Could this be the Star Wars of comic movies?

[Artistsean]

I have said even before the movie came out that there are so many Avengers in the comics, and so many stories in the comics, that they could keep the films going after Avengers 3 and they should. Once the contracts are up bring in the next group of Avengers (of coarse stagger the roster so that Giant Man and Wasp are working with Cap and Iron Man and once the original cast leaves you still have Giant Man and Wasp.) Just make sure that there is always a few Avengers left from the previous film when you bring in the next Avengers and you keep it going.
Have Pym and Wasp show up in movie 2 or 3 and they leave around movie 5 or 6. Bring in new Avengers after that and just keep going like this.

And from what they had planned they were going to use the Avengers movies in the AKA tv series that would have brought in Jessica Drew and Luke Cage as well as a cameo by Ms. Marvel. So they could have had the movie universe flow into the TV universe.

[The Ironstar]

So it seems not having AKA Jessica Drew tv series means they are going to have a Hulk show instead.

[jaqua99]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

Well if it means that it's the defining pop-cultural film of our generation... then... well I dunno, maybe? I mean, I don't want to start another flame war here and I'm a big fan of both films but... I'm gonna have to say that The Dark Knight pretty much set a very strong reputation for itself back in 2008 as THE comic-book film to be, add that with Heath Ledger's popularity and all it's still pretty much a strong contender to beat. I think we have yet to see the echoes of TA on the general public to see if it's as influential as Star Wars was.

But is it STAR WARS THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK? In terms of anticipation and delivery, I'll say yeah. It started on a high note and ended on a higher note. I'd say it pretty much is. The Avengers, as the first-ever superhero crossover film, is perhaps the height of the superhero film genre that goes all the way back to Richard Donner's Superman. NO one ever dreamed of making a movie that not only stays in continuity with pre-existing superhero films but also brings them together for one massive, all-time hulk-out blockbuster. That's unprecedented. Under those terms it exceeds the original Star Wars trilogy and manages to do what the prequel trilogy couldn't: recapture the magic.

See not only did I find the Dark Knight to be too dark for me to actually get into. But I don't even consider it a comic book movie. I consider it a crime movie, staring comic book characters, opposed to a comic book movie. Idk, I saw the movie once. watched it on TV in 2010, and turned it off about 3/5 of the way through to play a NASCAR game.

Im not being biased, I just flat out did not like that movie. Hell, I'd rather watch Jurassic Park 3.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by The Ironstar

So it seems not having AKA Jessica Drew tv series means they are going to have a Hulk show instead.

The Hulk TV show helmed by del Toro has been in the works for at least two years now. Marvel would do better to cancel plans for that and concentrate on a Ruffalo-Hulk film instead. Had Jeph Loeb chosen a competent writer for AKA Jones that might have gotten off the drawing board, too.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Dwarf Slayer

Not really. Star Wars is a pop culture phenomenon that changed how movies were made (SFX-wise) and marketed. The Avengers is just another dime-a-dozen blockbuster IMO. Breaking a billion isn't that big of deal anymore. At least one movie does it every year now. You can't replicate the success of Star Wars. Just like you can't replicate the success of The Simpsons or Harry Potter. They're products of their time.

I'm not trying to take anything away from The Avengers. Obviously its been very successful and has wide acclaim from both critics and audiences.

What this guy said.

Star Wars was the first of its kind and a total game-changer, which The Avengers isn't.

It's not Star Wars and it definitely doesn't need to be it.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by xeno000

The Hulk TV show helmed by del Toro has been in the works for at least two years now. Marvel would do better to cancel plans for that and concentrate on a Ruffalo-Hulk film instead. Had Jeph Loeb chosen a competent writer for AKA Jones that might have gotten off the drawing board, too.

One does not simply tell Guillermo Del Toro "thanks, but no thanks." GDT's Hulk TV show will be a rare jewel in the vast cultural wasteland of Kardashians and (Un)real Housewives. GDT is one of the best writer-directors in the business, and you better believe Marvel intends to get their moneys' worth.

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

There's a reason there will never be another Star Wars.

