Bob Iger Questions Marvel Sequels, Need to Bring Back Characters

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Azreal13**

Marvel Studios is never shy to bring back a fan-favorite character or give an old favorite a sequel. Over 24 years and 31 movies, the only characters that have been officially retired are a few tentpoles like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.). But according to Disney CEO Bob Iger, the studio’s upcoming slate is all about going to be introducing fresh faces and less about bringing back old stalwarts.

During Disney’s Thursday presentation at Morgan Stanley’s 2023 Technology Media and Telecom Conference, Iger spoke about the future of Marvel at the company. During the next five years, Iger said Disney would reevaluate whether certain characters need sequels, or need to be brought back at all.

“Marvel — there were 7,000 characters, there are a lot more stories to tell,” he said. “What we have to look at at Marvel is not necessarily the volume of Marvel storytelling, but how many times we go back to the well on certain characters. Sequels typically work well for us. Do you need a third or a fourth, or is it time to turn to other characters? There’s nothing in any way inherently off in terms of the Marvel brand. I think we just have to look at what characters or stories we’re mining. And if you look at the trajectory of Marvel over the next five years, you’re going to see a lot of newness. We’re going to turn back to the Avengers franchise, but with a whole set of different Avengers.”

The “turn back” to the “Avengers” franchise is a reference to “Avengers: The Kang Dynasty” and “Avengers: Secret Wars,” which will end Phase 6 in 2025 and 2026. Destin Daniel Cretton is slated to direct “Kang Dynasty,” while the “Secret Wars” director has yet to be announced.

Upcoming Marvel sequels include a third “Guardians of the Galaxy” movie, “The Marvels,” “New World Order” starring Anthony Mackie as new Captain America Sam Wilson, and “Thunderbolts,” which will team villains and anti-heroes from past films. The only films completely starring new characters is “Fantastic Four,” which will introduce the titular team to the franchise, and “Blade” starring Mahershala Ali. That said, three unannounced films from Marvel Studios have been dated for July 25 and November 7, 2025, and February 13, 2026.

Iger also addressed another Disney tentpole, Lucasfilm’s “Star Wars,” during the call. The franchise has mostly been cosigned to Disney+ since 2019’s “The Rise of Skywalker” ended the sequel trilogy, and earlier this week it was reported that two in-development films — Patty Jenkins’ “Rogue Squadron” and an untitled project from Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige — have been shelved. Iger explained that Disney wanted to pause their release of films in the franchise after the commercial disappointment of spin-off film “Solo,” but that new films are still being made by Lucasfilm.

“‘Solo’ was a little disappointing to us. It gave us pause just to think maybe the cadence was a little too aggressive. So we decided to pull back a bit,” Iger said. “We still are developing ‘Star Wars’ films. We’re going to make sure that when we make one that it’s the right one, and so we’re being really careful there.”

https://www.indiewire.com/2023/03/disney-says-fewer-marvel-sequels-1234817799/

**H.B.M.C.**

How typically reactionary.

People like familiarity. If you're doing origin stories for new characters rather than furthering the continuing story - y'know, the thing people like about the MCU, and (one of) the reason(s) Phase 4 has suffered - then people will tune out even further as they don't have any real investment.

"... how many times we go back to the well on certain characters..."

If there were diminishing returns then maybe he'd have a point, but there hasn't been for a lot of these films. Iron Man 3: Regular Man, Captain America: Civil War and Spider-Man: No Way Home were massive successes and were all third films in their respective series.

**endlesswaltz123**

I haven't watched a phase 4 film in its entirety yet I think - unsure if no way home was truly phase 4 or not? Same with Doctor strange 2?. The others have been pretty underwhelming and I've just switched off. Anyway, those 2 I have watched, and Loki were really good, I enjoyed them a lot. The rest have not captivated me. I just think burn out is a bit of it. Lack of care for new characters is another.

In reference to Star Wars. Solo was a disaster because - rightly or wrongly - you irked long time fans enough they refused to watch it. It's actually an alright film, not as good as rogue one, but alright. Way more than any film in the sequel trilogy. Interesting that plenty of the vitriol around KK has seemed to have died down a fair bit... Sure it is still around and out there, but it doesn't seem to be as much of a draw as it was, at one point.

However, Mandalorian, Andor and Kenobi (BoBF not so much) have convinced me that Star Wars is better told in a series format, especially when focussed heavily on one character. Solo could have worked very well as a series in retrospect.

