The MCU’s Avengers Problem - Part Two

- by Leo Stableford, 16 July 2017

In Part One of this article I looked at the Avengers roster from the world of print and discussed the possibility of those that have already appeared in cinematic or televisual media making it into the MCU Avengers. Unsurprisingly it would appear that most of the heroes already known to wider pop culture will not likely make the cut for the more selective cinematic Avengers roster.

​That’s not really a major shock, the Avengers comic book, and spin-offs, have run continuously since the 1960s. It would seem obvious that there would be more Avengers through the door in umpteen comic books a year than in one movie every three. The real problem for Marvel is that the Avengers movies are like the key stones in a wider marketing campaign. Marvel comics always saw the Avengers as the place to go and the individual books belonging to Avengers members as more for the fans. The MCU on the other hand sees the individual movies as the main product (as there are more of them) and the Avengers as a premium, four* great tastes that taste great together, uber franchise.
 
In order for that model to work you need great individual characters who can form a fascinating ensemble tension. Age of Ultron, for example, remains watchable almost entirely down to the team tensions, the first Avengers movie and Civil War manage ensemble shenanigans much better, and character interplay is a key component in the mix.
 
This leaves plenty of questions. Questions like: Will the Avengers movie where Ant-Man, the Wasp, Black Panther, Doctor Strange and Captain Marvel are the core team play as well as the original classic mix of Cap, Iron Man, Thor and Hulk? It’s pretty clear that having some of the old favourites in the mix, specifically Captain America and Iron Man, would ease some of the anxiety, but how would that be achieved?
 
Also, as neat as All-New Avengers might be by 2030, should audiences still be in love with the MCU (and audiences have been known previously to exhibit such fidelity, rarely, James Bond, for example), Marvel will be under pressure to keep things fresh.
 
It is entirely possible that some more Marvel properties will have found their way home by then, possibly the Fantastic Four, possibly Wolverine (unless a new Wolverine is sourced who can effectively fill Hugh Jackman’s much beloved adamantium-lined boots). Beyond that, though, Marvel has an enormous mine of untapped IP. Surely there are some great characters tucked away in there that are just dying to get up on the big screen and thence into the MCU Avengers roster.
 
You would think, wouldn’t you?
 
It’s not a dead loss. There are some potential characters to bring new super-heroics to the screen in coming years. But there are more characters who may prove problematic and may be better suited to television or just to staying as print-only characters.
 
In this article it is these (as yet) unmentioned characters who will take the focus. I’ve split them up according to their marketability. The straight division is between those it would seem obvious are ripe for plunder in films or on television and those who appear, at least at present, not to have much power to engage an audience.
 
Within those two groups I’ve subdivided again, some main characters are definitely marketable but have some potentially show-stopping problem that will need to be dealt with before audiences will embrace them (Guardians, Ant-Man and Doctor Strange have all surmounted perceived marketing obstacles, so it’s not inevitable that the problems will always be problems).
 
In the limited potential group I have divided the characters into those who just don’t appear to have much glamour for a wide pop-culture audience and those who risk being laughed at and/or derided in their mere concept.
 
I’ll save the most difficult characters for the final article in the series. Some of the names that come up may surprise you. We’ll start at the top with the richest pickings where, again, some of the picks may surprise you if you’re familiar with the characters.
 
In this category I would place: Tigra, Namor/Sub-Mariner, Captain Britain, Echo, Elsa Bloodstone, Pod/Aikku Jokkinen, Nova and the super-groups The Eternals, The Young Avengers and Alpha Flight.
 
Not-Avengers Ensemble!

Before we go onto look at the individual characters it should be noted that skipping straight into ensemble “super group” movies presents an intriguing possibility for the future of the MCU. Very recently Marvel Studios have introduced a subtle change to the message they’re putting out. Infinity War continues to represent the “end of phase three” but now the Avengers  Movie 2019 - which is rumoured to have a codename of “Great Lakes Avengers” the probability that this is a troll is very high - is something else entirely. In addition Feige and others have begun to talk about Infinity War as a great culmination, the end point of some grand vision.
 