Entertainment saturation.

Remember the late 70's? I don't. But from what I heard, all they had was a few TV channels, the movies, radio, and a few records. That was it. If a big film came out, it was all they had to talk about.

Nowadays? Let's see, we have the internet. That alone changed everything. We have a billion channels, geared to every stupid thing imaginable. We have one channel dedicated to nothing but Hitler (the History Channel). We have movies with huge budgets coming out every week. We can watch movies at home, even in the back of SUVs. We have thousands of video games, computer games. We have podcasts, Youtube, more devices than what we know what to do with...

That's why there will never be another Star Wars

Good points, of course; but even with the entertainment/media saturation of the Internet/Information Age, people still tend to try to centralize pop culture. When something breaks big, whether it be a hit movie or a new band/artist or a cult tv show or a popular video game, everybody wants to be in the loop. So even though I agree with you that the entertainment climate that created the Star Wars phenomenon will never happen again, I do think that huge movies like TDK and TA and THG and Avatar tend to generate their own pop culture gravity that will keep them in the public consciousness for years (if not decades) to come.

[Dark Raven]

Originally Posted by The Ironstar

So it seems not having AKA Jessica Drew tv series means they are going to have a Hulk show instead.

It was never going to be called AKA Jessica Drew. Her name is Jessica Jones, and she is the star of the comic series "Alias" (changed to AKA Jessica Jones for TV to avoid confusion with JJ Abrams' Alias).

Jessica Drew is the original and current Spider-Woman. Completely different character to Jessica Jones.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

One does not simply tell Guillermo Del Toro "thanks, but no thanks." GDT's Hulk TV show will be a rare jewel in the vast cultural wasteland of Kardashians and (Un)real Housewives. GDT is one of the best writer-directors in the business, and you better believe Marvel intends to get their moneys' worth.

Sure you do if the property in question is one that could well become a billion-dollar movie franchise with the right star and proper handling. Marvel now seems committed to doing another Hulk movie with Ruffalo. They will get more than their money's worth out of that if they stay away from Zak ****ing Penn and hire an excellent (rather than merely competent) director.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by Dark Raven

It was never going to be called AKA Jessica Drew. Her name is Jessica Jones, and she is the star of the comic series "Alias" (changed to AKA Jessica Jones for TV to avoid confusion with JJ Abrams' Alias).

Jessica Drew is the original and current Spider-Woman. Completely different character to Jessica Jones.

Doesn't matter what they call it if it ain't happening.

[C. Lee]

Originally Posted by xeno000

Doesn't matter what they call it if it ain't happening.

It helps for future reference so that people get the story straight the next time.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by xeno000

Sure you do if the property in question is one that could well become a billion-dollar movie franchise with the right star and proper handling. Marvel now seems committed to doing another Hulk movie with Ruffalo. They will get more than their money's worth out of that if they stay away from Zak ****ing Penn and hire an excellent (rather than merely competent) director.

I agree they need to kick Zak Penn to the curb (should have a loooong time ago), but I'm going to personally disagree that returning to the movie franchise will be a better business move than the TV series. For one, you have a GREAT writer-director already aboard, as I said, as opposed to having to find a new one for a film; and for another, the Hulk film franchise has been, shall we say, less than stellar. Even with Hulk unquestionably being a fan favorite after Avengers, there's still no evidence that Ruffalo would be able to carry a Hulk franchise all alone, and there's no evidence that audiences will be interested in watching another Hulk solo movie where the army hunts down the Big Green Monster. (Which, invariably, will be what we see. Again.)

Feige's latest comments don't seem to show any greater interest in returning to a Hulk film franchise. "We will see the Ruffalo Hulk in future. I don't know when or how, exactly, but he's an interesting character, and so many new avenues have opened up. But now in the movies, who's gonna pop up where? You're never quite sure."

[Dark Raven]

Originally Posted by xeno000

Doesn't matter what they call it if it ain't happening.

