An essay on how Tony Stark’s death in Avengers: Endgame created an institutional vacuum that the young Avengers structure characters have failed to fill, and what the failure reveals about whether characters can inherit mantles or must earn them.
The Vacuum
Tony Stark died at the conclusion of Avengers: Endgame (2019). The character had been the center of the Marvel Cinematic Universe commercially and creatively since Iron Man in 2008. Robert Downey Jr.’s performance across approximately a decade of productions had established Stark as the franchise’s central figure. His death created an institutional vacuum that the wider franchise needed to address through later productions.
I miss Tony Stark, and I think Marvel badly misjudged how much of the franchise was standing on him. Downey made those films fun to walk into. What followed his death looks to me like a studio handing out pieces of his job to a row of new faces and expecting the audience to applaud the paperwork. A few of those new faces deserved far better than they got. That is the worst part of this failure.
Marvel Studios developed a replacement strategy. The strategy involved establishing a “young Avengers” structure through multiple successor characters who would inherit different elements of what Stark had provided. Cassie Lang would inherit the science-and-technology dimension. Kate Bishop would inherit the practical-tactical dimension. Riri Williams would inherit the armor-and-industry dimension. America Chavez would provide the multiversal dimension. Various other characters would fill additional roles within the wider structure.
The strategy has considerably failed across the productions that have introduced these characters. None of the successors have generated audience investment comparable to what Stark had accumulated across his MCU appearances. The franchise has invested major production resources in establishing the successors. The audience response hasn’t validated the investment. The studio misread how character mantles work, and the films show it.
What Stark Provided
Tony Stark provided specific elements to the wider MCU that the successor characters need to replicate if the franchise is to function comparably.
Charismatic anchor presence. Robert Downey Jr.’s career capital and screen presence anchored multiple productions. Audiences attended MCU films partly because Downey was in them. The trade between Downey’s appearance and audience attendance was direct and measurable across multiple productions. Successor characters can’t inherit this dimension because the dimension is tied to the performer instead of the role.
Comedic tone capability. Stark worked through specific irreverent comedic tone that raised surrounding material. The tone required actor career history that established the character’s specific verbal cadence and physical comedy timing. Downey had developed this capability across heavy pre-MCU career. The successor characters’ actors don’t have comparable career history to deploy in similar ways.
The comedy is the loss I feel most. Downey could toss off a line in the middle of an alien invasion and make the whole scene breathe, and I don’t think Marvel has given anyone in the current lineup the room or the material to try it. The newer films keep reaching for his rhythm and landing on quips that sound like a committee approved them.
Technological expertise authority. Stark worked as the franchise’s authoritative figure on technological matters. The character’s scientific and engineering capability anchored multiple plot resolutions across productions. Successor characters who attempt to inherit this authority face the structural problem that audiences had learned to associate technological expertise with Stark. The transfer requires real development time that none of the successors have received.
Institutional Avengers leadership. Stark functioned as one of the wider Avengers’s central institutional figures across multiple productions. The character’s specific gravitas in ensemble scenes anchored team dynamics. Successor characters who attempt to fill this role face the structural problem that the wider Avengers structure has considerably dissolved across Phase Four and Phase Five. The institutional leadership requirements have decreased even as the successor characters have been positioned to inherit them.
Origin story coherence. Stark’s origin story in Iron Man (2008) established specific character foundation through cave imprisonment, technological development, and moral transformation. The origin worked with sustained craft commitment that later productions could build on. Successor characters’ origin stories have been compressed across Disney+ series and brief film introductions that didn’t provide comparable foundation. The origin compression affects how audiences can invest in the successor characters.
The Successors
Each Stark successor character has been introduced through specific productions that have generated specific audience responses. The responses reveal where the replacement strategy has succeeded and where it’s failed.
Cassie Lang. Scott Lang’s daughter introduced as supporting character in Ant-Man (2015) and Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018). The character was recast for Quantumania (2023) with Kathryn Newton playing teenage Cassie with political activism characterization. The political activism positioning was introduced suddenly without sustained development. The audience received the character’s political positioning as decorative addition instead of as real character growth. Cassie’s potential role within the young Avengers structure remains unclear through later productions. The character hasn’t generated serious audience investment despite the franchise’s development attempts.
Kate Bishop. Hailee Steinfeld introduced as Kate Bishop in the Hawkeye Disney+ series (2021). She receives considerable development through the series’s six episodes alongside Jeremy Renner’s Clint Barton. The character work establishes Bishop as competent successor to the Hawkeye identity. Steinfeld’s career capability raises the role. The character hasn’t appeared substantively in later productions through the time of this essay. The audience investment that the series generated hasn’t been deployed in later productions. Bishop remains potential instead of a realized successor.
