Option 1 Reboot

Option 2 King Thor story inspired in the JM Straczynski run, where Thor was the only Asgardian that survived the Ragnarok and Infinity War.

Option 3 another King Thor story where GOTG 3 established/free Angela (Asgardian/Angel) and the Tenth Realm. Heven declares war to Asgard with the plot around King/All Father Thor decisions about war the Throne of Asgard and his older sister different beliefs.

Option 4 Loki solo movie, with deals done and undone, schemes with possibly Hela and Mephisto to resuscitate/rebuild Asgard according to his own vision, but in the end just plots that explore how chaotic Loki can be.

Option 5 The Asgardians are all dead, so Jane picks Mjolnir becomes Asgardian and Thordis and goes play with Titania to feminism.

Option 6 Other (specify).

God Butcher adaptation

The essence of that great story was the God factor something that the MCU denies... Gorr work very well in comics but that doesn't mean that can translate to live action, the best comics stories aren't necessarily the ones that have more cinematic potential, although i think that the God Butcher arcs adaptation could work in live action if the Thor movies weren't connected with the MCU and consequently didn't have to follow the established MCU world building rules that reject the Gods concept...

He should die

You know what, that´s actually true.

Then I guess I´d like to see a King Thor adaptation from Dan Jurgens´ run.

@thor_parker82:

Ok Good pick Dan Jurgens run on Thor is underrated, for me he's up there with Walter Simonson and JM Straczynski, perhaps a movie with elements of both Jurgens's The Reigning and JM Straczynski "reboot" could actually work for a live action King Thor Story...

Who should die? Zack Snyder for not have the notion of what the word storytelling means? Why to post in what you dislike?

Completely agree bro, Dan Jurgens´ run was absolutely amazing and it doesn´t receive the credit it deserves.

@asgaard: whoa wishing death on real person, a bit much don't you think. Thor should die because I think it's time for a new era of characters. Black Panther, Ant-Man, Captain Marvel, Dr. Strange & Spiderman. Thor would've already had his trilogy and I think Thanos killing him would be a good way to end things.

There are a lot of stories they could do, personally I would want to see something akin to The Dark Gods saga. Perhaps they could even adopt the concept of Fear Itself to Thor solo franchise and bring forth Serpent as the villain. It would be pretty cool to see because 1) it is in line with Viking mythology and 2) would make a great antagonist for Odin.

Wishing?Lol I made a question about your post that wasn't specific...Obviously at some point Thor Franchise will be back just like any other successful franchise i didn't specified dates, and the purpose of the thread is to know what stories can Marvel Studios tell next with this franchise...

@asgaard: I doubt it Marvel the MCU to go on for as long as possible, they have films planned till 2028 for crying out loud. With the amount of characters they own, they can go an extremely long time without having to make another Thor movie.

@kfabz-23 said:

Lol Iron Man, Thor and Cap will not have more movies until 2029, but O.K. if that is you opinion...

@claymore1998:

Like i said to @thor_parker82: the MCU denies the Gods concept, and i don't believe that Odin will survive the Ragnarok plus due to his age Sir Anthony Hopkins can't play this character beyond 2017, but the stories that you pick can work with some core modifications for live action...

@asgaard: You don't really need them to be gods though.Dark Gods Saga could be remade making the Dark Gods merely other alien who were in competition with Odin. After all it was the whole idea of prior competition, jealousy etc that made the story work so well, the idea of them being gods was never that important to the story.

The same with Serpent, he could just be a very powerful older brother of Odin who was destined to be the rightful king of Asgard, but he was betrayed because of his ruthlessness. Would make a pretty interesting story. I always enjoyed the relationship between Serpent and Odin.

@asgaard: that's the point I'm making

@claymore1998:

O.k. and live action never obeys to comics Mandarin!? But perhaps stories that are more "Godly" have less chances to be adapted to the current Mcu... What do you think of story that is a mix of the Fear Itself and The Tenth Realm? Where Cul is the only one besides Odin that knows about the Angels existence and frees them to help him conquer Asgard by force...

Dude $1.2B Iron Man 3 was in 2013... Think that Disney will not explore this "technological" property until 2029 is Utopian...

