There Was A Different Idea: An MCU Producer Quest

[overmind]

I think black widow experience getting hired by shield and then working has a double Agent for them in Maggia can be sequel movie for her after we get her a orgin story

Click to shrink...

Yeah, that's not happening. With the selected option Black Widow is a Free Agent, meaning that she was hired to help get rid of SHIELD's enemies. SHe's not a SHIELD agent and won't be getting any origin movie nor future appearances save as a villain or neutral character.

 

[King crimson]

Yeah, that's not happening. With the selected option Black Widow is a Free Agent, meaning that she was hired to help get rid of SHIELD's enemies. SHe's not a SHIELD agent and won't be getting any origin movie nor future appearances save as a villain or neutral character.

Click to shrink...

???

While I agree that the specific plan that you quoted is impossible, the wording here is a little harsh and I'd like clarification on what exactly you mean. Are you saying that because we cast Black Widow as a villainous/neutral figure here, she cannot be portrayed as anything but that going forward in other movies? Because that seems excessively harsh and unfair. OTL managed to give Winter Soldier a Heel-Face turn going from villainous figure to a heroic one and so I'd like to believe we can do the same (or at least similar) with Black Widow across multiple movies. Or are you saying that it's impossible to portray Black Widow as a strictly heroic character without first showing a more concrete alignment change in a later film? Because that seems a lot more reasonable. Or are you maybe saying that Black Widow will not get an origin movie unless she becomes a heroic figure and cannot get one before that?

I do think some clarification is needed on what exactly you are saying here, because while I think Saim Gill's ideas on how to do things is straight up impossible, I do not think that having Black Widow appear in a later role in a heroic light or even potentially getting an origin movie should be completely impossible.

 

[Rui]

[X] Plan Threading the Compromise Needle

 

[overmind]

???

While I agree that the specific plan that you quoted is impossible, the wording here is a little harsh and I'd like clarification here. Are you saying that because we cast Black Widow as a villainous/neutral figure here, she cannot be portrayed as anything but that going forward in other movies? Because that seems excessively harsh and unfair. OTL managed to give Winter Soldier a Heel-Face turn going from villainous figure to a heroic one and so I'd like to believe we can do the same with Black Widow across multiple movies. Or are you saying that it's impossible to portray Black Widow as a strictly heroic character without first showing a more concrete alignment change in a later film?

I do think some clarification is needed on what exactly you are saying here, because while I think Saim Gill's ideas on how to do things is straight up impossible, I do not think that having Black Widow appear in a later role in a heroic light should be completely impossible.

Click to shrink...

It was harsh? Sorry about that, I was just commenting.

As for clarification, let's use the Winter Soldier example like you did. Witer Soldier did a heel face turn, but you forget that was not his first appearance, as it was revealed that he was actually Bucky Barnes, Cap's friend, who audiences had known and had much sympathy for the way he defended Cap and died in a mission. Then it was discovered that he was brainwashed giving him much more sympathy.

TL; DR, this was not his first appearance, he had been established before as a sympathetic character in Captain America: The First Avenger.

With Black Widow, what you are doing here is introducing her as a Free Agent hired by SHIELD, she has no allegiance to the organization save for the money they give her, and you have already mentioned plans of adding a Post-Credit scene where she is seen being hired by another figure in the shadows, even implying that all her actions were done in order to get "a seat in the table" as it were. Natasha does not come as a hero at all in this movie. I would even hazard to say that she is closer to her Ultimate's version.

Isaid it before, this is the first time that regular movie goers will see Black Widow, and their first impression will stick. And considering that Favreau will not have this Black Widow in his movie, Vaughn has his own plans for Power Man, and Johnston's idea for Captai America does not include Black Widow, then there will be at least a 2 year gap if she somehow manages to appear in Avengers. more than enough time for that impression to solidify.

Anyways, I have to update for my other quest. If any of you have any questions you can alwasy ask.

 

[Duke William of]

???

While I agree that the specific plan that you quoted is impossible, the wording here is a little harsh and I'd like clarification on what exactly you mean. Are you saying that because we cast Black Widow as a villainous/neutral figure here, she cannot be portrayed as anything but that going forward in other movies? Because that seems excessively harsh and unfair. OTL managed to give Winter Soldier a Heel-Face turn going from villainous figure to a heroic one and so I'd like to believe we can do the same (or at least similar) with Black Widow across multiple movies. Or are you saying that it's impossible to portray Black Widow as a strictly heroic character without first showing a more concrete alignment change in a later film? Because that seems a lot more reasonable. Or are you maybe saying that Black Widow will not get an origin movie unless she becomes a heroic figure and cannot get one before that?

