User blog comment:HombreHormiga/Avengers-Phase 3/@comment-1895174-20130209052705/@comment-3317214-20130210225332

1. Exactly, it'll be a change. I don't think it would be a sore thumb, but it would be different. A refreshing change.

2. I mean within the franchise. Within that continuity that we already know, sometimes it's nice to focus on the little guy for a change. But why shouldn't it be within the same continuity?

3. Okay, so you obviously didn't get what I'm saying, and now I'm starting to wonder why I didn't use an example that was already in the MCU. I was saying that Lotso was a great villain. He wasn't threatening the world (he was almost the opposite on the scale of things, which I guess is why I used his example), but he was a great character. He doesn't fit in the MCU but do you know who does? Whiplash. He only wants revenge on Tony Stark. Justin Hammer. He just wants his company to be successful, make money, and earn him fame. Iron Monger. He just wanted to keep on keepin on. And we know that the simplest of criminals exist because of A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To Thor's Hammer.

4. Okay, the Nolanverse consists of three films, that all have a very similar tone. Therefore, Nicholson's joker, which brings a completely different tone does not fit. The MCU consists of several franchises, different tones, different approaches, and Fiege's search for more things that differ to what we already have, such as Guardians, Ant-Man, and Doctor Strange. Therefore, Daredevil, if handled well, fits.

5. Again, they would be clearly different, they'd stick out like a regular thumb. Not a sore one. An awesome one. And if both of them were in the MCU, then there's no worries. At all.

6. Netflix isn't available in Australia.

7. But he is important to the mythology. He adds something to it, right? Besides, he'll be one of the lead characters (I assume...) in SHIELD.

8. Well, not necessarily, but yes. Yes it does. Four as opposed to twenty.

9. Sorry brah.

10. Well that's a little silly, you realise. Does money they make from other countries not count? Is America the whole world?

11. So? The examples you gave last time didn't even take DC into account. And we were talking about the number of films, not how successful each film was. But if you are talking about successes: For 2011, the four films grossed a total of $1,391,410,277. Compared to 2004, which also had four Marvel/DC films and grossed a total of $1,049,474,191. Compare that to 2012 if you wish, where the four films grossed a total of $3,477,579,684.

But even if you do count 2011 as remarkably worse for some reason, it's just one of those random years that did better or worse than the trendline (just as 2012 is as well, probably, but on the other side of the line). The trendline, or line of best fit is what you should be interested in. Besides, if you counted non-Marvel/DC films, if there used to be more of them, doesn't that decrease the risk of increasing the number of superhero films per year, because we're already used to that many?

12. Disney can also thank Pixar, and I don't know... Disney's other studios they had running before they owned everyone else... And no, it's not necessary, but it's cooler. And plus, they can take advantage of applying that brand to it, now that they have the incredibly successful Avengers under their belt. Does Daredevil particularly add anything to the mainstream comics universe?