of scale. After Infinity War they're going to be in that position of "How do we top this?" And the logical way to do that is not to try and make a story that's somehow bigger in scale than the potential death of everything in the universe. It's to introduce a threat that's extremely destructive and dangerous, but in a different way. Kang mucking up time/space is a good way to do that. Another good option would be to do a Masters of Evil plot, which would be smaller scale but have much higher personal stakes.
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Avengers Under Siege, Masters of Evil taking over Avengers Tower or Mansion or whatever their HQ will be in five years would be interesting. Make it Die Hard with superheroes.
What would be awesome is a Part 1 that finishes with Kang going back. Then have part 2 start identically to Part 1, for like the first 10 minutes before shit goes crazy and the title comes up. Just to totally screw with people's heads.
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
The main reason I expect them to go to time travel is that they are slowly trying to bring as much of the Marvel Universe to the screen intact as they legally can. Kang is one of the biggest villains they still have rights to, so we'll probably see him soon after Kang goes down.
The main reason I expect them to go to time travel is that they are slowly trying to bring as much of the Marvel Universe to the screen intact as they legally can. Kang is one of the biggest villains they still have rights to, so we'll probably see him soon after Kang goes down.
Man, time travel makes my head hurt.
Time travel will make my head hurt, but by now I have become immune from exposure.
On the topic of time travel: It's fine so long as it's not the actual focus of the story. Everyone loves Back to the Future and for good reason. It's well written, well acted, the characters interact nicely and are interesting, it has good music, etc. However, while time travel is critical to the story, very little of the story actually focuses on that. It's mainly Marty trying to achieve X while in the 50s. Be it finding Doc, fixing his parents, or
8-)
getting back to the future.
+4
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Yeah, way too many time travel stories are focused on the mechanics of an impossibility rather than just telling a good story. The Time Traveler's Wife has possibly the worst explanation of time travel I've ever seen, but it is such a good, hokey romance novel that people who are into that sort of thing love it.
X-Men is a solid franchise, and diverse enough that I'm pretty pleased with it off doing it's own thing rather then being an MCU property.
The X-Men has always sat oddly in the Marvel Universe. They work very well as an independent property, and I think the movies have been pretty decent. I like that they have a different tone and look than the MCU.
The trouble with Spider-Man in the movies is that, once you get past the origin story, he works best in serialized format. Spider-Man is a soap opera punctuated by foiling bank robberies and supervillains. The type of things that are at the heart of a superhero movies - villains with big plots needing foiled - are there to fuck up Peter's real life. It's not impossible to do this in a movie, but I don't think its the best format for the character.
X-Men is a solid franchise, and diverse enough that I'm pretty pleased with it off doing it's own thing rather then being an MCU property.
The X-Men has always sat oddly in the Marvel Universe. They work very well as an independent property, and I think the movies have been pretty decent. I like that they have a different tone and look than the MCU.
The trouble with Spider-Man in the movies is that, once you get past the origin story, he works best in serialized format. Spider-Man is a soap opera punctuated by foiling bank robberies and supervillains. The type of things that are at the heart of a superhero movies - villains with big plots needing foiled - are there to fuck up Peter's real life. It's not impossible to do this in a movie, but I don't think its the best format for the character.
X-Men is a solid franchise, and diverse enough that I'm pretty pleased with it off doing it's own thing rather then being an MCU property.
The X-Men has always sat oddly in the Marvel Universe. They work very well as an independent property, and I think the movies have been pretty decent. I like that they have a different tone and look than the MCU.
The trouble with Spider-Man in the movies is that, once you get past the origin story, he works best in serialized format. Spider-Man is a soap opera punctuated by foiling bank robberies and supervillains. The type of things that are at the heart of a superhero movies - villains with big plots needing foiled - are there to fuck up Peter's real life. It's not impossible to do this in a movie, but I don't think its the best format for the character.
He'd excel in a live action tv series.
For some reason modern studios don't want to make live action shows about their most popular characters, presumably because they don't want them to conflict with their movie plans. I think that the suits don't quite get that these characters initially became famous in a serialized format, and that this is probably where they work best (c.f. Arrow).
X-Men is a solid franchise, and diverse enough that I'm pretty pleased with it off doing it's own thing rather then being an MCU property.
The X-Men has always sat oddly in the Marvel Universe. They work very well as an independent property, and I think the movies have been pretty decent. I like that they have a different tone and look than the MCU.
The trouble with Spider-Man in the movies is that, once you get past the origin story, he works best in serialized format. Spider-Man is a soap opera punctuated by foiling bank robberies and supervillains. The type of things that are at the heart of a superhero movies - villains with big plots needing foiled - are there to fuck up Peter's real life. It's not impossible to do this in a movie, but I don't think its the best format for the character.
He'd excel in a live action tv series.
