There Was A Different Idea: An MCU Producer Quest

[Marlin]

I think we're good for the original Iron Man plot? It establishes things well, stands on it's own. Gives the audience a wow moment with Iron Man publically going hero at the end.

The after-credits scene is of Thor's hammer right?

Not anything I'd want to change, I thought the Iron Man plot was good. Unless you guarantee knowledge that Iron Man will be a hit, nothing should really change.

 

[CyberFemme]

Consider: If we go down the WW2-Supersoldier-Natasha route, we can have a Captain America/Black Widow double feature as a prequel: The First Avengers.

 

[King crimson]

Consider: If we go down the WW2-Supersoldier-Natasha route, we can have a Captain America/Black Widow double feature as a prequel: The First Avengers.

Click to shrink...

I mean we could but I'd rather each of them get their own movie independent of one another so that they don't overshadow each other. Plus it raises the questions of why they are cooperating directly in WW2 and how Black Widow survived without an iceberg to be frozen into. It also kind of makes Natasha and Steve feel a little samey in my opinion.

I personally would push for a more morally ambiguous Black Widow initially and have a different female lead for the Avengers. Go for more of a classic spy feel than a straight up superhero for Black Widow that lets her feel dangerous as opposed to IRL where she basically played discount Diamondback and was less interesting for it. I'd rather have a Natasha that the audience genuinely can't tell for a while if she's villainous or heroic as opposed to a Natasha who we literally only see doing heroic things and just get told for a long time that she did bad stuff.

 

[HeWhoAdds]

Consider: If we go down the WW2-Supersoldier-Natasha route, we can have a Captain America/Black Widow double feature as a prequel: The First Avengers.

Click to shrink...

I would unironically love this movie. Flashing back and forth between Steve and Natasha becoming supersoldiers to highlight the differences in the American and Soviet experiences of WW2.

 

[YiteWrite]

What about a movie with Hercules and Amadeus Cho?

Or a Captain Britain movie. Or, if not that... what about giving him a part in Captain America? Or at least mentioning him?

 

[Nystical]

So do people want to try and get Don Cheadle as Rhodey from the get go? Just avoid the IRL replacement issues? I don't know any other actor alterations that people might want to make but that seems like low hanging fruit

Click to shrink...

I would rather cast completely new actors just to keep things more exciting and make the choices a little more thoughtful. Basically what @TruckOnEmptyRoad 's X-Men producer quest did, where an actor cannot be reused in the same part they played in OTL. There are tons of actors in the business, plus we could use an actor from the MCU in a different role. Iron Man could be an exception because it was already in production before our character became in charge.

Besides, we're already planning on making different movies from the original MCU that focus on different characters, right? I fear that without some kind of stipulation that "same actor cannot play same role" voters will be tempted by the seemingly easy path of repeating the MCU "but with tweaks".

I'd like to keep Obidiah Stane alive at the end of the movie so we could bring the character back if we wanted to and I'd be down to make him a bit more of a genuine believer in the American military industrial complex and convinced he's in the right whilst leaving Ten Rings a bit more disconnected from him (he's not behind terrorists kidnapping Tony but he is selling weapons to terrorists so the US buys more stuff from Stark Industries).

Click to shrink...

My only problem with this change (and the above change of having Don Cheadle to begin with) is that they are exactly the same as what we did in the Kevin Feige quest.

Consider: If we go down the WW2-Supersoldier-Natasha route, we can have a Captain America/Black Widow double feature as a prequel: The First Avengers.

Click to shrink...

Black Widow is going to be very old then, even if we play into the "Russia using child soldiers" thing that would still put her at around 80 in the 2010s. It's fine if you don't want to use her in the future that much, but if you do want her to be an important character, and if you also don't want her to go into the ice with Steve, then we'll need more content between WW2 and modern time for her to be relevant in.