I do think some clarification is needed on what exactly you are saying here, because while I think Saim Gill's ideas on how to do things is straight up impossible, I do not think that having Black Widow appear in a later role in a heroic light or even potentially getting an origin movie should be completely impossible.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I was thinking exactly this but I couldn't put it to written form. It seems unreasonable to say that Black Widow can only be portrayed as either a bad or neutral character throughout the entire MCU onwards from Hawkeye, just because that's how she's portrayed there.

 

[DaOneInDaCorner]

It was harsh? Sorry about that, I was just commenting.

As for clarification, let's use the Winter Soldier example like you did. Witer Soldier did a heel face turn, but you forget that was not his first appearance, as it was revealed that he was actually Bucky Barnes, Cap's friend, who audiences had known and had much sympathy for the way he defended Cap and died in a mission. Then it was discovered that he was brainwashed giving him much more sympathy.

TL; DR, this was not his first appearance, he had been established before as a sympathetic character in Captain America: The First Avenger.

With Black Widow, what you are doing here is introducing her as a Free Agent hired by SHIELD, she has no allegiance to the organization save for the money they give her, and you have already mentioned plans of adding a Post-Credit scene where she is seen being hired by another figure in the shadows, even implying that all her actions were done in order to get "a seat in the table" as it were. Natasha does not come as a hero at all in this movie. I would even hazard to say that she is closer to her Ultimate's version.

Isaid it before, this is the first time that regular movie goers will see Black Widow, and their first impression will stick. And considering that Favreau will not have this Black Widow in his movie, Vaughn has his own plans for Power Man, and Johnston's idea for Captai America does not include Black Widow, then there will be at least a 2 year gap if she somehow manages to appear in Avengers. more than enough time for that impression to solidify.

Anyways, I have to update for my other quest. If any of you have any questions you can alwasy ask.

Click to shrink...

I don't think the argument holds water in that respect; villains turning to the side of good is a standard trope in the entertainment medium. Heck, Loki was an outright murderer and committed a whole lotta wrongdoings during his time - yet he's enormously popular as a heroic character nowadays. Mind you that said 'heroism' is subjective, he's still incredibly well liked.

I'm not sure why BW can't accomplish the same.

 

[overmind]

I don't think the argument holds water in that respect; villains turning to the side of good is a standard trope in the entertainment medium. Heck, Loki was an outright murderer and committed a whole lotta wrongdoings during his time - yet he's enormously popular as a heroic character nowadays. Mind you that said 'heroism' is subjective, he's still incredibly well liked.

I'm not sure why BW can't accomplish the same.

Click to shrink...

First impressions on movie goers.

Loki is murderous psychopath, in the comics. Regular movie goers don't know shit about him. Their first impression was Tom Hiddleston's Loki, which had him be much more sympathetic, and even heroic, than Comics' Loki ever was. I would

Villains turning to the side of good, of course, but it needs more than just saying "Oh, she's good now." It needs a character arc to show why she went from good to bad. You could try that of course, so long as the movie is not just an excuse to redeem her character. Marvel Execs, the Creative Committee and Ike are in it for the money after all.

 

[King crimson]

Villains turning to the side of good, of course, but it needs more than just saying "Oh, she's good now." It needs a character arc to show why she went from good to bad. You could try that of course, so long as the movie is not just an excuse to redeem her character. Marvel Execs, the Creative Committee and Ike are in it for the money after all.

Click to shrink...

Now you are actually answering the question initially posed. It's not "Black Widow cannot be portrayed heroically later on down the line" so much as "Black Widow cannot be portrayed as entirely heroic in the next movie she appears in" if I'm understanding you right. That's fine and it's something that I think can be worked with but it's not an absolute statement of "Black Widow cannot be portrayed as heroic ever" which it very much seems like you are arguing for.

I've got no problems if this is the case and we have to show the on-screen transition of her from villain to hero (not quite like Loki but similarly). I'm not arguing for Black Widow to be heroic in the next movie she appears in, not at all (I think that's impossible) but I do think we ought to at least be able to attempt to give Black Widow a multi-movie pseudo-redemption arc as opposed to just being forced to have her stay a static character whose alignment can't shift and develop past her initial appearance.

Edit: I'd like to shift Black Widow to a heroic character over the course of 3 movies minimum with the first movie being her at her absolute worst and subsequently lightening and growing more sympathetic and heroic as time passes. I do not want to have all of this occur over the course of Phase 1 but I don't think it's unreasonable to have her potentially become a heroic character if we spread out the transition over a long enough period of time.