@asgaard: That would be pretty awesome. Rather than calling them Angels they could call them the Dark Gods ^_^

I think the movie verse is where you can have continuous storytelling and make way for new characters. I wouldn't be mad at all if Thor perishes and they make room for Black Panther, Dr. Strange and Captain Marvel to take center stage. Same with Captain America. Recasting them with new actors just a few years after the originals are done sucks.

Just my own opinion but I think they should have Asgard destroyed in "Ragnarok" and end the Thor franchise there. They have no idea how to handle it well anyway, as the Thor films have performed the worst out of the Big Three franchises.

@whoisthebest: All of the Avengers should die apart from Ironman and maybe Steve as long as he passes the mantle. The threat has to feel real and they need to pave the way for the new Avengers.

If Asgard dies in Ragnorok then Thor should absolutely die fighting against Thanos. If Black Widow, Vision & Hawkeye die against Thanos then that would just be disappointing. Hulk literally has no reason to live, so kill him off. Ironman should survive because his the root of the MCU, they should keep him alive out of respect for the character.

@whoisthebest:

I don' think the Infinity War story has plot time for Thor rebuild Asgard on earth, but who knows if that isn't a future plot for a King Thor movie...

@haveatthee:

Usually i agree with you, and i think we have the same views about Thor and Asgard in comics and movies, but you also shouldn't spread the urban myth that Thor films performed worst than Cap films, not true Thor 1 & 2 made more money (small margin) than Cap 1 & 2, Cap 2 was a really good and successful movie so comic book fans created this myth that is not accurate, obviously that will change in the future because the Ragnarok in any scenario will make so much money like Civil War, but is really Civil War a solo Cap movie? Better was the Winter Soldier a solo Cap movie? Even Iron Man 2 didn't felt like a solo Iron Man movie, on the other hand you can say that Thor 2 was not Good and i agree, but both Thor movies were Thor solo movies because if there is a character that has an incredible supporting cast is Thor, know how to tell stories with them is another discussion...

I also don't agree with the idea that every marvel franchise will be successful in the future, hype for comic book movies can easily change, and why should marvel bring to the to big screen every property (character), not saying that Black Panther, Dr. Strange, Captain Marvel and the Inhumans shouldn't be adapted but beyond that? What other marvel character can also have cinematic potential? Besides that is not the marvel winning formula that build a coherent main story in the Mcu (Infinity Stones/Thanos), apparently even the Netflix series don't have that approach because the Punisher will reinforce the DD season 2 plot...

I think at the moment there isn't anything that would make sense to put in after Infinity War for MCU Thor but my hope is that when this ridiculous female "Thor" story line is over someone can write something that is actually about Thor that could fit into the MCU.

Loki and Sif team-up movie. They seem to be the two most popular Asgardians after Thor in the MCU and Sif deserves more spotlight. Call it Journey into Mystery, since both characters have starred in the most recent runs of the comic.

Introduce Beta Ray Bill in it along with maybe Surtur and Enchantress for the villains. I'd say leave out Executioner. It makes Amora seem less competent to need effectively a bodyguard. I know that in the comics, she's meant to be a brains not brawn character and a manipulator, but that's also Loki's deal. I'd say make her smart, manipulative and a physical match for Thor (and in this movie, Sif), by giving her Executioner's axe as her evil Mjolnir.

As for Thor movies, how about Gorr the God Butcher as a villain. I know the MCU doesn't technically have Gods , just super powerful Aliens, but one options is to drop the God Butcher part, or just the God part, and have him just kill Asgardians, that'd work, though his origin would need tweaking.

Or have 'Gods' just work the same as movie Asgardians. You could use other existing pantheons, or make up alien pantheons instead, or both.

@bannyhaha:

Obviously, but you can still point some direction according to your preferences...

01 I m a big Sif and JIM (Gillen/Immonen) fan your scenario would make me very happy, and what if that Journey into Mystery could incorporate Cul like suggested above?

02 Perhaps some of that plots will happen in the Raganrok movie.

03 Like i said above the essence of Gorr story is the "Godly" part, just kill Asgardians could diminish Gorr motivations.