For some reason modern studios don't want to make live action shows about their most popular characters, presumably because they don't want them to conflict with their movie plans. I think that the suits don't quite get that these characters initially became famous in a serialized format, and that this is probably where they work best (c.f. Arrow).
With Spiderman I suspect it's far more likely an issue of the budget of a television series not being capable of matching the needs of the character. The problem with Spiderman is that it's ultimately a soap-opera about a regular schlub who is also a superhero in such a way that it requires alot of money and computer graphics to pull off. It's not a good fit for TV in that sense.
Arrow works in large part because the scale and dynamics of it's action set pieces are cheap by virtue of it's set up (both the Green Arrow himself and their take on him).
And even for all that, they still feel TV cheap. That's not to say they are bad or anything, but it's clear that the TV budget is an issue. And Spiderman would be WAY more expensive to pull off in any way that wasn't laughable.
X-Men is a solid franchise, and diverse enough that I'm pretty pleased with it off doing it's own thing rather then being an MCU property.
The X-Men has always sat oddly in the Marvel Universe. They work very well as an independent property, and I think the movies have been pretty decent. I like that they have a different tone and look than the MCU.
The trouble with Spider-Man in the movies is that, once you get past the origin story, he works best in serialized format. Spider-Man is a soap opera punctuated by foiling bank robberies and supervillains. The type of things that are at the heart of a superhero movies - villains with big plots needing foiled - are there to fuck up Peter's real life. It's not impossible to do this in a movie, but I don't think its the best format for the character.
He'd excel in a live action tv series.
For some reason modern studios don't want to make live action shows about their most popular characters, presumably because they don't want them to conflict with their movie plans. I think that the suits don't quite get that these characters initially became famous in a serialized format, and that this is probably where they work best (c.f. Arrow).
With Spiderman I suspect it's far more likely an issue of the budget of a television series not being capable of matching the needs of the character. The problem with Spiderman is that it's ultimately a soap-opera about a regular schlub who is also a superhero in such a way that it requires alot of money and computer graphics to pull off. It's not a good fit for TV in that sense.
Arrow works in large part because the scale and dynamics of it's action set pieces are cheap by virtue of it's set up.
I don't think that a Spidey show would cost too much more than Arrow. The only expensive effect is going to be the webbing. and either simple CGI or some variant of silly string could probably cover most of the necessary effects. I mean, if you can do an outer space show with laser battles in 1995 like Babylon 5, one guy in a suit with webs probably won't be that hard.
X-Men is a solid franchise, and diverse enough that I'm pretty pleased with it off doing it's own thing rather then being an MCU property.
The X-Men has always sat oddly in the Marvel Universe. They work very well as an independent property, and I think the movies have been pretty decent. I like that they have a different tone and look than the MCU.
The trouble with Spider-Man in the movies is that, once you get past the origin story, he works best in serialized format. Spider-Man is a soap opera punctuated by foiling bank robberies and supervillains. The type of things that are at the heart of a superhero movies - villains with big plots needing foiled - are there to fuck up Peter's real life. It's not impossible to do this in a movie, but I don't think its the best format for the character.
He'd excel in a live action tv series.
For some reason modern studios don't want to make live action shows about their most popular characters, presumably because they don't want them to conflict with their movie plans. I think that the suits don't quite get that these characters initially became famous in a serialized format, and that this is probably where they work best (c.f. Arrow).
With Spiderman I suspect it's far more likely an issue of the budget of a television series not being capable of matching the needs of the character. The problem with Spiderman is that it's ultimately a soap-opera about a regular schlub who is also a superhero in such a way that it requires alot of money and computer graphics to pull off. It's not a good fit for TV in that sense.
Arrow works in large part because the scale and dynamics of it's action set pieces are cheap by virtue of it's set up.
I don't think that a Spidey show would cost too much more than Arrow. The only expensive effect is going to be the webbing. and either simple CGI or some variant of silly string could probably cover most of the necessary effects. I mean, if you can do an outer space show with laser battles in 1995 like Babylon 5, one guy in a suit with webs probably won't be that hard.
You are not considering so many huge issues here. Web-slinging and the scale of both how Spiderman moves and fights and how he gets around. These things are fucking expensive to do. And expensive to showcase while integrating with the live-action stuff.
Arrow ultimately is about a normal(ish) guy who kills people with conventional shit. It's about having good stunt-people (and actors willing to do stunts), some props, some choreography and maybe some occasional wirework. Spiderman running around and fighting is like CGI and wirework up the arsehole unless you want it to not look anything like spiderman. That is not cheap to pull off.
Space battles, as games have also proven for a long time now, are cheap and easy. Because they are prebuilt models flying around against a big black background and it's all 100% CG. Integrating CG webbing and Spiderman moving around into a live scene is a hell of alot harder. (Hell, even in the SM and ASM movies the web-slinging still looks kinda fake and they spent ALOT more money then an entire season of a show could likely afford to.)