 

[Kirook]

I mean we could but I'd rather each of them get their own movie independent of one another so that they don't overshadow each other. Plus it raises the questions of why they are cooperating directly in WW2 and how Black Widow survived without an iceberg to be frozen into. It also kind of makes Natasha and Steve feel a little samey in my opinion.

I personally would push for a more morally ambiguous Black Widow initially and have a different female lead for the Avengers. Go for more of a classic spy feel than a straight up superhero for Black Widow that lets her feel dangerous as opposed to IRL where she basically played discount Diamondback and was less interesting for it.

Click to shrink...

In that case we probably shouldn't do a WWII prequel movie starring Natasha, since that's primarily Steve's niche. Although we could go back later on and make a TV show set in WWII, filling in any "gaps" we leave in the Captain America movie with Black Widow or Red Guardian or the Invaders or any number of other things. Alternatively, we could have a "successor" Black Widow in modern times, or do a composite of Natasha and the Winter Soldier with Bucky taking up a different narrative role.

That aside: what about Ms. Marvel—as Carol Danvers was still known in 2008–as (one of) our female Avenger(s)?

 

[CyberFemme]

I would unironically love this movie. Flashing back and forth between Steve and Natasha becoming supersoldiers to highlight the differences in the American and Soviet experiences of WW2.

Click to shrink...

This. And we can have a Captain America movie about him getting to grips with the flaccid dystopia that the modern world is turning into.

Black Widow is going to be very old then, even if we play into the "Russia using child soldiers" thing that would still put her at around 80 in the 2010s. It's fine if you don't want to use her in the future that much, but if you do want her to be an important character, and if you also don't want her to go into the ice with Steve, then we'll need more content between WW2 and modern time for her to be relevant in.

Click to shrink...

Not if we say Super Soldier Serum makes aging slow to a grinding halt! It even makes sense in terms of the regeneration.

In that case we probably shouldn't do a WWII prequel movie starring Natasha, since that's primarily Steve's niche. Although we could go back later on and make a TV show set in WWII, filling in any "gaps" we leave in the Captain America movie with Black Widow or Red Guardian or the Invaders or any number of other things.

That aside: what about Ms. Marvel (as Carol Danvers was still known in 2008) as our female Avenger?

Click to shrink...

I personally like mixing it up like that, WW2 is Steve's traditional niche, and it's fun to change things up.

 

[Kirook]

I personally like mixing it up like that, WW2 is Steve's traditional niche, and it's fun to mix things up.

Click to shrink...

One alternative possibility is to have a Captain America movie primarily focused on his awakening in the modern day, with his WWII experiences done as flashbacks.

 

[overmind]

I would rather cast completely new actors just to keep things more exciting and make the choices a little more thoughtful. Basically what @TruckOnEmptyRoad 's X-Men producer quest did, where an actor cannot be reused in the same part they played in OTL. There are tons of actors in the business, plus we could use an actor from the MCU in a different role. Iron Man could be an exception because it was already in production before our character became in charge.

Besides, we're already planning on making different movies from the original MCU that focus on different characters, right? I fear that if some kind of stipulation that "same actor cannot play same role" voters will be tempted by the seemingly easy path of repeating the MCU "but with tweaks".

Click to shrink...

I personally dislike that mechanic, yet at the same time i can see your point.

That's why I've deviced a compromise that hopefully will make everyone happy with the results. I'll show it when we get to the casting,

My only problem with this change (and the above change of having Don Cheadle to begin with) is that they are exactly the same as what we did in the Kevin Feige quest.

Click to shrink...

There is nothing forbidding others to use from either the Feige Quest or other quests. So long as people vote for ii, then it can be included.

Altering Iron Man isn't a hill I want to die on but I wouldn't mind a few tweaks here and there to open up different opportunities later down the line. I just can't think of any strong specific alterations I would like to make which aren't super generic and unhelpful like "explore themes better".

Click to shrink...

Yeah, there is not much that can be altered in Iron Man. Might as well get the ball rolling.

