"Avengers: Age of Ultron" is set to enthrall audiences with its collection of major superheroes. There are certainly a lot of questions about the plot and how much screentime major heroes get. However, there is a new rumor going around that the greater concern that could grow from this film relates to its sequel.

According to IGN, "Marvel is setting up Avengers 3 as 'the springboard to ... something else,' rather than using Avengers 3 as the finale to the Downey Jr./Evans/Hemsworth saga. Downey Jr.'s Stark is said to be leading the new team in Avengers 3, paving the way for a grand conclusion in another film, which would bring back the original Avengers team for one last time."

So basically, splitting up the grand saga into two films but leaving out some of the major heroes while introducing new ones.

In many ways this makes a ton of sense. Keeping Iron Man around gives the franchise continuity and, in all honesty, keeps the franchise's best character around at the same time. Meanwhile the director and writer of the next film will get a huge weight off his or her should because the concern about fitting in Dr. Strange, Ant-Man and any other upcoming hero with the likes of Thor, Captain America, etc. will be lessened.

The first film in the franchise featured six major heroes and the new one is slated to add a few others in the form of the Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver. There have been concerns there might simply be too many characters to develop in two hours and that some would have to get the short end (as Hawkeye undoubtedly did in the previous Avengers film).

What is the best way to move around this problem? Option one would be to kill someone off. But this creates issues that Disney and Marvel would not want to contemplate. It means killing off a potential moneymaker in the future. It means potentially hurting an entire fan base.

But option number two is far more plausible. Simply writing them out of the film allows for the writers to center the story around Iron Man while providing other major characters with opportunities to gain popularity. From a marketing perspective it is a brilliant move. Many fans might not take to Doctor Strange or Ant-Man in their individual films. But if they appear alongside Iron Man (or even the Guardians of the Galaxy), they would have a greater chance of being household names. And that would obviously provide Disney and Marvel with a barometer for how much to push these films.

This way of working also provides the franchise with an understanding of how much power characters like Thor, the Hulk or Captain America have with audiences. Many state that "Guardians of the Galaxy's" tremendous box office haul proved Marvel and Disney's muscle, but it could very well have been lightning in a bottle. What happens if an Avengers film without the Hulk and Captain American somehow bombs or simply fails to live up to the success of previous films. Disney has little to lose at this juncture and would simply be able to adapt for the following films.

This is essential because contracts with major stars like Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth are said to be nearing their end, and resigning them for more films could prove costly. If Disney can prove that their characters are not truly essential for the financial success of the franchise, then they could be more comfortable moving forward with other characters and not have to pay a premium to keep the other heroes around as often.

It is a rather fascinating strategy if it is in fact more than a rumor. What do you think of the Avengers 3 not having Captain America, Thor, the Hulk or the Black Widow?