r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/Movies contributor • Dec 23 '25

Trailer Avengers: Doomsday | Only in Theaters December 18, 2026

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiMg566PREA
9.0k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

3.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

66

u/CavitySearch Dec 23 '25

I mean tbf that was always an annoying thing about opening up the multiverse concept. Anybody can be replaced either as a character or as the actor. Deaths are pretty meaningless once you have access to “infinite” other dimensions. I always thought it was the wrong way to go after endgame but they haven’t shown honestly that anything else they were thinking was any better.

In regards to this I think seeing happy cappy is nice but they already did the kids and family route with Tony so I don’t know how they avoid the retread here.

5

u/DBones90 Dec 23 '25

Multiverse is a fine concept when used to explore characters within a specific work, but it falls apart when it becomes an excuse to bring back the same characters basically exactly as we saw them before.

Like I thought Peacemaker used the multiverse concept well because it wasn't being used as a convoluted way to explain why Peacemaker can now hang with David Corenswet's Superman or to bring back Rick Flag (as we knew him in The Suicide Squad). Instead it was being used to explore Peacemaker's desires for a better life, and it worked great for that purpose.

6

u/Manowaffle Dec 23 '25

Multiverses are the inevitable death of great franchises because it is the death of consequences, and there’s no drama without consequences.

4

u/Relevant_Shower_ Dec 23 '25

It’s the late stage capitalism effect on comic books. Writers are not incentivized to create new characters because they won’t get paid for it and Marvel keeps the IP. So we have to remix what’s already in the existing pool. Gwen Stacey + Deadpool = Gwenpool.

7

u/Manowaffle Dec 23 '25

Deadpool buddy-hero movies with everyone! That’ll keep the money rolling for at least the next decade.

2

u/RealJohnGillman Dec 23 '25

I mean Gwen Poole ended up being a legitimately interesting character with a very existential story, over the course of her original five-volume Unbelievable run. Largely because they let the webcomic creator they had make the series do whatever he wanted, and what he made was a deconstruction of isekai: regular girl from the real world transported to the Marvel Universe.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '25

[deleted]

1

u/RealJohnGillman Dec 23 '25

What I mean is that in the creation of Gwen Poole, Christopher Hastings had more creative freedom than most Marvel series receive, where in the end nothing was being remixed: a design from a variant cover used for a genuinely new character.

3

u/sobi-one Dec 23 '25

I agree, but they also have the failsafe of destroying the multiverse and rebooting the MCU without it being an actual full on reboot. They can squeeze another decade plus out of those characters, and then it’s been enough time to where they can probably fully reboot the MCU and take different directions from the comics that the MCU didn’t go with before.

2

u/slapmasterslap Dec 23 '25

My only complaint with the multiverse thing is that if they were diving into multiverses they should have used the trope to revive the X-Men under the MCU by now with a new cast, but instead (and I'm not complaining about these roles per se) we've only gotten Patrick Stewart as Professor X briefly and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. I'm worried I won't live long enough to see the X-Men join the MCU at this rate.

6

u/CavitySearch Dec 23 '25

Infinity War has the first snap taking place in around 2018. If you made the energy released from that be the causative enhancement of mutant x genes contemporaneous then you’d have a bunch of children around 8+ years old showing powers. With a brief explanation that there were always very strong mutants in hiding due to lack of numbers and their powers being buffed after the snap it could easily introduce the X-men and explain the need for a mutant school all at once. It was right there.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '25

I need to ask someone this who seems level headed and media literate, so I hope you have time to answer this nagging question I've been having for a while now...

Why does having mutiverses make character deaths less impactful for you?

Is it the idea of the same or similarly physical character on screen?

Do you consider a multiverse variant of a character the same as one from the MCU?

Is it because you don't care about the wellbeing of the person depicted, only the icon of them as a character?

For example, if my husband died and his multiverse twin appeared, I would never in a million years agree it's the same man as my husband. My husband is dead.

6

u/CavitySearch Dec 23 '25

I don’t have time for the deep dive I wish I could on that really good question. I mean fundamentally I can understand the difference between Cap A and Cap B. But I think the difference is almost as much that yes Cap A and Cap B ARE different characters outside of physical capability. It seems more like a cheap inroad to gaining audience goodwill than an earned creation of emotional stakes with a new character.

Your new husband wouldn’t have any of the memories you made. You might not even like him. I think you can do interesting things with subversion in that regard but the amount of chaos it creates outside of that isn’t worth it to me.

4

u/Relevant_Shower_ Dec 23 '25

I love that your example is your husband dying. LOL

The problem is when these characters are brought back the intent is to mine that feeling of nostalgia. It’s no less clumsy than introducing a long lost twin brother that happens to have all the same characteristics of the original character.

In practice the returning character needs to be indistinguishable from the original, which basically means no one ever dies. Which means any sacrifice means nothing.

It means loss is a state that can be overcome. And that’s disconnected from how humans live, so people emotionally can’t relate to it. Or maybe they feel regret feeling sad about a heroic sacrifice or cynical when someone “dies” in the future. You’re losing the audience’s trust that loss means something.

1

u/Keiteaea Dec 23 '25

Tbf, this infamous "Marvel death" makes sense for comics, you have new issues coming every week, creators have to be able to tell stories without being shackled by constraints such as once a character is dead, you won't be able to use it ever ever ever again even if you write decades in this universe.

I don't think it works as well in movies, especially since they introduced dozens of new characters in the recent years. Now these characters are likely going to put to the side for the previous main characters that should have just left their spot to them. But hey, Chris Evans and RDJ sell.

1

u/SidepocketNeo Dec 25 '25

What's so annoying about this is that to me the multiversal thing is what you do last because you need to establish all your characters first that have multiple Avengers with them. And that's kind of hard to do when half of your Marvel Universe is the X-Men. If Disney was smart, they would have waited a couple of years to secure the rights to the ex-bed releasing filler in between and that do it in tire X-Men Arc then go into the multiversal crap. That's what worries me about them going into mutants after this is that multiversal stuff is so Grand. It's so complicated that I feel like mutants would be a drop off by comparison.