Now, I have, in my time, and on a more modest scale, been involved in grand projects. I can tell you there comes a time right near the end that your brain tells you that, whatever comes next, you are never doing this again. This can vary from project to project but you have learned enough, in your Herculean effort to know that repeating the endeavor would accomplish little and hurt a lot.
 
To accomplish Infinity War will be to accomplish a great deal and the culmination of a decade’s movie franchise output in this uber-blockbuster is now all but inevitable. But, and I already asked this in part one, before I had caught wind of some new Marvel press stuff that came out in the weekend before writing part two, why would you just finish that project and then tee up for another decade long story arc.
 
In part one I asked this question in terms of audience, but it is a question that makes sense from the Studio’s perspective too. Over this decade Marvel Studios have learned a great deal about stand-alone movies and about cross overs. Compare the meek and timid initial post-credits hints with the slightly over-indulgent Iron Man 2 fiasco with the neat and tidy Ant-Man vs. Falcon encounter. Marvel have learned how to connect everything up without vague hinting or thick and gloopy character pageants.
 
Why would they restrict themselves to the current format once that format has fulfilled its function?
 
Single characters can have individual movies and crossover appearances. But an Avengers style event would appear to be better served by being an occasional complete one off. By this time next year we will have the Avengers Trilogy and, if we’re being honest, an “event trilogy” suffers by being a trilogy in the first place. If Marvel had made substantive changes to the roster in between Avengers and Age of Ultron then they might not have found themselves forced into having the whole gang together for one last outing in Infinity War.
 
Let’s not forget that Guardians of the Galaxy dropped in phase two and have proven that a group doesn’t even really need solo outings to be popular, if they clearly inhabit the same universe as the other characters the group can be popular on their own.
 
All of this points towards the future beyond phase three having the potential to reconstruct the timetable, to make an Avengers movie an occasional one off, and the roster per movie to be completely different. It also means that other groups, such as Young Avengers, Alpha Flight, West Coast Avengers, even the Great Lakes Avengers or something a bit more out there like The Eternals to exist in the most appropriate format for them, vastly reducing the logistical load on Marvel Studios and allowing them to schedule with a freer hand.

So group movies are good and may present Marvel with better opportunities. Solo movies are the bread and butter of the studio though. If you count two helpings of Guardians and Civil War then out of sixteen** Marvel Studios productions to date only five have been big ensemble efforts. Marvel have to realise that solo movies are the thing they have to get right. After all without solo movies they don’t have the characters or universe to deliver the ensemble experience we have now become used to.

The Future A-Team?

So who have we got solo-wise with the chops to carry a new franchise on their shoulders? I wouldn’t blame you if you’d forgotten. For me the chief contenders would have to be: Tigra, Namor/Sub-Mariner, Captain Britain, Echo, Elsa Bloodstone, and Pod/Aikku Jokkinen.

I selected these out of all the characters I looked at (and bear in mind I was only looking at characters who had at one time or another been Avengers) because they seemed distinctive enough to stand out and also had suitable levels of outlandishness to carry a movie by themselves.

Tigra only just made the list because, on the face of it, she’s kinda goofy. Then I took a look at how goofy was working out for Marvel and that made her an auto-include. Out of all Marvel characters I think Tigra has the most potential for being a character who has never really created a distinct presence within the comic universe but who could be yet another shot in the arm for the movie studio.

In case you’re unfamiliar with Tigra she’s a tiger furred cat-person with cat-based super powers (a bit like that DC Catwoman movie but, hopefully, not a pile of dreck, also with tiger fur). Admittedly there are some problems, like the fact that upon getting her powers she vowed to always wear a black bikini in the comics (it was the 70s). But that just needs some translation into, she’s a woman who doesn’t see a problem with wanting to be a model and an ass-kicking feline superhero. There’s potential there, loads of it. It just requires that the right people get the gig to make it into a fun project without it being silly or trivialising the character as a person. And Marvel are good at finding the right people for a job.
 
