The Avengers A new approach to superhero films?

[Incredible Hans]

Avengers was great. And sofar, it seems as if it is really successful which means we are allowed to hope that more movies will be made that breathe the spiriti of the Avengers.

From now on, there is no "too fantastic". An alliance between Loki and an alien army? A team consisting of a WWII-veteran, a norse god, a billionaire genius, a green rage monster and two SHIELD-agents? Why not?

A few days after seeing the movies, I asked myself if it would also be possible to introduce an innovative approach to the whole superhero genre:

Sofar, superhero movies have been movies about an individual or a team. We had movies called "Batman", "Superman", "Spider-Man", "The Incredible Hulk", "Iron Man", Thor" etc. and we had movies called "Fantastic Four", "X-Men", "Avengers".

What about making the title of a movie and the movie itself more theme-based than character-based?

Marvel could just call a movie "The Infinity Gauntlet", or "Secret Wars", or "Secret Invasion"... and use whatever character they consider appropriate for the plot in that particular movie.

So we wouldn't have a movie about Spider-Man, the Avengers or the FF - we would have a movie about a certain threat or challenge, a certain event or whatever that makes the involvement of Spider-Man and some member of the Avengers and the FF necessary.

(Of course, Marvel would need to get the rights for some characters back first).

A second idea: no one ever tried team-up superhero movies. What I mean is a movie about heroes who do not form a real team like the Avengers, but only work together for that particular occasion.
For example, a Hulk & Thing movie... or a Spider-Man & Daredevil movie... or a Wolverine & Hulk movie...

Thoughts?

 

[psylockolussus]

They should call the films

The Avengers: The Infinity Gauntlet
The Avengers: Secret Wars
The Avengers: Secret Invasion

Having "the Avengers" in the title would attract more casual viewers.

 

[El Payaso]

Putting superheroes from different franchises together. That's sonething that's tried the first time. We had had superhero teams like Fantastic Four or X-Men but taking them from different franchises was new. But about 'there is no "too fantastic"'... since when fantasy has been the limit when you have CGI? I see nothing groundbreaking about this. I've seen giant robots from outer space fighting in the middle of a city, so the too fantastic element has been there long time ago. If I got the original post right.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I think you're partly right and partly not. Some companies have been thinking "in order to make money and for audiences to like this - it has to be dark!" Gone is the light-heartedness in some properties thinking it's too light. Not all. But some. HOWEVER with 'The Avengers' looking to rival TDK, I'm willing to bet money on it that studios will see that the tone of something doesn't matter just how the film itself is done. Tone didn't help TDK succeed. It was how well done the film itself was. Just a slight change in thought, but nothing major.

As per combining characters from different franchises? That's where things get tricky. MARVEL is able to do it since it's under MARVEL. But you can't combine FANTASTIC FOUR with SPIDER-MAN for example, just the rights wouldn't allow it. It's set-up COMPLETELY differently.

 

[The Infernal]

Putting superheroes from different franchises together. That's sonething that's tried the first time. We had had superhero teams like Fantastic Four or X-Men but taking them from different franchises was new. But about 'there is no "too fantastic"'... since when fantasy has been the limit when you have CGI? I see nothing groundbreaking about this. I've seen giant robots from outer space fighting in the middle of a city, so the too fantastic element has been there long time ago. If I got the original post right.

Sure, but there has been a strong trend to downplay a lot of the fantasy and try and apply too much 'realism' or make it seem more 'grounded' than it needs to be when it comes to comic book movies. It's a good idea in theory, but I think some people are too eager to apply it to characters and property that arguably could do a better job without so much constraint.

Though saying that it may just start a new wave that sees everyone trying to copy the Avengers tone like a lot of people seem to have done with The Dark Knight.

 

[El Payaso]

Sure, but there has been a strong trend to downplay a lot of the fantasy and try and apply too much 'realism' or make it seem more 'grounded' than it needs to be when it comes to comic book movies. It's a good idea in theory, but I think some people are too eager to apply it to characters and property that arguably could do a better job without so much constraint.

Though saying that it may just start a new wave that sees everyone trying to copy the Avengers tone like a lot of people seem to have done with The Dark Knight.