**H.B.M.C.**

Everything from Wanda Vision to Wakanda Forever is Phase 4.

**Turnip Jedi**

Well if they made Solo properly to start with and didn't have to more or less make it twice then the numbers might have been better

**Voss**

Seems perfectly sensible to me. I could go a couple decades without yet another SpiderBatSuperman story (let alone the same story, as they too often are). I have no personal stake in them rehashing the same lukewarm tale over and over again, so I'd rather they did other characters.

If they're going to claim they're broadening out, I sincerely hope they follow through. Though they need to do a better job with writing and directing than they've been doing, whether its the same old characters or nobodies like Eternals.

**bbb**

It's really interesting that he said 24 years and 31 movies. That math doesn't add up.

The MCU started in 2008, not 2000, unless, following the events of SM:NWH and DS:MoM we're now lumping in everything starting with X-Men in 2000, but if so the movie count should be well over 31.

Worked on assembling a chart of important characters and their appearances. It's not perfect, but it gives a picture of what the situation looks like. Phases 1,2, &3 spanned 11 years and 23 movies, while Phases 4, 5, & 6 will span 6 years, 18ish movies, and 10+ TV shows.

Spoiler:

**Dysartes**

Not giving Nick Fury an appearance in 2008, bbb?

**Tsagualsa**

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

However, Mandalorian, Andor and Kenobi (BoBF not so much) have convinced me that Star Wars is better told in a series format, especially when focussed heavily on one character. Solo could have worked very well as a series in retrospect.

Star Wars works best when it sticks to classical dramatic structure and 'Hero's Journey' type stories because that's were most of the original inspiration for the movies comes from: old western movies/shows and japanese samurai dramas/movies, which often were close adaptations of stage dramas and plays. It's not easy to get the Star Wars 'feel' right if you deviate too much from this - that's IMHO why either movie trilogies or series work best for Star Wars, they give you just enough room to have a proper act structure and show actual character development without feeling to rushed or repetitive. A lot of the standalone movies fall into the trap of wanting to do the whole dramatic structure thing in one go, while also having to hit all the 'typical' SW set pieces and genre conventions that marketing and the fandom pretty much demands from it. The result is either a rushed, barely coherent movie where nothing can last long enough on-screen to actually develop its own flavour, or something that does not get the 'SW feeling' right.

**bbb**

Dysartes wrote:
Not giving Nick Fury an appearance in 2008, bbb?

I didn't count post credit scenes in making the list. Tried to stick to starring, co-starring, or made an appearance in the film itself.

**aku-chan**

Seems like a weird take, the Disney+ stuff has mostly been about introducing new characters and, as far as I can tell, they're not exactly setting the world on fire.

Now a return to the earlier films, where they're a bit more standalone and less interconnected, I'd be happy with, but I don't see endless origin stories being a winning strategy.

**The_Real_Chris**

Solo was just a poor film, in that it treated everything with talismanic reverence. Want to know how he made up his name? Want to see him get presented with a special gun? And so on. Part of the appeal of SW was the lived in appearance of the universe. That fails if everything is special and has meaning. He could have grabbed the gun off a still cooling corpse and not given it another thought and that would have been fine.

Rogue was a funny film - I love it, but watching it again you have to admit whole swathes aren't very good. Instead it for me finally showed a competent Empire which you need if its a threat, and actual rebellion/insurgency dynamics of why you avoid pitched battles at all costs. Like Andor, the Rebellion isn't winning in a conventional sense.

I can see a traditional fighter plane film working - but can Disney accept those wars had horrific pilot attrition and steady mental breakdown. If they wanted to do Battle of Britain it would be hit and run against targets of opportunity off the coast and in France, and hurriedly assembling forces against overwhelming bomber waves to break them up and reduce the damage, but still flying home over burning cities that you couldn't completely defend.

Would be a good series with core pilots being joined by a soon to be dead cast of new pilots each week, just like actual vet/new guy dynamics. Or indeed a good computer game. Could call it X-wing. Maybe do an Imperial version and call it Tie fighter.

That is nothing to do with cadence.

**Vulcan**

Turnip Jedi wrote:
Well if they made Solo properly to start with and didn't have to more or less make it twice then the numbers might have been better

A good chunk of the failure of Solo can be traced back to fan backlash against both The Last Jedi, and further the Official Lucasfilm Backlash against the fan backlash against The Last Jedi. A hefty chunk of the fandom, rightly or wrongly, decided to hoist a single finger at Lucasfilm and stayed home in droves when Solo was released.