Moving on, Namor the Sub-Mariner has advantages above Tigra and disadvantages that make him less suitable. He is a known Marvel face from way back in the Timely era along with the original Human Torch (if you didn’t know there was an “original” Human Torch, see Part 3) and Captain America. So more people are probably aware of his existence than someone like Tigra.
 
If brand recognition was all there was to it we would be golden but, and here’s the thing, canonically speaking Namor’s kind of a dick. I wish I could put it more gracefully but there it is. Namor hates surface dwellers, rules Atlantis, is given to petulance and has been known to form alliances with savoury characters such as Magneto and Doctor Doom.
 
From a comics perspective he’s kind of interesting because he’s a bit of an anti-hero but he seriously messes with the Marvel vibe. It’s a bit of a surprise, then, that rumours are ablaze that Sub-Mariner’s getting his own movie pretty soon. From the point of view of utilising properties the sense of it can’t be argued but I can’t help feeling that Namor is a pretty tricky character to fit into the cosy MCU. Time will tell.
 
As a British person, I would rather see Captain Britain make a cinematic appearance. There is a clear elephant in the room with reference to the fact that this would make the MCU’s third Captain along with America and Marvel. Also Captain Britain has always appeared to be a tag along concept in the shadow of Captain America. (Fun Fact: the very first concept drawings for Cap were titled “Super American” but Captain America was selected because too many things at the time were “Super”.) In order to get over these points you just have to get on and read some Captain Britain books, because, wow, they’re a lot weirder than a lot of other Marvel content.
 
Alan Moore’s only stint of work for Marvel was writing some Captain Britain books, and that along with a few issues of Night Raven is all the work Moore has ever done on Marvel Superheroes, all under the banner of Marvel UK.
 
In exactly the same way as I felt a bit ambivalent about the MCU taking on Doctor Strange I feel that Captain Britain would either bring new triumph or great tragedy for Marvel. Like Tigra Captain Britain has some mysticism in his origin (and in his opponents) that would make him an ideal companion to Doctor Strange in the upcoming MCU. However the tone of Captain Britain is wildly different to that of anyone who has appeared so far in the MCU. He skews far into that most bizarre territory inhabited by British Cultural icons such as Monty Python and Doctor Who. Is the MCU ready for that?
 
In a way I feel it might be better to go for an MI:13 movie. MI:13 is a group of which Captain Britain is a member. Hell, they could also go for kicking off an MI:13 franchise with the first movie being mostly about Captain Britain and how he kick starts MI:13 (although that’s a bit similar to how Captain America was viewed in relation to the Avengers). Whichever way you look at it Captain Britain has plenty of potential in the MC:U, even if it means Marvel have to tread carefully.
 
Worries about covering old ground don’t trouble Echo or Pod, two more smaller unique solo properties that have something new to offer. Echo is pretty straightforward, a hero who can mimic things she has seen exactly, an ability known as “photographic reflexes”. I’ve seen this idea used a couple of times before in TV shows (”Heroes” briefly had a character like this, for example) but never to any great effect. Echo is Marvel’s only deaf superhero, and has enough distinctiveness to carry an Ant-Man size project, surely.
 
Pod is a hero concept with even more cinematic potential, a Norwegian girl who bonds with robotic armour, armour that is sentient and will die if she ever removes it. The armour can generate shields, allows the wearer to fly and has technology that allows it to adapt itself when attacked. It also has a sweet arsenal of mines and laser beams.
 
A clearer metaphor for the idea of an everyday person trapped within their super powers has not been depicted on screen at this time. The dynamic which keeps the hero operating, a basic regard for sentient life of any kind, is also fascinating. It is implicit that if the operator of the suit, Aikku Jokinen, could escape from the armour without harm or consequence she would. It is her human compassion that keeps her trapped within a robotic death machine. The potential for development of a franchise is pretty clear, even though Pod is a relatively new Marvel character.
 
