View Single Post
Old 09-22-2013, 03:56 PM   #14
Mr. Dent
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,941
Default Re: Theory: A3 will not be an Avengers movie but a crossover with GotG and Inhumans

Originally Posted by Green Goblin View Post
The Avengers I always viewed as a franchise with Iron Man, Thor etc. being sub franchises. I personally would not like to see cosmic marvel crossover with earth marvel.

How many characters would be in a film like that? One of the (only) complaints of the first Avengers is that they didn't balance the characters well enough. Jowl are you going to do it for 15+ characters?
You obviously didn't actually read the post. I know it's somewhat long, but please give it a try. It would only take 2 minutes at best.

Originally Posted by Doc Ock View Post
Although I could see Marvel still labeling it Avengers:The Thanos Imperative but I have this cool image of the A on Annihilation being the Avengers logo.
Ha, didn't think of that. That sounds really cool. Now I really hope they do something like this. And wouldn't it be a sort of cool double entendre? Aside from just being a cool title; Annihilation: The Thanos Imperative...get it? It works perfectly.

A two-parter would be great, with such a huge crossover they would be so many characters to cover. In fact what about one part being Avengers:The Thanos Imperative and the other part being Annihilation:The Thanos Imperative?
Reason why I think they wouldn't label this as Avengers is because it wouldn't just be an Avengers movie. If they label it as Avengers you'd probably get complaints about Marvel undercutting the Avengers in their own film. It would be like calling the first Avengers film an Iron Man film or something.

Originally Posted by cherokeesam View Post
There's an inherent problem in doing crossovers in a movie as opposed to the comics. The medium simply isn't geared for that.

As an example, compare Crisis On Infinite Earths with The New 52. Crisis is a one-shot, one-book epic that spans the entirety of the DC multiverse. Yeah, it's epic and all, but *all* of the characters are dwarfed by the scope of the story. In the end, the most important focal characters are the Anti-Monitor, Harbinger and Alexander Luthor, characters that nobody gives a **** about. They're just ubers for uber's sake, created as plot devices to justify a company-wide retcon.

On the other hand, The New 52 spans *all* the DC titles, and allows the reader to pick and choose which characters he wants to focus on and see how the retcon affects his favorite heroes and villains.

Trying to do a GOTG/Inhumans/Avengers crossover movie would wind up being like Crisis ---- a giant epic for epic's sake, where *none* of the characters get enough face time for audiences to care about or get involved with them, where the most important characters wind up being the focal villain(s), and where story and character are utterly lost under the spectacle. This is the kind of approach that has led to the spectacular failures of recent months, including John Carter, Green Lantern, and Lone Ranger.
I think you're neglecting the key difference, which is that Marvel would have spent 10+ years building up to this and people would give a **** about the focal characters in this movie. That's a very big, defining difference between this and movies like Green Lantern and John Carter. Yes, not every character would be able to get enough face time, but that's what they're individual movies are for. There will be the characters that the film focuses on, and then there will be those who will be on the periphery. That's what this big cinematic universe allows Marvel the luxury to do. Even the characters that don't get enough focus in this film will have gotten it in their own franchise, and those who haven't seen those movies and don't know the characters won't care, because they know what they were coming into. It will be the same thing as the Avengers. People who didn't see any of the prior movies still went to see the Avengers just because all these things were coming together, and they didn't care that they hadn't seen the past movies because they knew what they were coming in to.

With this movie, they could narrow the focus to a couple core characters from each group and Thanos. It would still be all of them vs Thanos, but a few characters will be more of the focal point and represent their factions. Even then, if they split the movie in two, there would be enough time to afford all the characters time to talk and say their piece. Most of the Inhuman royal family doesn't have to have a big part in this movie, it can just be Black Bolt, Medusa, and Crystal. The Guardians aren't a big group anyway, and one of their members doesn't even say more than three words, so it would be even easier to have them in it. Just have Peter and Rocket be the ones doing most of the talking, while Drax and Gamora's roles don't have to be upped until the confrontation with Thanos. And with the Avengers, Iron Man and Cap can do most of the talking, and there would still be enough room for the others to do their things.

You can basically narrow down the main characters to 8-10 (with the most important ones being Iron Man, Cap, Star Lord, and Black Bolt) and the rest can just be supporting. And, if they split it like I said, they're afforded 4+ hours to develop the story. It really can be done and it wouldn't be a John Carter. This is the luxury afforded to Marvel that would be 10+ years of build up to. You can't ignore that.

Originally Posted by Chris B View Post
My biggest concern is that I just don't see how you pull off having that many characters in one movie. It just seems to me that you'd wind up with everyone's role being just an extended cameo.
It wouldn't be one movie.

Mr. Dent is offline   Reply With Quote