 

[Duke William of]

I've got no problems if this is the case and we have to show the on-screen transition of her from hero to villain (not quite like Loki but similarly). I'm not arguing for Black Widow to be heroic in the next movie she appears in, not at all (I think that's impossible) but I do think we ought to at least be able to attempt to give Black Widow a multi-movie pseudo-redemption arc as opposed to just being forced to have her stay a static character whose alignment can't shift and develop past her initial appearance.

Click to shrink...

Don't you mean villain to hero?

 

[overmind]

Now you are actually answering the question initially posed. It's not "Black Widow cannot be portrayed heroically later on down the line" so much as "Black Widow cannot be portrayed as entirely heroic in the next movie she appears in" if I'm understanding you right. That's fine and it's something that I think can be worked with but it's not an absolute statement of "Black Widow cannot be portrayed as heroic ever" which it very much seems like you are arguing for.

Click to shrink...

So long as you're okay with her not being an Avenger, nor getting her own movie for a long while then sure. I'm just clarifying that here so that there are no complaints going forward.

Anyways, as I've said, I'm going to update my other quest today, so the update might be much later today, or early tomorrow. See you later!

 

[Duke William of]

So long as you're okay with her not being an Avenger, nor getting her own movie for a long while then sure. I'm just clarifying that here so that there are no complaints going forward.

Click to shrink...

Don't worry, we already have Wasp as the first female Avenger, so we don't need her to be an Avenger. A free agent, but (slowly)eventually willing to help out the Avengers when they call her for help.

 

[King crimson]

So in case it's not clear where I stand for people reading this, I do not want Black Widow as an Avenger and I'm fine with her not getting a solo movie for a good long while. I think there are other interesting female characters and that playing Widow as heroic right out of the gate weakens a lot of the appeal of the character. Giving Widow character development is great and it's a really fantastic arc in general in my opinion.

 

[overmind]

Don't worry, we already have Wasp as the first female Avenger, so we don't need her to be an Avenger. A free agent, but (slowly)eventually willing to help out the Avengers when they call her for help.

Click to shrink...

Okay...I've heard this a lot as well, so I think I need to say this if you're banking your hopes on this.

You're not getting Wasp either.

In OTL the reasoning, believe or not, for not adding Wasp was not because of not wanting a female Avenger, it was because both her and Ant-Man were recognizable Avengers who would make much more money if they had their introductions in their own movie instead of appearing as Cameos or in an ensemble movie like Avengers, and this was with the Mouse's money behind them.

As it is now, with Marvel wanting to optimize their profits, they are going to push even harder for such a film, of Ant-Man and Wasp, either together or having Ant-Man as the protagonist first, in order to make more money.

 

[ananthu583898]

Okay...I've heard this a lot as well, so I think I need to say this if you're banking your hopes on this.

You're not getting Wasp either.

In OTL the reasoning, believe or not, for not adding Wasp was not because of not wanting a female Avenger, it was because both her and Ant-Man were recognizable Avengers who would make much more money if they had their introductions in their own movie instead of appearing as Cameos or in an ensemble movie like Avengers, and this was with the Mouse's money behind them.

As it is now, with Marvel wanting to optimize their profits, they are going to push even harder for such a film, of Ant-Man and Wasp, either together or having Ant-Man as the protagonist first, in order to make more money.

Click to shrink...

Why not milk the intro movies entirely, then? Push the Avengers movie 3 billets down, set up origins Defenders style?

 

[overmind]

Why not milk the intro movies entirely, then? Push the Avengers movie 3 billets down, set up origins Defenders style?

Click to shrink...

Money.

You had to argue with Marvel to give you this amount of movies. This is what they can afford at the moment, and are still taking a huge risk in the hopes of still making enough money to pay their debts and make a profit.

 

[King crimson]

You're not getting Wasp either.

In OTL the reasoning, believe or not, for not adding Wasp was not because of not wanting a female Avenger, it was because both her and Ant-Man were recognizable Avengers who would make much more money if they had their introductions in their own movie instead of appearing as Cameos or in an ensemble movie like Avengers, and this was with the Mouse's money behind them.

As it is now, with Marvel wanting to optimize their profits, they are going to push even harder for such a film, of Ant-Man and Wasp, either together or having Ant-Man as the protagonist first, in order to make more money.

Click to shrink...