I agree. Thing is not realism but believability.

But again, what's new about it. Going all fantasy, what's groundbreaking about it. It's been done before a lot of times.

It is not a new approach here.

 

[The Infernal]

I agree. Thing is not realism but believability.

But again, what's new about it. Going all fantasy, what's groundbreaking about it. It's been done before a lot of times.

It is not a new approach here.

I agree with you (I've watched too many Batboards realism/grounded/believability arguments lol), but it doesn't help that even those involved in making the movies use those words so much that they've almost become interchangeable (and it doesn't help that they can mean different things to different people either).

Also you could argue that relative to the Marvel movies under MCU that it may be new. Whilst not applying 'grimdark' to it, they have went the more grounded/believable rout on most of their movies, even in places where it's arguable they shouldn't have. I didn't see Avengers make any reference to 'technology that seems like magic' they established in Thor (though fleetingly if I recall correctly) and they do mention Loki using spells and have aliens ([BLACKOUT]and you-know-who[/BLACKOUT]).

 

[Incredible Hans]

I agree. Thing is not realism but believability.

But again, what's new about it. Going all fantasy, what's groundbreaking about it. It's been done before a lot of times.

It is not a new approach here.

I disagree. Almost every superhero film was considerably less fantastic than the comic stories it is based on are.

 

[El Payaso]

I agree with you (I've watched too many Batboards realism/grounded/believability arguments lol), but it doesn't help that even those involved in making the movies use those words so much that they've almost become interchangeable (and it doesn't help that they can mean different things to different people either).

Also you could argue that relative to the Marvel movies under MCU that it may be new. Whilst not applying 'grimdark' to it, they have went the more grounded/believable rout on most of their movies, even in places where it's arguable they shouldn't have. I didn't see Avengers make any reference to 'technology that seems like magic' they established in Thor (though fleetingly if I recall correctly) and they do mention Loki using spells and have aliens ([BLACKOUT]and you-know-who[/BLACKOUT]).

Well, they probably didn't make that reference because it was already been made.

I disagree. Almost every superhero film was considerably less fantastic than the comic stories it is based on are.

You think the whole Asgard scenes in Thor, Frost Giants, machine to take you to other worlds, all of that was less fantasy than anything Avengers?

Magic and fantasy had been previously handled by superhero movies. Nothing new.

 

[Smashlilman]

They should call the films

The Avengers: The Infinity Gauntlet
The Avengers: Secret Wars
The Avengers: Secret Invasion

Having "the Avengers" in the title would attract more casual viewers.

Yea and the subtitles would prevent sequelitis.

 

[The Infernal]

Well, they probably didn't make that reference because it was already been made.

Yeah, I thought that might be a possibility. Though with it being arguably a small (even forgettable) part of the movie and Marvel looking to do things like Dr. Strange, I wouldn't mind if they did a soft reset on that aspect and just treat it like magic from here on out. Though I guess we may find out in Thor 2 if they do or not.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

Well, they probably didn't make that reference because it was already been made.



You think the whole Asgard scenes in Thor, Frost Giants, machine to take you to other worlds, all of that was less fantasy than anything Avengers?

Magic and fantasy had been previously handled by superhero movies. Nothing new.

Which superhero films had magic?

 

[El Payaso]

Which superhero films had magic?

Thor presented it. Even defined it.

And then again, I wouldn't consider magic in a superhero movie the hell of a groundbreak either.

 

[Tony Stark]

Nothing is "groundbreaking" in a superhero movie. The genre has been clearly defined for decades, but you can take new elements and forge them together in a different way as TDK did and as Avengers is doing now.

 

[StanLee Wannabe]

Yeah. I'm gonna have to disagree with the original post, if only slightly.

"Realism" is definitely still important in the superhero genre. I'll grant you that suspension of disbelief has been stretched a bit farther...but only tenuously, and with a semi-realism requirement still in tact.

 

[cherokeesam]

Which superhero films had magic?

Thor
Ghost Rider
Ghost Rider 2
Constantine
Elektra
Batman & Robin (Poison Ivy might as well be considered to be magical)
Blade series
Hellboy series
Spawn