Which just goes to show you that insulting you core audience, the ones who traditionally go see your movies over and over again, is not a good business strategy. Even if you are correct in your assessment of their motives, it's still going to tank your sales for the next product you try to sell them.

**Easy E**

aku-chan wrote:
Seems like a weird take, the Disney+ stuff has mostly been about introducing new characters and, as far as I can tell, they're not exactly setting the world on fire.

Now a return to the earlier films, where they're a bit more standalone and less interconnected, I'd be happy with, but I don't see endless origin stories being a winning strategy.

This poster gets it..... Bob Iger may not.

However, if they decide to slow the cadence of movies and skip TV for Marvel, I am all for it.

Also, for Rogue Squadron, they should do a shot-for-shot remake of the old "Piece of Cake" series only set it in the Star Wars universe. That's entertainment!

**Geifer**

Do we know why Rogue Squadron got shelved?

As for Marvel, I found the way they set it up initially more engaging than what's in phase four. Centering stuff around a cast of core characters for the Avengers and letting new characters join here and there didn't feel as overwhelming as what's currently happening with an expanding cast of characters I don't know nor care about, who don't seem to have much or a shared narrative they are tied to and that don't get their necessary individual screen time to build them up either. At the same time some of the characters that I can relate to are retired. I'd want to see that fixed. No idea if slowing down is the right way. I just want more focus on characters that are interesting and can hold the whole thing together.

**Flinty**

Disney should pay GW/Mr Abnett for Double Eagle and just remake that in Star Wars land. Instant Rogue Squadron.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Geifer wrote:
Do we know why Rogue Squadron got shelved?

As for Marvel, I found the way they set it up initially more engaging than what's in phase four. Centering stuff around a cast of core characters for the Avengers and letting new characters join here and there didn't feel as overwhelming as what's currently happening with an expanding cast of characters I don't know nor care about, who don't seem to have much or a shared narrative they are tied to and that don't get their necessary individual screen time to build them up either. At the same time some of the characters that I can relate to are retired. I'd want to see that fixed. No idea if slowing down is the right way. I just want more focus on characters that are interesting and can hold the whole thing together.

No. But given WW84 was a massive steaming pile, I suspect it can’t have helped the Director’s rep.

**Geifer**

Oh, that was her? I thought the name sounded familiar. Yeah, I can see why Disney might have some reservations then.

**Dysartes**

Flinty wrote:
Disney should pay GW/Mr Abnett for Double Eagle and just remake that in Star Wars land. Instant Rogue Squadron.

Or, y'know, make use of the material Michael Stackpole laid down in the Rogue Squadron novels, with whatever tweaks are needed to make that series work in the Darth Mickey EU.

**Easy E**

How about remake Top Gun: Maverick but IN SPACE!

I mean, that is up for Best Picture!

**LunarSol**

None of this seems like anything new really. Iger was put back in charge specifically to reel in Chapek's push for more and more content. This is pretty much just exec speak explaining that.

**Azreal13**

Easy E wrote:
How about remake Top Gun: Maverick but IN SPACE!

I mean, that is up for Best Picture!

A film about a group of plucky individuals attempting a mission that requires them to mount an assault on an all but impossible to hit target, while flying down a canyon littered with weapons systems that could blast them out of the sky at any moment?

Never happen.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunarSol wrote:
None of this seems like anything new really. Iger was put back in charge specifically to reel in Chapek's push for more and more content. This is pretty much just exec speak explaining that.

We knew why he'd been brought back, this is him explaining how he's going to do that. That's what's new.

**gorgon**

Vulcan wrote:
Turnip Jedi wrote:
Well if they made Solo properly to start with and didn't have to more or less make it twice then the numbers might have been better

A good chunk of the failure of Solo can be traced back to fan backlash against both The Last Jedi, and further the Official Lucasfilm Backlash against the fan backlash against The Last Jedi. A hefty chunk of the fandom, rightly or wrongly, decided to hoist a single finger at Lucasfilm and stayed home in droves when Solo was released.

Which just goes to show you that insulting you core audience, the ones who traditionally go see your movies over and over again, is not a good business strategy. Even if you are correct in your assessment of their motives, it's still going to tank your sales for the next product you try to sell them.

Nah.

TLJ didn't irreparably harm the franchise because it didn't provide the fan service that some loud online complainers were looking for. Solo was full of fan service, probably to a fault. The main issue was that general audiences weren't into a Han Solo origin movie without the actor that made the character iconic. Or maybe to be more precise, learning every detail about about Solo's background with a different actor who just can't duplicate Harrison Ford is far less interesting than Harrison Ford playing Solo doing...anything.

