The Avengers Avengers taking away from other Marvel films?

[CaptainClown]

Eh...if Stark goes too far in that direction we get another Bruce Wayne or Peter Parker and we have enough of those. Don't want to risk a "Dark Iron Man".

You don't need Iron Man or Tony to be dark, but you just need him to be responsible. Tony went back in character in IM2 much like Jack Sparrow in the 2nd Pirates of the Caribbean

 

[jmc]

I have been here at the Hype for 8 years. I have seen uncountable number of threads and posts in threads crying OH HOW I WISH SOME STUDIO WOULD PUT THIS CHARACTER INTO THAT CHARACTERS MOVIE...EVEN IF IN ONLY A CAMEO. And now someone is doing that, and its all HOW DARE THEY!!! BY TALKING ABOUT THIS OTHER CHARACTER THEY ARE RUINING THIS MOVIE'S STANDALONENESS!!!! OH MY GOD, THEY MENTIONED AND SHOWED ANOTHER COMIC BOOK CHARACTER BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEM BE THE MAIN PLOTLINE!!!!

I shake my head in bewilderment at some people.

It's the execution that's off. Forgive some of us for not being one of those whiny fanboys who want everything in the comics. Some of us do prefer good character and story when you're watching film. You want to except mediocrity? Fine, knock yourself out.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Let me ask you this, do you think the film would have been better served had the Avengers, Shield, Black Widow, Nick Fury, etc stuff not been there? What exactly does that stuff add to IM2 other than continuity? Black Widow is completely useless in the film, she's not even a love interest, what the hell does she add? If this answer is nothing or not much then you're serving the universe and not the story, and that's bad film making. If you remove all those elements, as well as that god awful drunk fight scene, you've got heaps more time to expand on the story the film started to tell, Rourke's character goes missing for virtually an hour, you know, spend some more time developing him as a threat because after the first act there's no-one in danger in this movie. You want all those references to build up the universe, fine, but do it in a way that's subtle or has relevance to the story being told, don't just throw it in there for the sake of it.

Yes, Iron Man 2 had its problems but the problem wasn't the villain. Yes, the villains could've been better but it didn't hurt the film. What hurt the film wasn't the humor. If you ask me what hurt the film, it was the imbalance of tone. There weren't enough serious scenes to counterbalance the comedic scenes. I think the film would've been helped greatly if Stark wasn't given a temporary antidote before he finds a permanent solution and before he meets Nick Fury we should've seen a serious scene where Stark down in the dumps (instead of being in the donut).

Black Widow was supposed to be a love interest (or fake one for her job) but those scenes were cut. Favreau talked about deleted scenes and there were several hints in the film of a rilvary between her and Pepper.

Fury was fine. As I said in my last post, the only problem I had with Fury was the temporary antidote.

Iron Man 2 was good. Not as good as the first but it was still a pretty good sequel.

I had no problem what so ever with Black Widow's part in the film. Black Widow is part of Iron Man's history (just like Happy Hogan is part of his history...but no one is complaining about him being in the film and basicly only driving Tony around). Every character in a movie doesn't have to be absolutely necessary and key to the plot. They are there to add abience and sometimes as a nod to the main characters 40+ years of history.

I also had no problem with the drunk fight scene. The point was to show Tony's downward spiral because he thought he was going to die soon.

All of the complaining about IM2 and the SHIELD/AVENGERS stuff just blows my mind. It's as if no one on here has ever read a comic book, read a serial of novels, or watched a movie made from a serial of novels. FORSHADOWING is done in all of these. Something is mentioned or shown or introduced that doesn't destroy the continuity or current storyline...but will be expanded on later.

Black Widow is introduced in IM2 as a secretary. The viewers who have no previous knowlege of her character see her as she is intended to be seen...as someone to catch Tony's eye and to make Pepper jealous. The people who do know her backstory know that she is there to catch Tony's eye, make Pepper jealous, AND possibly be a connection to SHIELD. How does that make anything bad? It's the same as the Harry potter books. I haven't read them, my wife has. When we see the movies, I have absolutely no idea what's going to happen, she has a fairly good idea of what's going to happen (because some things do get changed). We both enjoy watching them. Why can't the comic book people like that? Why is everything something to complain about?

I have been here at the Hype for 8 years. I have seen uncountable number of threads and posts in threads crying OH HOW I WISH SOME STUDIO WOULD PUT THIS CHARACTER INTO THAT CHARACTERS MOVIE...EVEN IF IN ONLY A CAMEO. And now someone is doing that, and its all HOW DARE THEY!!! BY TALKING ABOUT THIS OTHER CHARACTER THEY ARE RUINING THIS MOVIE'S STANDALONENESS!!!! OH MY GOD, THEY MENTIONED AND SHOWED ANOTHER COMIC BOOK CHARACTER BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEM BE THE MAIN PLOTLINE!!!!

I shake my head in bewilderment at some people.