Kate Bishop is the one that stings. I think Steinfeld was the smartest casting of the whole successor crop, and Hawkeye did the patient work the others skipped, six episodes of letting her earn the bow next to Renner. Then Marvel put her on a shelf. Building a character that well and then forgetting she exists is a kind of waste I can’t make sense of.
Riri Williams. Dominique Thorne introduced in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (2022) as MIT engineering prodigy whose vibranium-detection technology drives the film’s plot. The character receives limited development within the wider Wakanda Forever ensemble. She received the standalone Disney+ series Ironheart (2025) that developed her substantively. The series worked through technological and family drama that the films alone hadn’t provided. Whether the series will translate into real later film appearances remains an open question. The character represents continued potential instead of fully realized successor.
America Chavez. Xochitl Gomez introduced in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) as multiverse-traveling teenager whose abilities drive the film’s plot. The character receives competent introduction within the wider film. She hasn’t appeared substantively in later productions through the time of this essay. The pattern matches Kate Bishop’s: major introduction followed by minimal follow-through.
Kamala Khan. Iman Vellani introduced in the Ms. Marvel Disney+ series (2022) and continued in The Marvels (2023). The character represents one of the more successful Stark successor positioning, partly because Vellani brings a career commitment that other successors haven’t consistently shown. She has generated real audience investment within the productions that have featured her. Whether later productions will deploy her substantively remains an open question.
Sam Wilson as Captain America. Anthony Mackie’s transition to Captain America (analyzed in detail in the Captain America: Brave New World review) is a different successor pattern. Wilson inherited the Captain America identity from Steve Rogers instead of filling the Stark vacuum. The character hasn’t generated comparable audience investment to what Rogers had accumulated. The pattern is structurally distinct from the young Avengers structure but works through similar institutional issues about how character mantles transfer.
The Structural Problems
The Stark successor failure works through specific structural problems that the wider MCU hasn’t effectively addressed.
Compressed introduction. Each successor character has been introduced through compressed timelines that didn’t provide comparable foundation development to what Stark received. Iron Man (2008) worked as real standalone film with two-hours-and-six-minutes runtime dedicated to establishing Tony Stark. The successor introductions have worked through ensemble appearances, Disney+ series of limited duration, or compressed origin sequences that haven’t provided comparable foundation.
Mantle inheritance versus character development. The franchise has positioned the successors as inheriting Stark’s institutional roles instead of as establishing their own character identities through earned development. Audiences can’t transfer accumulated investment from Stark to successors through declaration alone. The transfer requires heavy development time that none of the successors have received. The pattern matches the wider emasculation structure analyzed in The Emasculation Of The MCU essay: subtractive replacement instead of additive expansion.
Demographic positioning prominence. The successor characters have been positioned through demographic-emphasis marketing that the productions didn’t back up through real character development. Audiences received the successors as politically positioned replacements instead of as substantively developed new characters. The pattern matches the decorative versus load-bearing structure analyzed in Load-Bearing Versus Decorative Social Content essay. The marketing emphasis on demographic positioning generated audience resistance that real character development would have avoided.
Cross-production discontinuity. Successor characters introduced in one production have frequently received minimal later appearance development. Kate Bishop after Hawkeye Disney+ series. America Chavez after Multiverse of Madness. Cassie Lang after Quantumania. The pattern of introduction followed by absence affects audience investment. Audiences who watched real introductions can’t maintain investment when later productions ignore the characters.
This is the failure I find hardest to forgive, because it’s the cheapest one to fix.
Nobody needed a new technology or a new star to keep Kate Bishop and America Chavez on screen. Somebody only had to remember them. Introducing a character with real care and then dropping her for years teaches the audience not to get attached, and audiences learned that lesson fast.
Avengers structure dissolution. The wider Avengers institutional structure has considerably dissolved across Phase Four and Phase Five. The Stark successors can’t inherit institutional leadership roles within an Avengers structure that effectively no longer exists. The franchise has been operating through individual character productions and Disney+ series instead of through ensemble Avengers films that would have provided context for the successors’ inherited roles.
For Writers
Character mantles can’t be inherited through institutional positioning alone, as the Stark successor failure shows. Audiences invest in characters through accumulated development across multiple productions instead of through declaration that new characters will inherit established roles. The transfer requires serious development time that compressed introductions can’t provide. The lesson for writers and franchise developers is that successor characters must build their own audience investment through character work instead of borrowing investment from the established characters they’re positioned to replace.
The lesson looks simple to me. A successor has to work as a hero on his or her own before any mantle means anything. Stark got a decade of films to become someone audiences cared about, and the young Avengers got a cameo, a streaming season and a promise. If Marvel wants new people to carry the franchise, it has to give them the same patient build it gave him, and stop hoping a borrowed title will do that work.
