Has Avengers opened up Iron Man for new adventures?

[JerseyJoker]

Not in the sense of story, but in the sense of acclaim from the audience.

Iron Man 1 and 2, both take place in a very standard enviroment. LA, with villains that are technologically advanced and wear suits to battle. Tony Stark wears a suit of armor that he built (with scraps) and has created devices that help put that suit on him.

That is all pretty standard. While nobody does it, it can be done in the real world. A man can create a suit of iron. Assembly lines can be created to put together something such as a suit. Men with the right money and smarts can come up with what Whiplash and Monger did.

But you give us Avengers, you sell the audience on that aliens exist in Tony's world. That he has co-existed with a god. That a man who has been frozen for 70 years can come back to life. And that a man exposed by gamma radiation can turn into ... a hulk.

You have suddenly expanded Tony's world for the third (and beyond) film. You make it so not every villain needs an armor to fight him. You let us into a world where the audience can easily believe Tony can face a man of magic, or a man with alien tech, ....probably not a giant dragon like creature, but who knows. Maybe even a floating head.

Shane Black has an obvious grounded sense about him that Favs had, plus a great writing mind, to give Tony a thriller adventure set in a world of extraordinary. But did the success of Avengers, help open Tony Stark and the Iron Man films up to something more down the road.

You think we can buy the idea of Extremis, before Avengers? If they do it within context of the comic (suit living his bones, probably wont go that far, but you know what i mean.)

[catintheengine]

It absolutely did. In fact, I would be SHOCKED if Tony having to deal with all of those things isn't a major subplot in the movie.

[Drummerdude7]

It has the luxury of going either way, especially since they've planned the MCU franchises in a way that you don't have to have watched Avengers to follow what's happening in the Iron Man story, although it would be incredibly beneficial for you if you did. The only franchise that has the problem is Thor...unfortunately Thor 2 is going to rely on the audience having seen Avengers to get the story going with Loki's return to Asgard.

[JerseyJoker]

To be fair, if you are going to see Thor 2, you have to AT LEAST seen Thor 1. If your into the character that much, you probably have seen Avengers.

Iron Man has broken through that glass cieling of being now an A-list character, while back as far as 2007 he probably was C-list for anyone else that never read comics.

In the public eye, its probably (on the Marvel side) Spidey, Wolverine, Hulk, Iron Man as the go too figures.

So with the likes of Thor, if your seeing the sequel, you'll probably have seen The Avengers.

[The Guard]

THOR and THE AVENGERS basically just tossed aliens into the MCU and no one batted an eye with minimal explanation. I think the same would hold true for almost any element of the Iron Man mythos. It's all in the execution.

[Drummerdude7]

Originally Posted by JerseyJoker

To be fair, if you are going to see Thor 2, you have to AT LEAST seen Thor 1. If your into the character that much, you probably have seen Avengers.

Iron Man has broken through that glass cieling of being now an A-list character, while back as far as 2007 he probably was C-list for anyone else that never read comics.

In the public eye, its probably (on the Marvel side) Spidey, Wolverine, Hulk, Iron Man as the go too figures.

So with the likes of Thor, if your seeing the sequel, you'll probably have seen The Avengers.

Oh yeah, of course, I'm very aware. I know very few people who have seen Avengers and haven't watched Thor. I'm just saying it would be wise for the franchise to distance itself, connection-wise, from the Avengers, just like IM....that way you don't HAVE to rely on other films to understand why things are happening. For the minimal few who might not have seen Avengers, it's a little weird seeing Thor stranded in Asgard at the end of "Thor", only for him to be returning to Asgard with Loki in tow in "Thor: The Dark World". I know it's a stretch, lol, but still something they should take note of.

[JerseyJoker]

Originally Posted by The Guard

THOR and THE AVENGERS basically just tossed aliens into the MCU and no one batted an eye with minimal explanation. I think the same would hold true for almost any element of the Iron Man mythos. It's all in the execution.

But that is because of success.

If Thor did average, and had reviews like Green Lantern had.

IF The Avengers did just on par as the Cap film.

There would be no more aliens in MCU, people would have to think REALLY hard on doing a Thor sequel, at least one set entirely in a world not of Earth.

[spideymouse]

Originally Posted by Drummerdude7

Oh yeah, of course, I'm very aware. I know very few people who have seen Avengers and haven't watched Thor. I'm just saying it would be wise for the franchise to distance itself, connection-wise, from the Avengers, just like IM....that way you don't HAVE to rely on other films to understand why things are happening. For the minimal few who might not have seen Avengers, it's a little weird seeing Thor stranded in Asgard at the end of "Thor", only for him to be returning to Asgard with Loki in tow in "Thor: The Dark World". I know it's a stretch, lol, but still something they should take note of.

Well, Feige has called Iron Man 3 "the antidote to The Avengers." Because he is taken "back into the cave" metaphorically speaking, he can't call on the Avengers or SHIELD to help him. This implies, however, that Iron Man 3 will take place after the events of The Avengers, and that even though we will be taken back into an Iron Man-specific world, it will have been a world affected by that movie. The IM3 Comic Con footage even showed Happy jokingly refer to Iron Man as one of the Super Friends.