Voting is Closed

 

[HeWhoAdds]

My only problem with this change (and the above change of having Don Cheadle to begin with) is that they are exactly the same as what we did in the Kevin Feige quest.

Click to shrink...

It's tricky to change up the Iron Man 1 formula too much because Tony coming to grips with the implications of his role as a arms dealer is a really compelling origin and Stane is kinda the perfect bad guy for that arc.

 

[Servo1991]

In terms of the plot for the first Iron Man, I'm down with keeping the same general beats, except for Stand living at the end. And we should try to get Cheadle for Rhodes from the start. Rest of the cast is good as is.

 

[Nystical]

It's tricky to change up the Iron Man 1 formula too much because Tony coming to grips with the implications of his role as a arms dealer is a really compelling origin and Stane is kinda the perfect bad guy for that arc.

Click to shrink...

I'm not really talking about the core themes of the movie, I was referring to the fact the two changes he was suggesting (Making Stane not connected with the terrorists and casting Don Cheadle right away) were the two major changes we did in Kevin Feige quest. I'm fine with the first generally but I definitely think that we should reconsider Don Cheadle just because it's Don Cheadle.

Also, another fact to consider: If we write Obadiah Stane to be a part that doesn't die in the end, a part that is intending to be continued for multiple movies, than firstly Jeff Bridges might not be interested in the part like he was in OTL, but secondly we might want to cast a different actor to fit the new long-term direction of the character.

 

[King crimson]

What about a movie with Hercules and Amadeus Cho?

Or a Captain Britain movie. Or, if not that... what about giving him a part in Captain America? Or at least mentioning him?

Click to shrink...

I'm not opposed to it but I'd need more than just "wouldn't this be cool" to give a solid opinion.

My only problem with this change (and the above change of having Don Cheadle to begin with) is that they are exactly the same as what we did in the Kevin Feige quest.

Click to shrink...

I mean you're not wrong. I thought those changes were good then and could lead to different stuff later and it was more just me throwing out "this stuff sounds neat" as opposed to pushing for it hard. I don't know actors to suggest and I don't want to make Iron Man over from scratch. Hence why I pushed it. I'd rather float the idea than just ignore it out of hand even if I agree with you that the overall path ought to be different.
Edit: You're right for the most part I just felt it was still worth throwing out even if only to get people talking about ideas as I'm a little dry on that front with regards to Iron Man.

In that case we probably shouldn't do a WWII prequel movie starring Natasha, since that's primarily Steve's niche. Although we could go back later on and make a TV show set in WWII, filling in any "gaps" we leave in the Captain America movie with Black Widow or Red Guardian or the Invaders or any number of other things.

That aside: what about Ms. Marvel (as Carol Danvers was still known in 2008) as our female Avenger?

Click to shrink...

I personally would rather not have Black Widow in WW2 and would instead prefer to use her to explore a different time period.

As for Ms. Marvel being the lead female Avenger I'm down for that. I personally would prefer Wasp and I think she'd be a better choice for cast differentiation (but I'm aware that I'm biased here) and I think she works better because we don't have to introduce aliens to get her to work (which I think is the biggest knock against doing Ms. Marvel early).

This. And we can have a Captain America movie about him getting to grips with the flaccid dystopia that the modern world is turning into.

Click to shrink...

Yes because WW2 was such a less dystopic time time period. Human history is just moving from dystopia A to dystopia B at it's absolute most cynical. For all the modern world sucks though I think we're generally better off than the Nazi's and the Holocaust.

Not if we say Super Soldier Serum makes aging slow to a grinding halt! It even makes sense in terms of the regeneration.

Click to shrink...

I mean that solves the age problem but now you've introduced an issue of why aren't there more super-soldiers running around in the present day? After all it's not like age can slow them down and if the formula wasn't also immediately destroyed (again like Captain America) then there should be more.

I personally like mixing it up like that, WW2 is Steve's traditional niche, and it's fun to change things up.