The Question Of Whether Mantles Can Be Inherited
A wider question follows from the Stark successor failure: whether character mantles can be inherited at all within franchise filmmaking. The question has specific implications for how later productions should approach successor character introductions.
Some evidence suggests that mantles can be inherited under specific conditions.
The Hugh Jackman to nobody-yet Wolverine succession hasn’t occurred because Marvel Studios hasn’t committed to a replacement actor. The Tobey Maguire to Andrew Garfield to Tom Holland Spider-Man succession has worked across multiple films and franchises because audiences have accepted multiple specific Peter Parker actors operating across different production contexts. The Christopher Reeve to Henry Cavill to David Corenswet Superman succession has worked through specific recasting that audiences accepted.
The successful successions follow recognizable patterns. They involve same-character recasting instead of character-mantle transfer. The recasting allows audiences to engage with the same character through new actors instead of requiring audiences to transfer investment from one character to a different character. The pattern is different from what the MCU has attempted with Stark’s successors.
In the Stark successor pattern, different specific characters inherit Stark’s institutional roles instead of new actors playing Stark himself. The pattern requires audiences to transfer accumulated investment from Stark to characters who aren’t Stark. The transfer is structurally considerably more difficult than recasting the same character. Audiences appear unable or unwilling to make the transfer at the scale the franchise needed.
The pattern may be addressable through specific institutional approaches that the franchise hasn’t yet attempted. Real standalone films for individual successor characters could provide development time comparable to what Stark received. Cross-production continuity could allow successor characters to develop investment across multiple appearances. Avengers ensemble revival could provide institutional context for the successors to inherit. Each approach requires institutional commitment that the franchise has shown partial capacity to provide.
The Pattern Across Other Franchises
Other franchises have attempted similar successor character introductions with mixed results. The patterns illustrate broader principles about how succession works in franchise filmmaking.
Star Wars sequel trilogy. The Disney sequel trilogy attempted to introduce Rey, Finn, and Poe Dameron as successors to Luke Skywalker, Leia Organa, and Han Solo. The pattern works through subtractive replacement similar to the MCU approach. Audiences resisted the succession across the trilogy’s three films. Disney made the same mistake in two franchises at once, and I find that hard to excuse.
Star Trek franchise. The Next Generation series successfully transitioned the wider Star Trek franchise from Original Series to later productions. The new characters worked through their own narrative concerns instead of as inheritors of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy’s roles. Audiences accepted the succession because the new characters built their own investment instead of borrowing from the original characters. The Star Trek pattern represents successful succession through additive expansion instead of subtractive replacement.
The Next Generation is the model I’d have handed Marvel. That crew never tried to be Kirk, Spock and McCoy, and I think that’s exactly why people came to love them on their own terms. The show let its new people have their own problems, and the old fans followed because the new crew gave them a reason to.
James Bond franchise. The Bond franchise has successfully recast the central character multiple times across decades. The pattern works because audiences engage with the character role instead of with specific actor performances. The franchise has maintained continuity through structural consistency despite multiple recastings. The Bond pattern represents successful same-character recasting that the Stark situation could have implemented if Marvel Studios had chosen to recast instead of to transfer to different characters.
Doctor Who series. The Doctor Who series has successfully recast the central character thirteen times across its broader history. The pattern works through an in-fiction regeneration structure that allows the character to continue through multiple actor performances. Audiences engage with the Doctor as continuous character instead of with individual actor performances. The pattern represents successful same-character recasting through that structure.
Across multiple franchises, the pattern indicates that successful succession typically works through either same-character recasting (Star Trek’s approach, Bond, Doctor Who) or through real new character development that builds its own audience investment (Star Trek: The Next Generation’s approach to introducing new characters). The MCU’s Stark successor approach has attempted neither of these patterns and has generated the resulting audience resistance.
What Would Work
The MCU could address the Stark successor failure through specific institutional approaches that later productions could implement.
Same-character recasting. The franchise could recast Tony Stark with a different actor and continue the character’s narrative directly. The approach would require explicit acknowledgment that the character’s death in Endgame is being addressed through specific in-fiction mechanism (multiverse variant, time-travel intervention, technological resurrection, or other approach). The same-character recasting would allow audiences to engage with continued Stark instead of requiring transfer to different successor characters.
Real standalone successor films. Each successor character could receive standalone films comparable to Iron Man (2008) in scope and craft commitment. The films would allow audiences to invest in the successor characters as protagonists instead of as franchise replacements. The investment wouldn’t require transfer from Stark because the successors would have built their own foundation.