In the OTL there were plans specifically to use Wasp for the Avengers movie that were only stopped because Scarlet Johansson ended up not having scheduling issues and Feige pushed for the original Avengers shown in other movies to be included. I don't see why we suddenly wouldn't be getting Wasp when the factors regarding why she was wanted wasn't particularly different from what we have now.

Saying that we don't get Wasp no matter for Avengers what feels incredibly arbitrary. The reason why Wasp wasn't added was because Marvel wanted to focus on only Avengers who had shown up in movies before, not because of them wanting to give her and Ant-Man a solo movie.

 

[overmind]

In the OTL there were plans specifically to use Wasp for the Avengers movie that were only stopped because Scarlet Johansson ended up not having scheduling issues and Feige pushed for the original Avengers shown in other movies to be included. I don't see why we suddenly wouldn't be getting Wasp when the factors regarding why she was wanted wasn't particularly different from what we have now.

Saying that we don't get Wasp no matter what feels incredibly arbitrary

Click to shrink...

It's what's going on. This is not OTL, and there are different factors in play behind the scenes.

 

[King crimson]

It's what's going on. This is not OTL, and there are different factors in play behind the scenes.

Click to shrink...

This is not OTL yes but it still feels arbitrary that suddenly we can't include the Wasp at all whatsoever in the Avengers. It doesn't feel properly set up that there's a solid reasoning for why the executives are so insistent on this when they were very much against characters like Hawkeye and Wonder Man getting their own movies (You're telling me that the executives want a Wasp origin movie so badly they won't let us put her in Avengers but at the same time they don't want Hawkeye to get his own movie at all). It feels like there's an unfair double standard going on in the restrictions and it's not something I'm particularly a fan of.

Edit: You also used the OTL as justification for why we can't get Wasp which was flat out wrong

In OTL the reasoning, believe or not, for not adding Wasp was not because of not wanting a female Avenger, it was because both her and Ant-Man were recognizable Avengers who would make much more money if they had their introductions in their own movie instead of appearing as Cameos or in an ensemble movie like Avengers, and this was with the Mouse's money behind them.

Click to shrink...

I think if you bring up OTL as a justification for not adding Wasp I'm allowed to use the OTL to counter it.

 

[overmind]

This is not OTL yes but it still feels arbitrary that suddenly we can't include the Wasp at all whatsoever in the Avengers. It doesn't feel properly set up that there's a solid reasoning for why the executives are so insistent on this when they were very much against characters like Hawkeye and Wonder Man getting their own movies.

Click to shrink...

It happens. Things happen behind the scenes you are not privy to. You pushed through Hawkeye and Power Man with the goodwill you had. That's gone now however, so you have to deal with the consequences.

It feels like there's an unfair double standard going on in the restrictions and it's not something I'm particularly a fan of.

Click to shrink...

...This sounds close to an accusation. I won't say anything, but take care not to put any words in my mouth.

 

[King crimson]

It happens. Things happen behind the scenes you are not privy to. You pushed through Hawkeye and Power Man with the goodwill you had. That's gone now however, so you have to deal with the consequences.

Click to shrink...

It feels arbitrary and dissatisfying at least for me. We were never going to get a Wasp movie in the first place so I don't see why we can't get her at all whatsoever in another movie. It doesn't feel like the consequences correlate to the actions taken.

...This sounds close to an accusation. I won't say anything, but take care not to put any words in my mouth.

Click to shrink...

I am not attempting to accuse you of anything. I will just say that it feels pretty random that the executives refuse to give some characters who are iconic Avengers movies but at the same time refuse to allow us to use a character whom they wouldn't give us a solo movie of (there was not a snowflakes chance in hell of a Wasp solo movie with Perlmutter's issues), due to wanting to give her an origin movie now.

It feels, to me at least, like you rolled a die on the executives decisions and that they're not coherent thinking beings so much as randomized roadblocks. This restriction being put in place now does not feel earned foreshadowed or in any way predictable.

Maybe there's a coherent consistent thought process being underlined throughout all of this but at the very least my initial impression is that the restrictions the executives are putting into place feels random and internally incoherent.

Edit: Especially since you seem to be hinting that there is no problem with including Black Widow in the lineup if we set her up in someone else's movie and portrayed her more heroically.

Edit #2: It feels immensely frustrating that there seems to be no metric to actually understanding what the executives want or how they'll behave that seems comprehensible besides "they'll cause you problems". For me at least it doesn't feel like we made a mistake that denied us use of the Wasp so much as an invisible unknown factor which we had no way of knowing and seems to run counter to the executives general trend of thinking prior to this point suddenly is causing us problems because we didn't know about it and had no way of predicting it.