Click to shrink...

I mean mixing it up is all well and good but this doesn't feel like you mixing it up. It feels like making Black Widow and Captain America into very similar characters without differentiation. WW2 Black Widow is an idea that can work (even if I believe it introduces a bunch of additional questions you need to answer) but unless something is done to make her different from Steve it feels like she got turned into knock off Captain America as opposed to something unique and different.

Mixing stuff up doesn't work if you change a character to be a lot more like an already existing character who goes unaltered because then you've gone from having character A and character B to making character A and character A with pieces of character B. If you've got an idea as to how WW2 super-soldier Black Widow is a significantly different character from, and lacks unnecessary overlap with Captain America then I'm all for it but until that is explained in my opinion the change is literally weakening the character as opposed to making her better.

Edit: Like IRL people made the comparison that early on Hawkeye and Black Widow felt very, very similar and heavily overlapped with one another and lo and behold they were the weakest characters in the original Avengers lineup.

 

[CyberFemme]

I'm not opposed to it but I'd need more than just "wouldn't this be cool" to give a solid opinion.

I mean you're not wrong. I thought those changes were good then and could lead to different stuff later and it was more just me throwing out "this stuff sounds neat" as opposed to pushing for it hard. I don't know actors to suggest and I don't want to make Iron Man over from scratch. Hence why I pushed it. I'd rather float the idea than just ignore it out of hand even if I agree with you that the overall path ought to be different.

I personally would rather not have Black Widow in WW2 and would instead prefer to use her to explore a different time period.

As for Ms. Marvel being the lead female Avenger I'm down for that. I personally would prefer Wasp and I think she'd be a better choice for cast differentiation (but I'm aware that I'm biased here) and I think she works better because we don't have to introduce aliens to get her to work (which I think is the biggest knock against doing Ms. Marvel early).

Yes because WW2 was such a less dystopic time time period. Human history is just moving from dystopia A to dystopia B at it's absolute most cynical. For all the modern world sucks though I think we're generally better off than the Nazi's and the Holocaust.

I mean that solves the age problem but now you've introduced an issue of why aren't there more super-soldiers running around in the present day? After all it's not like age can slow them down and if the formula wasn't also immediately destroyed (again like Captain America) then there should be more.

I mean mixing it up is all well and good but this doesn't feel like you mixing it up. It feels like making Black Widow and Captain America into very similar characters without differentiation. WW2 Black Widow is an idea that can work (even if I believe it introduces a bunch of additional questions you need to answer) but unless something is done to make her different from Steve it feels like she got turned into knock off Captain America as opposed to something unique and different.

Mixing stuff up doesn't work if you change a character to be a lot more like an already existing character who goes unaltered. Because you've gone from having character A and character B to making character A and character A with pieces of character B.

Click to shrink...

Hmmm, maybe have Widow get the Serum after WW2 ends? The US got Germany's rocket scientists but the USSR managed to make off with a big portion of their bioscience division? The limited number of Russian super-soldiers could be due to the limited amount of serum they had left over to experiment with, because the records and key researchers involved were destroyed/killed in the fighting. Hmmm, a Cold War era spy movie could actually work even better for Black Widow.

 

[Kirook]

Hey, what if at some point we did a Masters of Evil movie? I feel like villain team-ups are an underused niche in comic book movies. Of course, we'd probably have to do Ultron first.

Also, I'd like to do Black Panther earlier in the franchise if we can.

 

[HeWhoAdds]

I'm not really talking about the core themes of the movie, I was referring to the fact the two changes he was suggesting (Making Stane not connected with the terrorists and casting Don Cheadle right away) were the two major changes we did in Kevin Feige quest. I'm fine with the first generally but I definitely think that we should reconsider Don Cheadle just because it's Don Cheadle.