04 Elements like the 9 realms and the Bifrost made the Asgardians work like past/present aliens in live action, but can you apply the same formula to other pantheons without this or similar elements?

...I kind of just want him to team-up with Nicholas Cage's Ghost Rider, but that's me.

@whoisthebest: if Asgard does indeed gets destroyed then 90% of Thor's supporting cast is dead, after that he doesn't serve much purpose to even have a solo film. With Chris Hemsworth contract nearly ending best route would be to kill him off.

Hulk is another character whose purpose in the universe is getting smaller and smaller, if Marvel are saying they don't want Planet Hulk then I don't see what else you could do with him.

Especially because now Ironman is the contingency for Hulk and if they ever did make a Hulk movie on earth if he were to transform you would need Ironman there aswell and I don't think they would want to waste part of RDJ contract on a Hulk film. Just kill him off.

Captain America is a mantle that could be passed on, so even if Steve dies he could just pass the mantle onto Winter Soldier. Tony Stark connects a lot of things in the MCU, I think they would want to keep him alive especially because RDJ's star power.

They have so many franchises to cover up the old Avengers and it will continue to grow.

Spiderman, Black Panther, Dr.Strange, Ant-Man, Captain Marvel, a new Captain America & Inhumans. That's solid you won't really need the old Avengers.

reboot, base it off ultimate thor with the axe

@dcmarveljoseph:

The Reboot can happen for all the MCU after the infinity War, but unlikely because Spider-Man certainly will have his new trilogy and possible spin offs inside the current MCU, if not Sony/Marvel deal would make less sense...

@kfabz-23:

We don't know how Ragnarok will work in the MCU, cycles? And who said Thanos will die in Infinity War? You?

You just have the repetitive and typical comic book fan speech that in any moment acknowledges the movie business perspective, why would Disney kill characters like Thor/Steve/Bruce/Tony in a shared universe? When in the future they could need this same characters to tell stories that aren't planned at the moment? They could put them on hold, but kill them all? What if Phase 5 is Secret Wars? One of the things that marvel certainly regrets from the past and that has consequences now is not be able to use all their characters in the MCU plots, but they will kill all the current main Avengers to never more be able to tell stories with them again in a shared universe where they are the core... Only makes sense in you head because studios like Disney will not kill recognizable and proven profitable properties that they can use in the future if something doesn't work like planned... Because the idea that every marvel franchise will be successful in the future, and the hype for comic book movies will never die is also absurd...

@asgaard: when did I say Thanos will die?

They will kill them off because of the new slate has no space for them, they have limited resources and look at the amount of new franchises they have coming in.

Kevin Feige has repeatedly stated that MCU are trying to bring in new franchises for longevity, they have over 1000 characters they can do. When Thor and Captain America tuned out to be a success, Hulk got moved aside same thing could potentially happen to Thor if these new franchises work.

They don't necessarily have to kill them, but to me personally I think that's the best way to get rid of them.

@kfabz-23:

Did you read my last post? Why did you mention longevity and get rid of them?

"Disney will not kill recognizable and proven profitable properties that they can use in the future if something doesn't work like planned"...

Definitely and like i said before you have no notion of the movie business, longevity is achieved when you don't get rid of any property with proven results...

But let's play a little more, so Thanos can survive the Infinity War but the original Avengers can't? Who said that there will not be other stories (besides the Infinity Stones) with Thanos and the original Avengers in the MCU in phase 5?

Universal owns the Hulk solo movies distribution rights, obviously Disney will not produce movies that can't make the distribution, but even in that scenario he is not dead yet, because Rufallo Hulk was well received by audiences, but doesn't that go against all your argument?

What slate? Who said that Strange/C. Marvel/Inhumans/Ant-man will have 3 solo movies? And that there will be a Squirrel Girl movie in the future? Why can't you get that if Ant-Man or Dr. Strange aren't successful they are the ones that can die in Infinity War? Where are the plans or release date for Ant-Man 2?

Why Wb/Dc needed Batman so soon in their movies? Wasn't his last solo movie in 2012? Why not produce first the Wonder Woman and the Flash solo movie? Perhaps because MoS wasn't successful how Wb predicted and now they needed their most profitable/successful property/franchise to Hype the DCU, who said Disney Marvel also will not need to do that in the future? Do you think Batman will definitely die in the DCU? Obviously not...