Which Kennedy and company have unfortunately decided means "don't recast any original trilogy characters for anything new". But people would watch an "adventures of Luke Skywalker" if it was fun with the right actor. And they could probably recast Leia also. Ford just made Han Solo work, and no one can easily replicate that.

**H.B.M.C.**

gorgon wrote:
TLJ didn't irreparably harm the franchise because it didn't provide the fan service that some loud online complainers were looking for.

TLJ didn't fail because they didn't put fan service in. It failed (and hurt Star Wars) because it was an awful film.

**BobtheInquisitor**

The Force Awakens was an awful film, yet it didn’t seem to hurt the franchise.

And a lot of what fans hated about TLJ was a direct consequence of JJ’s mystery box technique.

**creeping-deth87**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Force Awakens was an awful film, yet it didn’t seem to hurt the franchise.

And a lot of what fans hated about TLJ was a direct consequence of JJ’s mystery box technique.

Yup. It floored me back in 2015 how the fandom ate up TFA, and it continues to floor me now. The sequel trilogy was doomed even then, you can't build anything good on such a rotten foundation.

**Azreal13**

I think not rehashing this particular dead horse is to the benefit of the thread and all the participants' mental health.

**Albertorius**

Geifer wrote:
Do we know why Rogue Squadron got shelved?

As for Marvel, I found the way they set it up initially more engaging than what's in phase four. Centering stuff around a cast of core characters for the Avengers and letting new characters join here and there didn't feel as overwhelming as what's currently happening with an expanding cast of characters I don't know nor care about, who don't seem to have much or a shared narrative they are tied to and that don't get their necessary individual screen time to build them up either. At the same time some of the characters that I can relate to are retired. I'd want to see that fixed. No idea if slowing down is the right way. I just want more focus on characters that are interesting and can hold the whole thing together.

Marvel Movies, as Marvel comics (and DC, to be fair) before them, have reached the "crossover hell phase". Everything has to be connected so that you go buy (watch) everything else, and just in case, we also do periodic mega crossovers where you just have to buy (watch) all the other series and characters you don't care about just to be able to make heads or tails of the stories of the characters you do care about.

Which is what drove a lot of people out of comic books, and it's what's driving a lot of people out of watching Marvel movies now.

**Tsagualsa**

gorgon wrote:
Vulcan wrote:
Turnip Jedi wrote:
Well if they made Solo properly to start with and didn't have to more or less make it twice then the numbers might have been better

A good chunk of the failure of Solo can be traced back to fan backlash against both The Last Jedi, and further the Official Lucasfilm Backlash against the fan backlash against The Last Jedi. A hefty chunk of the fandom, rightly or wrongly, decided to hoist a single finger at Lucasfilm and stayed home in droves when Solo was released.

Which just goes to show you that insulting you core audience, the ones who traditionally go see your movies over and over again, is not a good business strategy. Even if you are correct in your assessment of their motives, it's still going to tank your sales for the next product you try to sell them.

Nah.

TLJ didn't irreparably harm the franchise because it didn't provide the fan service that some loud online complainers were looking for. Solo was full of fan service, probably to a fault. The main issue was that general audiences weren't into a Han Solo origin movie without the actor that made the character iconic. Or maybe to be more precise, learning every detail about about Solo's background with a different actor who just can't duplicate Harrison Ford is far less interesting than Harrison Ford playing Solo doing...anything.

Which Kennedy and company have unfortunately decided means "don't recast any original trilogy characters for anything new". But people would watch an "adventures of Luke Skywalker" if it was fun with the right actor. And they could probably recast Leia also. Ford just made Han Solo work, and no one can easily replicate that.

'Solo' was also a remarkably stupid pick for an origin story because the character we know and love from the original trilogy takes heavily from genre conventions and movie clichees that are deeply rooted in the immediate post-war era and are all but unknown to people today that aren't interested in classic movies from three-quarters of a century ago. The 'smuggler with a heart of gold' 'sleazeball working for the right side under a pretense of cynicism' and so on are more or less tied to the interwar era as a setting, think 'Casablanca' or 'Tales of the Gold Monkey' and were a bit of a nostalgic affection even for Lucas' generation. Moviegoers today mostly know the themes and tropes mostly from Star Wars itself, or from other homage works, like they know 'Pulp' tropes from stuff like Tarantino movies or Indiana Jones, which are themselves hommages to 'real' Pulp. On top of that, a lot of Solo's original characterization from A New Hope and Empire is at least problematic, if not outright misogynistic by today's standards and as such provoked tensions about either toning it down or not being faithful to the original character.