Avengers ensemble revival. The wider Avengers institutional structure could be revived through productions that are ensemble films comparable to The Avengers (2012). The revival would provide institutional context for successor characters to work within. The institutional structure would support successor character development that individual productions can’t provide.
Continuity commitment across productions. Successor characters introduced in specific productions could appear substantively in later productions instead of being introduced and then ignored. The continuity would allow audiences to maintain investment in successor characters across multiple appearances instead of seeing them disappear after introduction.
Each approach requires specific institutional commitment that the studio has shown partial capacity to provide. The Robert Downey Jr. casting as Doctor Doom for Avengers: Doomsday suggests that the studio may be considering broader institutional approaches. Whether the approaches will address the Stark successor failure or whether they’ll generate new structural problems remains an open question.
The Avengers: Doomsday Implications
The casting of Robert Downey Jr. as Doctor Doom for Avengers: Doomsday is one institutional response to the wider franchise problems including the Stark successor failure. The casting decision is structurally significant for several reasons.
The decision returns Downey to the MCU through different specific character instead of through Stark recasting. The trade between Stark continuation and Doom introduction was decided in favor of Doom. The studio chose to address the multiverse-saga antagonist need instead of the Stark successor problem. The choice may produce strong Doctor Doom material while leaving the successor problem unaddressed.
I’ve got mixed feelings about the Doom casting. I’d happily watch Downey play a villain, and I expect he’ll be terrific in the role. But it tells me the studio still believes the answer to every problem is Robert Downey Jr., and that same belief is what left the successors starving in the first place.
The decision also reduces the institutional pressure on the young Avengers structure. If Downey’s Doom is the center of the multiverse-saga conclusion, the successor characters may not need to inherit Stark’s institutional roles within the franchise structure.
The reduced inheritance pressure may allow the successors to develop their own narrative concerns without operating as Stark replacements. The pattern could represent recovery from the wider successor problem through institutional restructuring instead of through additional successor character development.
Whether the Doom strategy will succeed or whether it’ll compound the wider franchise problems remains an open question. Downey’s career capital can raise the Doctor Doom role considerably. The execution depends on whether the surrounding productions support the casting commitment with suitable creative resources. The pattern will continue developing across later Phase Six productions.
The Conclusion
Tony Stark’s death created an institutional vacuum that the young Avengers structure has considerably failed to fill. The successor characters (Cassie Lang, Kate Bishop, Riri Williams, America Chavez, Kamala Khan, and others) haven’t generated audience investment comparable to what Stark had accumulated across his MCU appearances.
The failure works through specific structural problems. Compressed introduction that didn’t match Stark’s development time. Mantle inheritance positioning that audiences couldn’t engage with at the level the franchise needed. Demographic-emphasis marketing that the productions didn’t back up through real character development. Cross-production discontinuity that prevented sustained investment building. Avengers structure dissolution that eliminated the institutional context for inherited leadership.
This pattern matches broader franchise filmmaking patterns where successor characters require either same-character recasting or real new character development to succeed. The MCU’s approach attempted neither at the scale the situation required. The audience response reflects the structural choices the franchise made. The recovery question depends on whether later productions can address the structural problems through specific institutional approaches. Same-character recasting, real standalone successor films, Avengers ensemble revival, and continuity commitment across productions all represent potential mechanisms that the franchise has shown partial capacity to provide.
The Robert Downey Jr. casting as Doctor Doom may represent specific institutional response that reduces the pressure on the successor structure. Whether the response will succeed or whether the wider successor problem will persist remains an open question that later productions will continue answering.
Of the wider MCU’s accumulated structural issues, the Stark successor failure is one dimension. The failure works alongside the antagonist problem, the romance problem, the magic system problem, the runtime inflation problem, the multiverse problem, the Disney+ series drain, and the other patterns this site has analyzed. Each problem contributes to the cumulative audience response that the franchise is currently dealing with. Of all of them, this one stings most, because the cheapest fix was sitting in plain sight the whole time.
My verdict is that Marvel got this wrong at the root. It tried to hand out Tony Stark in pieces when it should have spent the years building new heroes people wanted to follow, and the few who showed real promise, Kate Bishop and Kamala Khan above all, got introduced and then left in the dark. Until the studio gives these characters whole films and steady screen time, Phase Six will keep asking audiences to care about people Marvel doesn’t seem to care about itself.
For related analysis, see The Emasculation Of The MCU for the wider successor character structure, Load-Bearing Versus Decorative Social Content for the demographic-positioning issues this analysis addresses, The Antagonist Problem for related franchise structural patterns, and The Comic Source Material Defense Examined for the wider question of how successor characters function within franchise filmmaking.