@asgaard: you completely ignored the part where I said, they don't necessarily have to kill them.

I'm looking at it from the perspective that these characters will be successful, I mean why not? Marvel have done consistently for how many years? And how many characters? I have 0 doubt with them.

I never said Thanos should live, I said the characters that serve no purpose to the universe narrative should die. I personally feel after Infinity War you can't really do anything with Hulk. Whether Thor lives or dies I'm basing that off Ragnarok. Captain America stays just without Chris Evans/Steve, it's been done etc.

Within the next Marvel slate at best they would have 2 flops, 2 flops that could be replaced. Remember they still have Namor if them Universal sort something out along with a bunch of other characters. They can still make money off of the old guns with other merchandise.

WB/DC had Batman so soon because Zack Snyder wanted Batman to go up against Superman, they only started planning their universe when they saw MOS success that's why Batman v Superman got delayed because they actually started planning ahead of that. And how many Batman films are in that slate?

WB/DC are clearly aware that they messed up releasing MOS the date that they did, that's why the month Batman v Superman gets release has little to no competition. MOS competed with Despicable Me, Monsters University, World War Z, Pacific Rim, After Earth & This is the End. MOS needed to make a billion for the DCCU to carry on but they went along with it anyways because they knew that it was their mistake.

@kfabz-23:

No, you first said "They will kill them off because of the new slate has no space for them", and then "They don't necessarily have to kill them, but to me personally I think that's the best way to get rid of them".

Which demonstrated what i said, no knowledge in the movie franchise/industry...Again longevity is achieved when you don't get rid of any property with proven results...

The Mcu world building is based on the original Avengers, that will always be present in future solo and team movies until the MCU is rebooted, the Avengers movie is responsible for most of the MCU current spin offs (Abc/Netflix), who said that Strange/Carol/Lang and the others will be able to achieve the same level of Hype/success and keep the MCU in the current level that supports some possible failures? Always will be hard to replicate the "magic" of Avengers 1....

But we/you don't know the Ragnarok and the Infinity War and beyond that narrative right? How come you know what characters will have purpose or not? That's why the point of the topic is speculate possible future plots...

What MOS success? Do you mean Nolan Batman success? Well isn't Batman in Suicide Squad? Or is it Superman? I still remember that in the Dc announcement slate was said that solo Superman and Batman movies could be announced in the future, did i get it wrong? I was very surprised that MoS still is Rotten in RT, thought comicvine threads made everyone understand that the movie was awesome! Release date competition? When people want to see a movie they go see it, that's why Jurassic Word made $106M in the second weekend with Inside Out making $90M in the same weekend, BvS was moved to march because they/Wb run away from Cap 3, that wasn't Civil War yet, or was the other way around? Yeah MoS like Thor 2 were just average to bad movies in the perception of non comic book audiences no way fans will ever change that, Thor was protected by the MCU and Avenger/Character hype and Wb brought the big gun to the table Batman...

Since J Michael Strazinsky run (2007) Thor's popularity went uppppppppppppppppp inside and outside of Marvel, perhaps some fans of other characters that can't hide how biased their opinions are don't like that, but Thor character and franchise at the moment is very important for marvel...

2007

2013

2015

@asgaard: Where the hell is Wolverine in the last image you posted ? I hate the fact that Marvel is pushing away the properties they don´t own the movie rights, which (besides The Avengers and Spider-Man) are honestly their best characters such as Logan, Kitty Pryde, Fantastic Four, Magneto and many more.

@thor_parker82:

The answer is in your post... The X-Men and FF aren't and can't be in the incredibly profitable (at the moment) MCU...

@asgaard:true,true...i just really wanna see ultimate thor in live action

But using them won´t affect the MCU success, what they are doing is what a little kid would would do, they don´t win nor lose anything by using them, they just want Fox to fail, which would actually give bad reputation to those characters, I am not asking that they suddenly become Marvel´s face, but just to keep using them as they always did.

@thor_parker82: A spoiled little kid at that, who would rather break their toys rather than have to share them with anyone else, lol!

