The Avengers Avengers taking away from other Marvel films?

[C. Lee]

"..young"
Thanks? lol

Compared to me...everyone is young on here. t:

 

[TheShah]

Iron Man built up to the last scene throughout the entire movie, so it wasn't just some out of the blue post-credits scene, it was something that grew organically out of Coulson's involvement in the film. Just as the credits scene in IM2 came out of what was going on in that film, any post-credit scene shouldn't just be something thrown in there for the sole purpose of riling up the audiences - it should be something that reflects not only the movie it follows, but the universe as a whole. To me, just throwing in the SHIELD bits for a thirty second teaser would be a huge mistake if the context of what we're seeing isn't there. If we removed all SHIELD scenes from Iron Man 2, we'd get the idea of what's happening, but it would be something that would require more set-up in the future, which would make the Avengers movie more like a game of catch-up than a movie that encompasses this shared universe.

I think the 'set up scenes' have been a good progression.

IRON MAN: Creation of SHIELD (which, before the acronym was used in the end, I didn't see coming throughout the flim ) + Nick Fury appearance.
TIH: SHIELD involved in hunting down Banner + minor mention of Super Soldier program + Start & Ross meeting in the end.
IM2: Lot more referances to SHIELD + Mjolnir in the end + more Nick Fury.

So the 'setting up' is increasing with each movie bringing us closer to the Avengers film, but isn't that just natural??
The movies are following a chronology in order of story and release.
So obviously there's going to be more referances to the previous films/characters/storyline in the subsequent solo hero films prior to Avengers.

You can't do a story with 4-5 characters going about their business in the same continuity at the same time, then all of a sudden they come together in one movie out of the blue.

 

[BoredGuy]

^^^ That's true. However...

I hope they stem that flow for the next two films.
Following that progression would point to Cap being like a half about the avengers (and with the first avenger title, that's a lot)
Thor and Cap both need their own films, and they shouldn't have much more than IM 1 did as far as avengers-setup

 

[TheShah]

^^^ That's true. However...

I hope they stem that flow for the next two films.
Following that progression would point to Cap being like a half about the avengers (and with the first avenger title, that's a lot)
Thor and Cap both need their own films, and they shouldn't have much more than IM 1 did as far as avengers-setup

I agree.
However with the comic-con footage, it does seem that THOR will have some tie-ins.
But instead of 'setting up ' it seems like the THOR movie is set with characters that have been established in the previous movies, like Coulson.
Which makes sense, considering that the non-comic book fans don't know the character of Thor as well as they may know, Iron Man, Hulk and Captain America.
So for them to go see THOR, they need direct crossovers from the other films.

But yes, for the Cap movie, I hope they take the story completely outside of the movie-verse's modern era, set up MINOR Avengers easter eggs, but keep the movie focused on itself.
That also creates hype to go back to the modern day SHIELD, Iron Man, etc that we've been seeing so far, in the Avengers movie.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Strike when the Hammer is hot.
If you space out the sequels/tie in movies too far apart, then the hype and marketing of the THOR + CAPTAIN AMERICA movie will die down and they won't get that spill-over of excitement for the AVENGERS movie.

I mean we all know how a lot of sequels haven't turned out well due to delays and huge gaps from the original movie.

And we've conversely gotten big successes with the so-called "churn them out" method. (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter)

However, pre-planning multiple sequels/tie-ins seems a little risky.
Especially if they don't fit well with the larger picture.

Don't get me wrong, I'm loving this multiple movie tie-in.
I just hope they don't screw it up, purely to ****e out the individual and over all franchises for more profit.

This is a risky thing. That's why it's so cool that Marvel is doing it. They aren't getting praise for having the guts to do something that isn't risky. Anyone can do things that aren't risky.

 

[hatebox]

It is risky, but let's not kid ourselves - if Marvel didn't believe it was the course of action that would generate the most amount of money they wouldn't be doing it. If this need to churn these films out results in movies that could have been a lot better with greater planning, then Marvel shouldn't be commended for taking risks, they should be condemned for letting short-sighted greed get in the way of potential quality.

As always, we'll see. I'd like it to all work out.