Also, another fact to consider: If we write Obadiah Stane to be a part that doesn't die in the end, a part that is intending to be continued for multiple movies, than firstly Jeff Bridges might not be interested in the part like he was in OTL, but secondly we might want to cast a different actor to fit the new long-term direction of the character.

Click to shrink...

Mhm, I take your point re: retreading old ground. Maybe, rather than making Stane the connection between Stark Industries and the terrorists, one of the big end-of-second-act revelations is that Tony approved the sale of weapons that ultimately made it to the Ten Rings purely on the basis of profitability, or something. Which ultimately convinces him not to try to sell the Iron Man suit as a weapon, only for Stane to do something close to his OTL extremely hostile takeover in response?

 

[Marlin]

Yeah, there is not much that can be altered in Iron Man. Might as well get the ball rolling.

Click to shrink...

Well, the only thing brought up as significant is to change who plays Rhodey. I can imagine Samuel L Jackson as Rhodey, but Marvel really wanted him for Nick Fury. And I don't know which black actors available at this time period who auditioned.

 

[HeWhoAdds]

Hey, what if at some point we did a Masters of Evil movie? I feel like villain team-ups are an underused niche in comic book movies. Of course, we'd probably have to do Ultron first.

Also, I'd like to do Black Panther earlier in the franchise if we can.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, weirdly the MCU doesn't really do a lot of big hero team vs. villain team brawls. I think either an Avengers movie with the Masters of Evil as the bad guys would be cool, or a film where the big bad (like, Ultron or Loki or someone) frees a bunch of villains from old solo movies and uses them as their muscle.

 

[CyberFemme]

Mhm, I take your point re: retreading old ground. Maybe, rather than making Stane the connection between Stark Industries and the terrorists, one of the big end-of-second-act revelations is that Tony approved the sale of weapons that ultimately made it to the Ten Rings purely on the basis of profitability, or something. Which ultimately convinces him not to try to sell the Iron Man suit as a weapon, only for Stane to do something close to his OTL extremely hostile takeover in response?

Click to shrink...

And the military would absolutely back Stane if he promised them Iron Man Tech - we could end with Tony sucessfully preventing the proliferation of Iron Man technology in a phyric victory that costs him ownership of Stark Industries as the government backs Stane. Him getting his father's company back from an underdog position would certainly make a much more compelling Iron Man 2.

 

[King crimson]

Hmmm, maybe have Widow get the Serum after WW2 ends? The US got Germany's rocket scientists but the USSR managed to make off with a big portion of their bioscience division? The limited number of Russian super-soldiers could be due to the limited amount of serum they had left over to experiment with, because the records and key researchers involved were destroyed/killed in the fighting. Hmmm, a Cold War era spy movie could actually work even better for Black Widow.

Click to shrink...

I vastly prefer a Cold War era Black Widow movie to a WW2 one. I think it works a lot better and it leaves a lot more room for you to show off that Natasha wasn't always a good person.

Hey, what if at some point we did a Masters of Evil movie? I feel like villain team-ups are an underused niche in comic book movies. Of course, we'd probably have to do Ultron first.

Also, I'd like to do Black Panther earlier in the franchise if we can.

Click to shrink...

Sure a Masters of Evil movie sounds neat but it's something you'd need to be careful with and can only really be explored later.

As for a Black Panther movie earlier in the franchise I'd personally like to do it after Captain America and I've got a few basic ideas for a pitch for it but I'd like to see how the first movies are shaping a bit before I commit to writing out the ideas for it.

Well, the only thing brought up as significant is to change who plays Rhodey. I can imagine Samuel L Jackson as Rhodey, but Marvel really wanted him for Nick Fury. And I don't know which black actors available at this time period who auditioned.

Click to shrink...

Part of the backstory for why Marvel wanted to cast him as Nick Fury is that in the Ultimate comics artists asked if they could use Samuel L. Jackson's likeness for the character and Jackson agreed on the condition that he got to play the character if there was a movie. There was a movie and subsequently Jackson got to play the character.