@whoisthebest: I thought Universal only holds the rights for distribution on the Hulk movies, could be wrong.

And I agree with both you and @asgaard on keeping characters in the MCU rather than killing them off. It isn't necessary to have Thor, Hulk, IM or Cap have a solo film every 3-4 years or featured in every Avengers movie, but it would make sense to have the characters available to use and NOT have to waste time with resurrecting them from the dead. As happens in the comics every so often certain characters aren't getting as much "screen time" as others and it's just accepted they're off doing something else, taking a break or simply living their normal lives.

@asgaard: what I meant was that they should kill them I just feel it's better that way.

I believe that the next slate of characters can and will achieve the same level of success which is what I'm basing my opinion on. Mark my words they will be big, don't doubt that.

The way they left off with Hulk it's really difficult to bring that character back to The Avengers franchise but let's move on. Thor I'll just wait for Ragnarok.

MOS had to be a success for the universe to build, WB believes it was that's why they're carrying on. Evidently the film polarising that's something they can easily turn around, and they're actually using that mixed fan response to their advantage with Batman v Superman's plot. Rotten Tomatoes ratings is further proof of that some critics loved it some hated and it actually leans more towards the good side. IMDB based on fan response, it's at a 7 that means most people thought it was good.

Batman is starring at Suicide Squad not only because he's more popular than Superman but because he has 4 of his villains there. From a narrative point of view it's good and from a business perspective is good. Superman has no quarrel with Killer Croc, Deadshot, Harley & Joker but Batman does. Batman would have no reason to show up in a film where Metallo, Doomsday, Bizzaro & Lex were the main characters.

WB/DC moved to March because they need to make as much money as possible, check what films come out at March and you would see why they did what they did. If it was released the same day as Civil War it would've hurt both films a great deal.

The people would go see what they want to go see but if you know anything about actually working in a cinema/movie industry you'd know that competing with that many films especially when one of them is Pixar, you would lose a lot of potential money you could've made.

@antithetical:

Exactly my view "it's just accepted they're off doing something else, taking a break or simply living their normal lives".

@thor_parker82:

I agree but from the Disney business perspective, Daredevil return to Marvel and they use the character with a lot of success in the Netflix platform, why not expect that the same can happen with FF? Marvel Fox adaptations weren't hit after hit like Marvel studios productions and the cinematic shared universe was Marvel Studios "invention", Disney in the last years bought some properties (Pixar/Marvel/Lucas Films) to be dominant inside the big 6 major Hollywood studios (Universal/Disney/Wb/Fox/Paramount/Sony) feels natural for them not promote any property/movie from rival studios...

@whoisthebest:

"In July 2013, Disney purchased the distribution rights to Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger from Paramount.[38] The Incredible Hulk was not part of the deal, due to an agreement between Marvel and Universal, where Marvel owns the film rights and Universal owns the distribution rights, for this film as well as the right of first refusal to distribute future Hulk films". Link

@kfabz-23:

Pointless discussion here... Because you are not exploring a different perceptive, just relying your argument on unknown futurism, the cinematic shared universes are new, but isn't that hard to understand how they work, and i only use Batman to try explain to you that some properties can't die because they have the "anchor" purpose... The DCU will be build in a different format because Iron man, Captain America, Thor and Hulk are the MCU Anchor... Batman will appear in Suicide Squad just to generate more Buzz and Hype for this movie (unknown property), the plot didn't need him, just like Gotg plot also didn't need Thanos, actually Thanos in the plot reduced Ronan's Villain credibility...

MoS was only part of my Batman "anchor" property example, i really don't want to start anything here, but are you sure?

"WB/DC moved to March because they need to make as much money as possible"

Box Office is not only about weekends, daily box office is as important as weekends, wasn't proved yet that movies in March or April can perform daily like movies in May or June, Jurassic World made $25M in the first week days, how insane was that? I really can't see that numbers in March or April, Wb just shouldn't move BvS from July 2015 to Cap 3 release date, they should find a free spot in the summer season because May starts of the summer season... Inside Out was a Pixar movie and Jurassic World box office numbers weren't affect by that, when the movie has great hype or is really good it will make money the competition is not the decisive factor, besides the international Box Office release dates are different and in the present movies make more money in the overseas markets... Perhaps factors like the storytelling of the movie, tone, the last Superman adaptation (Superman Returns) and a property that is not fresh were the factors that made MoS not be the success that Wb was expecting...