Shame animation still doesn't get much respect, because doing a couple of seasons of animated TV show in-between films could be cool. Especially if they got the film actor to do the voice.
Though marvel controls the Spider-Man TV rights, I think.
That reminds me, that Fox X-Men TV show is rumored to need Marvel to sign off on it before they can make it. If I was Marvel, I'd be like "Give us Fantastic Four and you can make X-Men tv shows all you wanat."
Posts
OH MAN
The SENATE HEARING IN IM2
I don't ever think they'll do Kang. But Kang is a firm number 2 behind Loki for favorite Avenger's villans.
It's revealed that Stan Lee has been Kang using holograms.
Time travel would explain how he manages to look the same in the 1940s and the present.
And space
Kang is just built for wacky time-travel shenanigans. Personally I want to see a big chase sequence where the Avengers are either pursuing Kang or fleeing from his super-powerful future troops, and both parties are running through a series of time portals. Avengers battling future-troops in the middle of the Napoleonic wars, then ancient Egypt, then they start running afoul of dinosaurs... You get the idea. It'd be a great chance for weird cameos. Devil Dinosaur, anyone?
They're about to introduce magic after they did space crazy silliness with GOTG. I can see them having time travel once they're sure they can get away with it.
With the current Marvel Universe inching toward a Secret Wars redo, I'm starting to wonder if we're going to see The Beyonder on the big screen. Never considered it before, but Secret Wars would make good fodder for the next big Avengers arc.
Age of Ultron is totally sweet.
Now I must go back. Farewell people of 2015
Man, time travel makes my head hurt.
Time travel will make my head hurt, but by now I have become immune from exposure.
Fox has the rights. And are working on one
And it'll be turrrr-ible.
First Class and Days of Future Past were good and Wolverine was enjoyable. Fox hasn't put out a bad X-men movie since Origins, IMO
Yeah, Sony's the one whose failing. Though I did like Amazing Spider-man.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
8-)
getting back to the future.
The X-Men has always sat oddly in the Marvel Universe. They work very well as an independent property, and I think the movies have been pretty decent. I like that they have a different tone and look than the MCU.
The trouble with Spider-Man in the movies is that, once you get past the origin story, he works best in serialized format. Spider-Man is a soap opera punctuated by foiling bank robberies and supervillains. The type of things that are at the heart of a superhero movies - villains with big plots needing foiled - are there to fuck up Peter's real life. It's not impossible to do this in a movie, but I don't think its the best format for the character.
He'd excel in a live action tv series.
For some reason modern studios don't want to make live action shows about their most popular characters, presumably because they don't want them to conflict with their movie plans. I think that the suits don't quite get that these characters initially became famous in a serialized format, and that this is probably where they work best (c.f. Arrow).
With Spiderman I suspect it's far more likely an issue of the budget of a television series not being capable of matching the needs of the character. The problem with Spiderman is that it's ultimately a soap-opera about a regular schlub who is also a superhero in such a way that it requires alot of money and computer graphics to pull off. It's not a good fit for TV in that sense.
Arrow works in large part because the scale and dynamics of it's action set pieces are cheap by virtue of it's set up (both the Green Arrow himself and their take on him).
And even for all that, they still feel TV cheap. That's not to say they are bad or anything, but it's clear that the TV budget is an issue. And Spiderman would be WAY more expensive to pull off in any way that wasn't laughable.
I don't think that a Spidey show would cost too much more than Arrow. The only expensive effect is going to be the webbing. and either simple CGI or some variant of silly string could probably cover most of the necessary effects. I mean, if you can do an outer space show with laser battles in 1995 like Babylon 5, one guy in a suit with webs probably won't be that hard.
You are not considering so many huge issues here. Web-slinging and the scale of both how Spiderman moves and fights and how he gets around. These things are fucking expensive to do. And expensive to showcase while integrating with the live-action stuff.
Arrow ultimately is about a normal(ish) guy who kills people with conventional shit. It's about having good stunt-people (and actors willing to do stunts), some props, some choreography and maybe some occasional wirework. Spiderman running around and fighting is like CGI and wirework up the arsehole unless you want it to not look anything like spiderman. That is not cheap to pull off.
Space battles, as games have also proven for a long time now, are cheap and easy. Because they are prebuilt models flying around against a big black background and it's all 100% CG. Integrating CG webbing and Spiderman moving around into a live scene is a hell of alot harder. (Hell, even in the SM and ASM movies the web-slinging still looks kinda fake and they spent ALOT more money then an entire season of a show could likely afford to.)
Though marvel controls the Spider-Man TV rights, I think.
That reminds me, that Fox X-Men TV show is rumored to need Marvel to sign off on it before they can make it. If I was Marvel, I'd be like "Give us Fantastic Four and you can make X-Men tv shows all you wanat."