 

[HeWhoAdds]

And the military would absolutely back Stane if he promised them Iron Man Tech - we could end with Tony sucessfully preventing the proliferation of Iron Man technology in a phyric victory that costs him ownership of Stark Industries as the government backs Stane. Him getting his father's company back from an underdog position would certainly make a much more compelling Iron Man 2.

Click to shrink...

And you can bring in Justin Hammer as the arms industry CEO the military taps to run STARK Industries for the government in Iron Man 2.

Maybe give Anton Vanko something of a redemption arc in Iron Man 2? Like, he's brought in because he's the only other guy who can do the complicated engineering work of building an arc reactor other than Tony, and he's resentful of Tony because Howard Stark screwed over his own father and stole his arc reactor research during the collapse of the Soviet Union, so he builds himself his Whiplash gear as part of his and Hammer's plan to solidify Hammer's control over Stark Industries by killing off Tony. But after they fight one or two times, they eventually reconcile in the finale and take down Justin Hammer and his drone swarm. Maybe the movie ends with Vanko surrendering and getting carted off to prison, but Tony says he'll visit and stay in touch, so there's a chance of a heroic Whiplash showing up in a later film.

 

[CyberFemme]

And you can bring in Justin Hammer as the arms industry CEO the military taps to run STARK Industries for the government in Iron Man 2.

Maybe give Anton Vanko something of a redemption arc in Iron Man 2? Like, he's brought in because he's the only other guy who can do the complicated engineering work of building an arc reactor other than Tony, and he's resentful of Tony because Howard Stark screwed over his own father and stole his arc reactor research during the collapse of the Soviet Union, so he builds himself his Whiplash gear as part of his and Hammer's plan to solidify Hammer's control over Stark Industries by killing off Tony. But after they fight one or two times, they eventually reconcile in the finale and take down Justin Hammer and his drone swarm. Maybe the movie ends with Vanko surrendering and getting carted off to prison, but Tony says he'll visit and stay in touch, so there's a chance of a heroic Whiplash showing up in a later film.

Click to shrink...

Redemption arcs like that go over well with the fans too. Can you imagine the deluge of Tony/Anton fics? #EnemiesToLovers #IronMan2

 

[Kirook]

Okay, pitch for Captain America and Black Widow: we do two movies, but set them up as narrative mirrors to each other.

On the one hand, a Captain America movie set in the modern day, where he battles Baron Helmut Zemo—whose plan involves some kind of complex technological or social manipulation—while flashing back to facing off with the Red Skull in WWII.

On the other hand, a Black Widow movie set in the Cold War, wherein she faces off against the hyper-militarist, jingoistic '50s "Captain America" (aka William Burnside) while using her present-day life as a framing device (possibly narrating the story to Steve himself).

I think it would be really interesting to set the characters up as foils like this, and it would also leave our options open to further explore both of their lives and careers outside the events of the films.

 

[Nystical]

I really like the proposed changes to Iron Man 1 and 2.

But I have a few thoughts:

The only problem with all of that is that we can't show the US military in a bad light. They are one of our sponsors for the movie and to do that would mean they would rightfully pull their funding/subsidy of our budget. Also would mean we wouldn't have access to the military stuff / equipment to use to actually make the movie. Plus would alienate a lot of potential fans that are veterans or serving their country as active duty members.

We would probably need to have a bad guy inside the US military to pin all the blame for the actions on, such as Skrulls having infiltrated the military to try to weaken human military development and capability, or something else, rather than just "incompetence and greed", which is arguably kind of a boring plot point anyway for a comic book movie on its own, but paired with an explanation such as "Skrulls sabotaging human institutions" becomes more interesting.

I know I used Skrulls twice as an example but there are multiple things we should blame instead of the military.

We could potentially *hint* that the military was subverted by a vague third party, and that's why they are doing evil things, which could mean we wouldn't have to commit to one specific infiltrator this early.