**Vulcan**

Dysartes wrote:
Flinty wrote:
Disney should pay GW/Mr Abnett for Double Eagle and just remake that in Star Wars land. Instant Rogue Squadron.

Or, y'know, make use of the material Michael Stackpole laid down in the Rogue Squadron novels, with whatever tweaks are needed to make that series work in the Darth Mickey EU.

But then they'd have to pay Stackpole royalties, and Disney is busy cutting some $5 BILLION dollars in expenses in a desperate attempt to stay solvent.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunarSol wrote:
None of this seems like anything new really. Iger was put back in charge specifically to reel in Chapek's push for more and more content. This is pretty much just exec speak explaining that.

There's... some debate on that, depending on who's rumors you're hearing. There are some rumors that there have been certain financial dealings by the board that, if the public - and therefore the stockholders - find out about, it would spell their personal ruin and that's why Chapek was canned.

Other rumors speak of Chapek wanting to get the politics out of Disney material, and he got the boot for that.

Still other rumors speak of Iger seeing the upcoming financial train wreck coming and stepping aside, putting Chapek in charge so he would be the one in the driver's seat when the train wreck occurred, so Iger could them come back 'and 'save Disney from Chapek's mistakes'.

As usual, heard from a guy who knows a guy who shot a guy; take with the appropriate amounts of salt.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

gorgon wrote:
Vulcan wrote:
Turnip Jedi wrote:
Well if they made Solo properly to start with and didn't have to more or less make it twice then the numbers might have been better

A good chunk of the failure of Solo can be traced back to fan backlash against both The Last Jedi, and further the Official Lucasfilm Backlash against the fan backlash against The Last Jedi. A hefty chunk of the fandom, rightly or wrongly, decided to hoist a single finger at Lucasfilm and stayed home in droves when Solo was released.

Which just goes to show you that insulting you core audience, the ones who traditionally go see your movies over and over again, is not a good business strategy. Even if you are correct in your assessment of their motives, it's still going to tank your sales for the next product you try to sell them.

Nah.

TLJ didn't irreparably harm the franchise because it didn't provide the fan service that some loud online complainers were looking for. Solo was full of fan service, probably to a fault. The main issue was that general audiences weren't into a Han Solo origin movie without the actor that made the character iconic. Or maybe to be more precise, learning every detail about about Solo's background with a different actor who just can't duplicate Harrison Ford is far less interesting than Harrison Ford playing Solo doing...anything.

Which Kennedy and company have unfortunately decided means "don't recast any original trilogy characters for anything new". But people would watch an "adventures of Luke Skywalker" if it was fun with the right actor. And they could probably recast Leia also. Ford just made Han Solo work, and no one can easily replicate that.

That doubtless was also a large point of it. But do not forget the average moviegoer sees a movie once; Star Wars fans are noted for waiting days to weeks to catch midnight premiers, and (used to) see the movie in the theaters repeatedly. Losing those fans and their repeat business, not to mention their tendancy to buy the merchandise, seriously impacted Lucasfilm's bottom line.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
gorgon wrote:
TLJ didn't irreparably harm the franchise because it didn't provide the fan service that some loud online complainers were looking for.
TLJ didn't fail because they didn't put fan service in. It failed (and hurt Star Wars) because it was an awful film.

It was an awful Star Wars film.

But if you remove the Star Wars elements from it? On THAT basis it would have been a decent, if generic, sci-fi film. Maybe even a good generic sci-fi film.

What made it bad was how it treated the legacy of Star Wars. Pull it out of the Star Wars universe and it's not that bad.

(Of course, had Ruin Johnson been making a generic sci-fi film instead of being bound and determined to make Star Wars fans hate him by wrecking their enjoyment of the sequel trilogy, he probably wouldn't have come up with anything even that good, based on the movies he's made since...)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Force Awakens was an awful film, yet it didn’t seem to hurt the franchise.

And a lot of what fans hated about TLJ was a direct consequence of JJ’s mystery box technique.

Well, it was hidden in a movie that was copy/paste of A New Hope, so... yeah. But I do recall my description of TFA was 'It's filling a hole. Filling holes is rarely exciting."