@asgaard:

If you read my previous post I clearly said that Batman being there is good for business, but it's not a big deal because a lot of the main characters are Batman characters.

when did I say box office was only about weekends? Movies can make a bunch whatever time of the year, The Hobbits and Hunger Games is proof of that. Jurassic World wasn't effected by Inside Out so what? Not only is Monsters Inc already established, that wasn't MOS only threat Despicable Me 2 (Also already established), World War Z, Pacific Rim, After Earth & This is the End the films that Jurrasic World's competing with don't even compare.

As long as these films are coming out at the same month the different international date releases don't make a significant difference, because as much as MOS was aiming for you'll need people to watch it multiple times and when you have Despicable Me & Monsters Inc both at the cinema that possibility reduces. And then you also have Pacific Rim that has a similar target audience to MOS, it clearly effected MOS and if you deny that then you're either being purposely indenial or you don't know what you're talking about.

Smart business men/women who are professionals at this clearly know that they will benefit big time releasing it at March. My point being although MOS was not the huge success WB, it was successful enough for WB to move on with it use it's polarising response to their advantage, learn from their mistake releasing it against heavy competition. And you'll see how successful Batman v Superman is because of that move.

Now about MCU I don't really care l, I just want them to kill off Hulk, Hawkeye & Black Widow.

@kfabz-23:

I know/Knew that you don't care about the MCU, i said that i m first reply to you, even if i don't usually post in gen. discussion, is always fun to read how some really biased users try to demonstrate that they aren't biased in their interpretations... As you can see i really like Thor and Asgard but is just accepted that Thor 2 that has similar reviews and audiences response like MoS was a disappointing movie, because it was...

Perhaps i don't know what i m talking about but i will keep that my initial statement "when the movie has great hype or is really good it will make money the competition is not the decisive factor".

Are you seriously comparing the Holiday season with March? But since you mentioned Hunger Games and Hobbits, 2013 Frozen faced both of this franchises and started with inferior numbers but ended with $1.2B and Katniss and Smaug didn't make it to $1B...

I agree that Batman v Superman will be successful, but from my perspective and with Box Office numbers could be more successful in the summer or holiday season, you can say that Furious 7 made $1.5B right? And started in April but if you really prey attention to all the numbers you will realize that this movie only made $350M in the domestic box office, ($400M in China), usually DC movies don't perform so well like Marvel movies in the overseas markets (MoS!) and March never was the month until now to make $500/600M in the domestic Box Office...

@asgaard: the topic was about what direction we want them to take Thor next. I stated my opinion on what I think they should do, ain't nothing wrong with that and I stand by everything I've said. Done.

I DIDNT compare the holiday season to the summer for crying out loud, I was saying the movie could still make a bunch being released in March. Furious 7 being another example by the way. Only 350 million domestically, that's a lot of money made, they've made more than they spent just with the money they made domestically.

How much they make in China is something they need to work on.

I don't get why reboots are desired. Reboots are generally for failed projects or projects dead so long that the property needs a do over.

The MCU isn't getting rebooted. Doubly so since the interconnectedness means Marvel would have to reboot multiple properties to reboot one.

Oh yeah. This is what I'd like to see. Or possibly Surtur if he isn't the heavy in Ragnarok.

@kfabz-23:

Obviously there is nothing wrong with our personal opinion/preferences, that's why i keep replying to you, $350M will always be short for the BvS domestic Box Office, because TDK and TDKR made $534M and $448M Superman is there to help the movie performance right? (i like to discuss movie business, but more when people are able to acknowledge some facts outside of the fan perspective)...

I definitely agree...

@whoisthebest: yeah sure. Ironman is the root of the MCU for multiple reasons. One of them being he has proven to be the most profitable character in that universe. On a narrative point of view, he's had a big impact aswell. The whole Age Of Ultron movie is basically based off of Ironman almost like an expansion to Ironman 3. He also started the MCU. Only Captain America comes close.

@asgaard: makes sense are we done here.