The final distinct property that could provide fresh ideas for Marvel fairly easily is Elsa Bloodstone. The character is a young, female monster hunter, inviting comparison with Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The obvious essential story task in this property, then, is to define what a “monster” is in the MCU. Again, this makes for a great association with Doctor Strange. As Elsa Bloodstone’s area of expertise is in something that the MCU has not really dealt with, supernatural monsters, the problem of sameiness (at least within the MCU canon) is solved at a stroke.
 
Mind The Showstoppers!

If the list of straight forward potential new Avengers appears a little light then we could add to these a few characters who have plenty of potential but maybe present some problems when trying to pitch them to a mass audience. Here I include: Moondragon, She-Hulk, Wonder Man, Spider-Woman, Amadeus Cho, Stingray and Nightmask.

At least a few of these may be both familiar and surprising to you. What’s the problem, for example, with She-Hulk and Spider-Woman, both of whom are established Marvel characters. The obvious answer is that an audience who knows nothing about comics will assume, upon hearing their names, that Marvel have run out of ideas.
 
Spider-Woman has suffered greatly from the fact that she is tied by her superhero name to the single most recognisable Marvel character worldwide. I have come across a few occasions where Spider-Woman is referred to just as Jessica Drew, although, again, we have the problem that now Jessica Jones is a more famous Marvel Television character. Even so, the potential for introducing some super-powered espionage into the MCU should not be ignored just because of some character naming problems.
 
She-Hulk continues to this day to be plagued with image problems despite being one of Marvel’s smartest and funniest characters. It cannot help but be a burden to be a spin off from Marvel’s grumpy green giant. Although maybe the ongoing efforts of Misney to avoid handing box office dollars to Universal will allow for a kick-ass She-Hulk origin film featuring the Hulk in his all-important key role.
 
Ironically, She-Hulk owes her very existence to all the rights-wrangling that has become commonplace in the modern superhero market place. Seeing the success of “The Incredible Hulk” and “Six Million Dollar Man” television shows in the early 80s Marvel were keen that if producers wanted to make a female Hulk spin-off (as they had with the advent of “The Bionic Woman”) Marvel would retain all rights to the character.
 
Thus Bruce Banner’s cousin, Jennifer Walters, received a blood transfusion from her gamma-radiated relative and flushed a healthy shade of green. She-Hulk differentiated from Hulk in being less able, and less motivated to just smash all them puny humans. In fact Ms. Walters retained a good deal of her personality when shifting into her enormous green form. This lead to a fascinating dichotomy where the line between Jennifer Walters and She-Hulk became perilously blurry. Meaning that, ironically, She-Hulk continues to be the more fascinating character to write for. So, accusations of creativity block notwithstanding, it would be great to see She-Hulk somewhere in the Marvel Studios universe, although possibly she might be better served on TV…
 
While we’re on the topic of creativity bypasses it would probably be worth mentioning Stingray, who is basically an underwater themed version of Iron Man. I think the accusations of base-covering by Marvel on this one are more justified. Tony Stark first appeared in 1963 and Stingray four years later in 1967 (before he had even acquired the superhero name Stingray).
 
Is there really much mileage in a sea-faring Iron Man? I’m not sure, but another part of Disney have been thrashing the hell out of a pirate with guy-liner for five movies, so, hey, give Stingray a chance, possibly. It’s not the worst idea in the world (we’ll come onto a few of those in Part Three).
 
Finally, for this part at least, we have four characters who are original, and certainly have potential, but may require some explanation when it comes to marketing. The most stupefying of these is Moondragon. An androgynous character who has inherited superpowers through intense and lengthy meditation and physical conditioning.
 
With a crazy backstory involving Monks, Thanos and the “Elders of the Universe” Moondragon is a fascinating character. Indeed, Marvel agrees, as her enigmatic presence and demeanour was almost entirely ripped off to substitute an alternative take on Doctor Strange’s mentor “The Ancient One”. Anyone looking into Moondragon’s persona in the comics cannot help but draw a clear line of similarity between her and the quantum-mystical imaginings of the cinematic Ancient One. So it is entirely possible that this character has already had her moment in the Cinematic sun. Seems like a terrible waste to me, but what do I know?
 