There's no "they" in this for anyone to call it. It's not like Marvel thought "let's call this Aka Jessica Drew" instead of "Aka Jessica Jones." The Ironstar simply got the names mixed up and I'm correcting him. Jessica Jones was the subject of the TV series, not Jessica Drew.

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by jaqua99

See not only did I find the Dark Knight to be too dark for me to actually get into. But I don't even consider it a comic book movie. I consider it a crime movie, staring comic book characters, opposed to a comic book movie. Idk, I saw the movie once. watched it on TV in 2010, and turned it off about 3/5 of the way through to play a NASCAR game.

Im not being biased, I just flat out did not like that movie. Hell, I'd rather watch Jurassic Park 3.

But you do agree that it was a pop-cultural milestone in the superhero genre?

You could hate it, I hate a lot of the more popular stuff myself (the Harry Potter films as opposed to the books) but i'd certainly acknowledge their popularity.

I keep watching these superhero films and everytime I find something new and personal to connect with -- I wasn't a big fan of Spidey 2 when it came out but over the years it has grown to be one of my favourite films in the genre. And THIS GENRE is the one I'm most passionate about among all the different film genres that are out there. So yeah.

Originally Posted by Artistsean

I have said even before the movie came out that there are so many Avengers in the comics, and so many stories in the comics, that they could keep the films going after Avengers 3 and they should. Once the contracts are up bring in the next group of Avengers (of coarse stagger the roster so that Giant Man and Wasp are working with Cap and Iron Man and once the original cast leaves you still have Giant Man and Wasp.) Just make sure that there is always a few Avengers left from the previous film when you bring in the next Avengers and you keep it going.
Have Pym and Wasp show up in movie 2 or 3 and they leave around movie 5 or 6. Bring in new Avengers after that and just keep going like this.

And from what they had planned they were going to use the Avengers movies in the AKA tv series that would have brought in Jessica Drew and Luke Cage as well as a cameo by Ms. Marvel. So they could have had the movie universe flow into the TV universe.

I'd love to see that, but I hope the producers aren't thinking of it in terms of that. We'd get another Saw franchise which burned out near the end. It'd be better if they took it one movie at a time and really focus all their energies into it.

There will be an Avengers and a Batman remake/reboot some time in the following decades, just as there has been for Star Trek (Next Gen) and Star Wars (prequels). But both TA and TDK will remain the bench-mark even for them. THAT's popularity... THAT is influence.

I'm not b.s.ing about the future, it's just apparent. You never steered away from the original Star Wars trilogy or the original Star Trek series. I'm sure the same can be said with these franchises -- whatever comes along in the future will definitely be overtly conscious about the success (critical and box-office) of these films.

Originally Posted by xeno000

Sure you do if the property in question is one that could well become a billion-dollar movie franchise with the right star and proper handling. Marvel now seems committed to doing another Hulk movie with Ruffalo. They will get more than their money's worth out of that if they stay away from Zak ****ing Penn and hire an excellent (rather than merely competent) director.

Yeah i never got that... Zak Penn is TERRIBLE. Why's he Marvel's golden boy? Heck, David Hayter writes better than him and he spends half his time fighting metal gears in different eras and practice the Kurt Russell school of scowl.

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

I agree they need to kick Zak Penn to the curb (should have a loooong time ago), but I'm going to personally disagree that returning to the movie franchise will be a better business move than the TV series. For one, you have a GREAT writer-director already aboard, as I said, as opposed to having to find a new one for a film; and for another, the Hulk film franchise has been, shall we say, less than stellar. Even with Hulk unquestionably being a fan favorite after Avengers, there's still no evidence that Ruffalo would be able to carry a Hulk franchise all alone, and there's no evidence that audiences will be interested in watching another Hulk solo movie where the army hunts down the Big Green Monster. (Which, invariably, will be what we see. Again.)

Feige's latest comments don't seem to show any greater interest in returning to a Hulk film franchise. "We will see the Ruffalo Hulk in future. I don't know when or how, exactly, but he's an interesting character, and so many new avenues have opened up. But now in the movies, who's gonna pop up where? You're never quite sure."