The MCU, at least so far, has been one long narrative, one long franchise. We've been able to watch the Iron Man movies in sequence because chronologically they occur before and during the events of TIH and Thor. But now, Iron Man 3 very necessarily occurs after TIH, Thor, CA:TFA, and The Avengers, and it is the next step in that overarching franchise.

If it helps, I think maybe we should view The Avengers as a sequel in each character's singular franchise, if you somehow want to compartmentalize them all like that: the IM franchise is then IM, IM2, Avengers, and IM3. The Thor franchise is Thor, Avengers, and Thor:TDW. The Cap franchise is CA:TFA, Avengers, and CA:TWS.

Originally Posted by JerseyJoker

But that is because of success.

If Thor did average, and had reviews like Green Lantern had.

IF The Avengers did just on par as the Cap film.

There would be no more aliens in MCU, people would have to think REALLY hard on doing a Thor sequel, at least one set entirely in a world not of Earth.

Yep, that's why The Guard said "It's all in the execution."

[JerseyJoker]

Execution though for me means what you see on the screen. Success is different.

There are excellent films that do nothing in the Box Office. There is a reason we aren't seeing more Grindhouse films, because Grindhouse by QT and RR bombed. Now if that movie made 60 mill opening and grossed 200 domestic. You bet your ass there would be a Grindhouse style film every year by different directors/studios.

But that movie was executed great, didn't succeed.

[Da Games Elite]

The thing is that all the films take place in the same universe. From a story-telling perspective, it has had an impact. Even if Iron Man 3 focuses more on Tony Stark's world, the world he inhabits has been forever affected by the Avengers. To not reference that change and how it's changed Tony is a step backward.

At the same time, you can show how the Avengers has affected Tony without focusing on Thanos, Loki, and the alien invasion. You can show him in a bigger universe, sure, but I feel it'd be more effective to introduce a few more unusual elements to Iron Man's life while still keeping in touch with the familiar tropes of the series so far. It'll be tricky, yes, but worth it.

...I feel introducing AIM and the Mandarin is indication that Marvel realizes this too.

[spideymouse]

Originally Posted by Da Games Elite

The thing is that all the films take place in the same universe. From a story-telling perspective, it has had an impact. Even if Iron Man 3 focuses more on Tony Stark's world, the world he inhabits has been forever affected by the Avengers. To not reference that change and how it's changed Tony is a step backward.

At the same time, you can show how the Avengers has affected Tony without focusing on Thanos, Loki, and the alien invasion. You can show him in a bigger universe, sure, but I feel it'd be more effective to introduce a few more unusual elements to Iron Man's life while still keeping in touch with the familiar tropes of the series so far. It'll be tricky, yes, but worth it.

...I feel introducing AIM and the Mandarin is indication that Marvel realizes this too.

They will for sure reference how The Avengers changed everything. Read the description of the Happy Hogan scene from the Comic Con footage. SHIELD's increased involvement and references to upcoming movies in Iron Man 2 also indicated that Marvel values continuity in this series.

[The Guard]

But that is because of success.

If Thor did average, and had reviews like Green Lantern had.

IF The Avengers did just on par as the Cap film.

There would be no more aliens in MCU, people would have to think REALLY hard on doing a Thor sequel, at least one set entirely in a world not of Earth.

You're suggesting that if The Avengers only made as much money as Captian America and Thor that there would be no more aliens or supernatural elements in Marvel films?

Uh, no, because those films still made a ton of money.

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The door is wide open

[C_Carmichael]

Originally Posted by Da Games Elite

The thing is that all the films take place in the same universe. From a story-telling perspective, it has had an impact. Even if Iron Man 3 focuses more on Tony Stark's world, the world he inhabits has been forever affected by the Avengers. To not reference that change and how it's changed Tony is a step backward.

At the same time, you can show how the Avengers has affected Tony without focusing on Thanos, Loki, and the alien invasion. You can show him in a bigger universe, sure, but I feel it'd be more effective to introduce a few more unusual elements to Iron Man's life while still keeping in touch with the familiar tropes of the series so far. It'll be tricky, yes, but worth it.

...I feel introducing AIM and the Mandarin is indication that Marvel realizes this too.

I would imagine that the events of the Avengers will play a significant role in IM3, if only as the underlying sub-story.

Consider that Iron Man is the only "outed" hero in the Avengers. Also consider the post-op briefing between Fury and the Council.

And, his previous run-ins with the political aspect of the MCU.

Someone has to take accountability with the less than desireable figures in the MCU, for the Avengers, and what happened in New York, and since Tony is the only known public face, and he can't really hide, that makes him prime target #1 for the Government, for the Council, and for public ire, should there be any.

This will be underlying the direct problem in IM3. Expect to hear lots of names tossed around in conversations, recalls to the events of the Invasion, and maybe even a scene similar to the Senate hearing in IM2, which deals with the post-Avengers state of affairs.