Moving on, most people are unaware that there is a Wonder Man in the Marvel universe. First appearing in Avengers #9 in 1964 the character was intended as the cat’s paw of Baron Zemo working with the Enchantress and the Executioner. As such Simon Williams AKA Wonder Man began his career being given “ionic power” and, only after the process was complete, also being given a week to live unless he carried out his infiltration mission.
 
In the last moments Wonder Man realised that he would rather be good and dead than bad and in Zemo’s pocket, so he sacrificed himself to save the Avengers. Essentially he started out as a throwaway plot device for a one-issue outing. This probably explains why nobody stopped him being called Wonder Man. The sobriquet is a weak name on multiple levels, it lacks the alliteration of Wonder Woman, also Wonder Woman was an established DC property at that time, so all in all Wonder Man was meant to be no more than a placeholder for a generic traitorous Avenger.
 
In the end Simon Williams returned via some hideously complex plot shenanigans to the Marvel Universe, racked with guilt that his origin was all about selling out the people who had accepted him as friends. This is the character note. He’s like one-third of Superman, certainly a character with vast power compared to an ordinary human, but always with a nagging self-doubt that he, the person who has access to this power, cannot be relied upon and will eventually screw everything up.
 
This is a great character basis, and Simon Williams has been referenced in the MCU via an Easter egg in Guardians vol. 2. So there is hope that Simon Williams may bring his charming low self-esteem to the MCU yet, but maybe they want to think about that name before they do.
 
No such problems with Nightmask, who has a very cool superhero name, however the issue here is with the character’s power set. By far the most intriguing version of the character has the power to manipulate the "superflow", described on Nightmask’s wikipedia page as:”a ‘transuniversal space’ through which dreams, ideas and telepathy interact with the physical world”. So far, so awesome, but therein lies the problem. How to describe the superflow for a mass audience? Science Fiction and fantasy buffs will hop on for the ride but just explaining it to non-fans will be a major headache.
 
As with all things that are complex the key here might be to introduce Nightmask in stages. At first introducing a hero who manipulates and has access to the world of dreams and then expanding the power set as audiences become more used to the franchise. It’s not a scheme that needs the seventh, eighth or even tenth smartest person on earth to work it out, so it’s probably a piece of work way below our final potential future Avenger for this article, Amadeus Cho.

Having got here I’m not even sure which part of this list Cho should be in. On the one hand the idea of a teen-genius who spends most of his time as a sidekick to maulers like the Hulk and Hercules sounds pretty painful. On the other I get the impression that Cho is supposed to be a lighter character, one with plenty of heart to go with his super-genius brain.
 
Cho is one of those characters who could go either way, people could warm to him until he’s a firm favourite, or they could despise his smug face. He’s not a character who is attractive by default. I think the two keys here are nailing his selfless nature, he appears as someone who has a clear vision of the way the world is and a moral sense that has exceeded that of the Greek gods on occasion. The other major potential is for Cho to piggyback his way through several other franchise movies, he is the sidekick upgraded into full-on associate hero.
 
Cho has been a staple of the current Avengers adventures and I think it is inevitable that one day he will come to the big screen. He’s not a hero to launch a flagship stable of heroes but he is definitely one to pull out when there’s a risk the audience might lose focus.
​

All of which leads us, inevitably, to consider what we have left. We have looked at the future of the existing franchise characters, and cast an eye over the characters ripe with potential for the future. There are a few more heroes to consider, but none of them are exactly ideal for keeping the audience engaged and in the right mood out of the box. We’ll take a look at these misshapes in the final part of this article.
 
*Apologies to Black Widow and Hawkeye.
** Remember Punisher: War Zone? If not you should totally check it out.​


Make sure to check back soon for the final part of Leo's MCU's Avengers Problem examination!

Tagged: movies & TV.

blog comments powered by Disqus

---

Follow @TrashMutant