Yeah I remember reading about how they might keep Ruffalo as a guest-appearance or an exclusively Avengers-centric character. They certainly shouldnt do that with the Hulk character per se, but his casting could go that route. I'm guessing their just as confused as to which way they should take the franchise as we are.

On thing I'd like to point out is that despite the less-than-stellar critical success of the Hulk film series, I've always loved them. Ang Lee's and Norton's. In fact, I preferred Ang Lee's over Norton's because of the more subtle themes and character-driven feel of the film as opposed to the more action-oriented take with Norton (though Norton's Banner was a lot better, he seemed to be the only one in the cast struggling to take the film into new heights that Louis "Perseus" Leterrirer was just too bland to get). I loved both the movies, and this is coming from someone who isn't a big Hulk fan to begin with. I'd love to see another Hulk movie come out before the next Avengers.

One which, perhaps, focuses on Banner as a doctor-without-border going from place to place and helping those in need. He's, in this way, perhaps the most global and contemporary superhero you can find. Even moreso than Stark.

They also hinted at Ruffalo making cameos throughout the next solo films, I'm into that as well.

As for the TV show, maybe its the brilliant cross-franchise continuity they achieved with Marvel Studios, but I wouldn't want it to meddle too much with the mainstream cinematic continuity. Hulk's a pretty complex character and they've already proven that they can go beyond continuity to make the character believable and entertaining without adhering strictly to anything. The TV series could take that route.

Who knows, maybe a prequel series (to keep this relevant to Star Wars).

[Bruce Malone]

Star wars started the modern sci-fi blockbuster genre if not helping create the blockbuster genre as we know it.

I'm sorry there is nothing particularly groundbreaking about the avengers. As for comic films you could possibly put in that frame the list would be as follows:

Superman 1979

Batman 1989

spider-man 2002

The Dark Knight 2008

Each of those films struck a nerve with the pop-culture/ general culture of the day and greatly impacted and redefined the genres they found themselves in.

[kedrell]

I got asked this same question on another site and I'll say what I said there: I don't think TA is the next Star Wars just all by itself. But the entirety of the MCU might just be. IT is what is truly a game changer. TA is just the current climax/punch-line/etc. that hammers that home. TA would have been nowhere w/o the supporting films that preceeded it.

[Tony Stark]

Here's what it is. There have been several big budget action movies that have been made that make money, but are mostly forgettable and are dumbed down for the audience.

Independence Day
Godzilla
Armageddon
ConAir
Pearl Harbor
Day After Tomorrow
Transformers

This is the first one where it doesn't treat the audience like they're stupid. Actually has intelligent dialogue. Is funny without having to resort to potty humor.

People love this film because as Whedon puts it, it gives them what they want without pandering to them.

No doubt there is a cultural effect here. This film is not just a flash in the pan, (and no movie that makes this much money is), but it has an effect on the viewing audience. It's a crowd pleaser for sure, but it takes everything that was great about comic books and puts it up on the silver screen, unapologetically.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

Star wars started the modern sci-fi blockbuster genre if not helping create the blockbuster genre as we know it.

I'm sorry there is nothing particularly groundbreaking about the avengers. As for comic films you could possibly put in that frame the list would be as follows:

Superman 1979

Batman 1989

spider-man 2002

The Dark Knight 2008

Each of those films struck a nerve with the pop-culture/ general culture of the day and greatly impacted and redefined the genres they found themselves in.

And you're saying The Avengers hasn't struck a HUGE pop-culture nerve? I'd put the film in the same class as the other 4.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

Star wars started the modern sci-fi blockbuster genre if not helping create the blockbuster genre as we know it.

I'm sorry there is nothing particularly groundbreaking about the avengers. As for comic films you could possibly put in that frame the list would be as follows:

Superman 1979

Batman 1989

spider-man 2002

The Dark Knight 2008

Each of those films struck a nerve with the pop-culture/ general culture of the day and greatly impacted and redefined the genres they found themselves in.