 

[King crimson]

@overmind I suppose I might as well ask this now but can we use Captain Marvel in the Avengers movie? I seem to be completely incapable of understanding how the executives think so I'd rather ask you now about the scenario. If we set her up in a different movie can we have her gain powers and join the team in the Avengers movie or are the executives not okay with that?

 

[overmind]

I am not attempting to accuse you of anything. I will just say that it feels pretty random that the executives refuse to give some characters who are iconic Avengers movies but at the same time refuse to allow us to use a character whom they wouldn't give us a solo movie of (there was not a snowflakes chance in hell of a Wasp solo movie with Perlmutter's issues), due to wanting to give her an origin movie now.

Click to shrink...

They wanted to give Iconic characters movies, they managed to get movies for, Captain America, Thor and tried to push for an Iron Man and a Hulk sequel. You had a great deal of support and Goodwill because of getting the Hulk back, lost more for selecting the Directors you did, then spent more to get the Hawkeye movie you had all been clamoring for.

You ran out of goodwill then, as you can see when they tried to push back for you to put the Hulk sequel back on track.

It feels, to me at least, like you rolled a die on the executives decisions and that they're not coherent thinking beings so much as randomized roadblocks. This restriction being put in place now does not feel earned foreshadowed or in any way predictable.

Click to shrink...

Not predictable? They want money to make sure Marvel does not go broke. They do not have Disney on their corner. It makes them more money to have an Ant-Man and the Wasp in their own movie than wasting them in another where they won't be drawing any more.

Some small bias is mixed with it, but in the end their objective, and what motivates their reasons, is money.

@overmind I suppose I might as well ask this now but can we use Captain Marvel in the Avengers movie? I seem to be completely incapable of understanding how the executives think so if we set her up in a different movie can we have her gain powers and join the team in the Avengers movie or are the executives not okay with that?

Click to shrink...

You want to try adding a character that was not introduced in their own movie, is not popular at all at the moment, into what is an ensemble film?

Tell you what, enough people were talking about Wasp for me to give a heads up, if enough people do the same for Captain Marvel in the Avengers I'll do the same.

 

[King crimson]

You want to try adding a character that was not introduced in their own movie, is not popular at all at the moment, into what is an ensemble film?

Click to shrink...

Yes, like how Black Widow (A character not introduced in their own movie and not particularly popular at the moment) potentially could have if we got her to be portrayed in a more positive light. Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) is significantly more popular and iconic than Black Widow pre-MCU so if one can work why can't the other?

I'm trying to work with the restrictions you're giving but it seems like there's absolutely no way to include a female Avenger in the initial lineup save for making a more heroic Black Widow. I'm trying to work with multiple alternate options but it seems like there's only one potential way to accomplish this goal and it's incredibly frustrating.

 

[ComiTurtle]

[X] Plan: A Web Shield
-[X] [Maggia] Accept but reduce the impact. The Maggia is considered a small threat and is used as a red herring.
-[X] [Duquesne] Jacques Duquesne is an active SHIELD agent who mentored Barton in the past. He uses his clearance to get the Index and escape before anyone notices something wrong.
-[X] [Black Widow] Black Widow is secretly a SHIELD Agent who Clint knows and distrusts. She will seemingly betray him, but then release him to fight Duquesne as she retrieves the Index.
-[X] [Number] One more aside from Jacques should be enough.
-[X] [Antagonists] The Silencer, or Dean Helm as you'd have to call it, is a mercenary who was killed in its first appearance. He could show more of him this time around.

This one seems interesting, and I think as long as we give a few nods that Natasha is in Shield for the Audience we will have much more leeway with the character down the line. She's a much darker aspect of Shield and thats a good thing to show.

 

[overmind]

Yes, like how Black Widow (A character not introduced in their own movie and not particularly popular at the moment) potentially could have if we got her to be portrayed in a more positive light. Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) is significantly more popular and iconic than Black Widow pre-MCU so if one can work why can't the other?

Click to shrink...

You haven't introduced Captain Marvel in any film. Black Widow had at least her performance in Iron Man 2 in OTL.

I'm trying to work with the restrictions you're giving but it seems like there's absolutely no way to include a female Avenger in the initial lineup save for making a more heroic Black Widow. I'm trying to work with multiple alternate options but it seems like there's only one potential way to accomplish this goal and it's incredibly frustrating.

Click to shrink...

Don't know what to tell you man. I think it was obvious that they were going for more money. I haven't been shy in saying how Marvel is in the red and are trying to make mint on their characters.

If you don't like it, then sorry, but I'm not changing that.