Really, I'd only list Superman and Batman (89) as two films that really "redefined" the Superhero genre. TDK and Spider-man simply built on the foundations both of those films established Spider-man basically follows all the same story points that the first Superman movie did (only making the story tighter in my opinion) and TDK didn't really do anything we hadn't seen before. Aside from killing off the hero's love interest.

However, it's pointless to deny that TA is a huge pop culture event. Just as TDK was. It's going to be remembered for a very long time. Really, I think this will be remembered as a great action adventure film in the same vein as Indiana Jones. It's not like Star Wars, but then, nothing HAS been like Star Wars since...well...Star Wars. JAWS may have been the first blockbuster, but Star Wars cemented it. It revolutionized the scifi drama (for film). We haven't had a superhero film that's done that, ever.

But, TA is most definitely a film that will be remembered. Really, I do think the Indy comparision is best. I would call TA this generation's Indiana Jones. Because, like Indy, it didn't really do anything new, it just took what it did and did it extremely well, and was incredibly fun.

[Bruce Malone]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

Really, I'd only list Superman and Batman (89) as two films that really "redefined" the Superhero genre. TDK and Spider-man simply built on the foundations both of those films established Spider-man basically follows all the same story points that the first Superman movie did (only making the story tighter in my opinion) and TDK didn't really do anything we hadn't seen before. Aside from killing off the hero's love interest.

However, it's pointless to deny that TA is a huge pop culture event. Just as TDK was. It's going to be remembered for a very long time. Really, I think this will be remembered as a great action adventure film in the same vein as Indiana Jones. It's not like Star Wars, but then, nothing HAS been like Star Wars since...well...Star Wars. JAWS may have been the first blockbuster, but Star Wars cemented it. It revolutionized the scifi drama (for film). We haven't had a superhero film that's done that, ever.

But, TA is most definitely a film that will be remembered. Really, I do think the Indy comparision is best. I would call TA this generation's Indiana Jones. Because, like Indy, it didn't really do anything new, it just took what it did and did it extremely well, and was incredibly fun.

Spider-man is inherently responsible for the current trend of super-hero films that have dominated the past decade. While blade and x-men were pre-cursors spider-man was the film that blew open the doors for comic-book films being the blockbuster film genre for the 21st century.

Likewise TDK built upon that by showcasing the comic book film as more than just pop corn fodder. TDK was everywhere in 2008 right down to a political level with pundits actually discussing the film in relation to its effect on the election and the bush legacy.

It's supporting actor won an academy award and it is responsible for a radical shift in the oscar nominee process where its non nomination the year prior and the public backlash that followed, caused the academy awards to increase the amount of films nominated for best picture.

So i would say these two films had pretty profound effects beyond just being popular at the time.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

Spider-man is inherently responsible for the current trend of super-hero films that have dominated the past decade. While blade and x-men were pre-cursors spider-man was the film that blew open the doors for comic-book films being the blockbuster film genre for the 21st century.

Likewise TDK built upon that by showcasing the comic book film as more than just pop corn fodder. TDK was everywhere in 2008 right down to a political level with pundits actually discussing the film in relation to its effect on the election and the bush legacy.

It's supporting actor won an academy award and it is responsible for a radical shift in the oscar nominee process where its non nomination the year prior cause the academy awards to increase the amount of films nominated for best picture.

So i would say these two films had pretty profound effects beyond just being popular at the time.

Superhero films had already been proven to be popular in the 70's and late 80's/early 90's with Superman and Batman. I do agree that Spider-man really kicked off the current superhero fad (with props to Blade and X-men for giving it a head start) but I was talking about revolutionizing a genre in the way Star Wars did to film scifi.

Spider-man simply showed audiences that superhero films could still do what they did in the 70's with Superman and in 89 with Batman. But (as I said before) it built on it's predecessors and was even more successful. However, it didn't do anything NEW. Not like Star Wars.

Same with TDK. We already knew superhero films could be successful. We've already had a comic film that was incredibly dark and nominated by the academy (Road to Perdition). The Dark Knight, like Spider-man, took what had been done before and built on it, again, being more successful. But it still didn't do anything NEW in terms of filmmaking or the genre. In terms of cultural response? Yes, we had never seen a comic book movie get that kind of response. But the film itself didn't do anything revolutionary in the way Star Wars did.

But, like I said above, NOTHING has done what Star Wars did. Only Star Wars has.

[Tony Stark]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

Spider-man is inherently responsible for the current trend of super-hero films that have dominated the past decade. While blade and x-men were pre-cursors spider-man was the film that blew open the doors for comic-book films being the blockbuster film genre for the 21st century.

Likewise TDK built upon that by showcasing the comic book film as more than just pop corn fodder. TDK was everywhere in 2008 right down to a political level with pundits actually discussing the film in relation to its effect on the election and the bush legacy.

It's supporting actor won an academy award and it is responsible for a radical shift in the oscar nominee process where its non nomination the year prior cause the academy awards to increase the amount of films nominated for best picture.

So i would say these two films had pretty profound effects beyond just being popular at the time.

The academy didn't increase to 10 because of TDK not being nominated. It was a ratings grab, although yes WB execs did complain on it not being nominated. But to say that it changed the nomination process is a gross exaggeration of what happened.

[Bruce Malone]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

Superhero films had already been proven to be popular in the 70's and late 80's/early 90's with Superman and Batman. I do agree that Spider-man really kicked off the current superhero fad (with props to Blade and X-men for giving it a head start) but I was talking about revolutionizing a genre in the way Star Wars did to film scifi.

Spider-man simply showed audiences that superhero films could still do what they did in the 70's with Superman and in 89 with Batman. But (as I said before) it built on it's predecessors and was even more successful. However, it didn't do anything NEW. Not like Star Wars.

Same with TDK. We already knew superhero films could be successful. We've already had a comic film that was incredibly dark and nominated by the academy (Road to Perdition). The Dark Knight, like Spider-man, took what had been done before and built on it, again, being more successful. But it still didn't do anything NEW in terms of filmmaking or the genre. In terms of cultural response? Yes, we had never seen a comic book movie get that kind of response. But the film itself didn't do anything revolutionary in the way Star Wars did.

But, like I said above, NOTHING has done what Star Wars did. Only Star Wars has.

I took the OP to be referencing the avengers to star wars cultural impact and not so much on film innovation per se.

Superman 79 and batman 89 were big but they didn't lead to a shift in public tastes. There was no superhero boon in the 80's, like wise for most of the 90's they only had the continuing batman series.

Spider-man lead directly to the genre domination. TDK i've already explained. It terms of cultural impact i don't see the avengers in that way. It's a popular film people enjoy but i don't see much coming out of it's success as a whole on a cultural legacy.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

The academy didn't increase to 10 because of TDK not being nominated. It was a ratings grab, although yes WB execs did complain on it not being nominated. But to say that it changed the nomination process is a gross exaggeration of what happened.

Well, it was a factor. From Eberts article on the subject.

"After the show, Condon and Mark participated in the customary postmortem, where the Academy eagerly received suggestions for a more populist show, including broadening the best picture category (it's not a direct response to the fact that "The Dark Knight" was snubbed, but there's no question that last year's final five alienated a huge segment of the viewing public, and the broadcast is up for renewal soon with ABC, so there's a ratings component at work here, too)."

There's no denying it had an effect on the situation.

[Tony Stark]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

Well, it was a factor. From Eberts article on the subject.

"After the show, Condon and Mark participated in the customary postmortem, where the Academy eagerly received suggestions for a more populist show, including broadening the best picture category (it's not a direct response to the fact that "The Dark Knight" was snubbed, but there's no question that last year's final five alienated a huge segment of the viewing public, and the broadcast is up for renewal soon with ABC, so there's a ratings component at work here, too)."

There's no denying it had an effect on the situation.

Yes it had an effect, but as Ebert said it's about alienating the viewing public, which is about TV ratings.

That's really all the Oscars is about, generating TV ratings. I mean they could give out the awards without televising it. People tune in to watch, so they have to be aware of those things.

The Academy however doesn't care about TV ratings, they don't like blockbuster movies, and they want to give awards to lesser known films that are well made.