I completely agree

Some people just can't be pleased. You just have to aim to please most people, which Iron Man 2 did. It pleased many fans and most non-fans.

It didn't gross more because it wasn't better than first nor was it film that completely blew people away.

 

[C. Lee]

It's the execution that's off. Forgive some of us for not being one of those whiny fanboys who want everything in the comics. Some of us do prefer good character and story when you're watching film. You want to except mediocrity? Fine, knock yourself out.

Yes...I will forgive you..........

 

[SuperFerret]

You don't need Iron Man or Tony to be dark, but you just need him to be responsible. Tony went back in character in IM2 much like Jack Sparrow in the 2nd Pirates of the Caribbean

Stark was convinced that he was dying in Iron Man 2, so he threw all caution to the wind and figured that he'd enjoy what little time he had left, hence all the irresponsible actions.

 

[SuperFerret]

It's the execution that's off. Forgive some of us for not being one of those whiny fanboys who want everything in the comics. Some of us do prefer good character and story when you're watching film. You want to except mediocrity? Fine, knock yourself out.

I don't see what's so wrong with the execution. The references are minor and the extended cameos are supporting roles.

 

[wobbly]

I don't know...I liked IM2. Sure, (just with all things) there's things I think could have been done better, but Shield, Fury and Widow are not really among them. They didn't distract me from the plot, but were worked well into it (imo).

My only real gripes with IM2 was making Rourke's character a hybrid of Whiplash and the Dynamo, then having that final battle with him done in a about a minute. That, and making Hammer a joke character as well.

Neither had anything to do with with the Avengers connection.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I don't know...I liked IM2. Sure, (just with all things) there's things I think could have been done better, but Shield, Fury and Widow are not really among them. They didn't distract me from the plot, but were worked well into it (imo).

My only real gripes with IM2 was making Rourke's character a hybrid of Whiplash and the Dynamo, then having that final battle with him done in a about a minute. That, and making Hammer a joke character as well.

Neither had anything to do with with the Avengers connection.

Yeah. I didn't have that much a problem with Hammer but at least one scene showing some kind of competence would've made him a much better villain.

The final battle should've been more epic too. I really hope Fav's goes all out in Iron Man 3.

 

[CaptainClown]

Stark was convinced that he was dying in Iron Man 2, so he threw all caution to the wind and figured that he'd enjoy what little time he had left, hence all the irresponsible actions.

That basic dying part contradicts his attitude in IM2, where he put his life on the line to save lives. It is a contradiction to how he acted normally, and goes against his whole "new stark industry" image. He can still be trying to be straight edge and have new conflicts but the idea of a super disease which isn't addressed other then it is there is very weak.

I don't know...I liked IM2. Sure, (just with all things) there's things I think could have been done better, but Shield, Fury and Widow are not really among them. They didn't distract me from the plot, but were worked well into it (imo).

My only real gripes with IM2 was making Rourke's character a hybrid of Whiplash and the Dynamo, then having that final battle with him done in a about a minute. That, and making Hammer a joke character as well.

Neither had anything to do with with the Avengers connection.

See I felt all the problems with Rourke's character, Hammer's character would have been better if the Avenger moments were toned down severely and that time used to flesh out the characters.

Not to mention the whole shield bit felt entirely forced into the script. While I do like a nod to an outside universe, the blatant nod there takes me out of the movie.

I know many are enjoy how Marvel is going about the Avengers, but I would appreciate if the movies could feel like separate adventures rather then all reliant on one thing. These movies have a symbiote nature to them and if one fails it will leak into the others. If these films were able to stand on their own then I think they would have something better going for them.

Also I am not a fanboy, I really could care less if Thor had a helmet or if the Wings on Captain America's helmet were there. My gripe is that they are not looking before they leap and if they do misstep could ultimately ruin superhero movies for a while.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

That basic dying part contradicts his attitude in IM2, where he put his life on the line to save lives. It is a contradiction to how he acted normally, and goes against his whole "new stark industry" image. He can still be trying to be straight edge and have new conflicts but the idea of a super disease which isn't addressed other then it is there is very weak.

See I felt all the problems with Rourke's character, Hammer's character would have been better if the Avenger moments were toned down severely and that time used to flesh out the characters.

Not to mention the whole shield bit felt entirely forced into the script. While I do like a nod to an outside universe, the blatant nod there takes me out of the movie.

I know many are enjoy how Marvel is going about the Avengers, but I would appreciate if the movies could feel like separate adventures rather then all reliant on one thing. These movies have a symbiote nature to them and if one fails it will leak into the others. If these films were able to stand on their own then I think they would have something better going for them.

Also I am not a fanboy, I really could care less if Thor had a helmet or if the Wings on Captain America's helmet were there. My gripe is that they are not looking before they leap and if they do misstep could ultimately ruin superhero movies for a while.

But there were no Avenger moments in the film that took away any huge screen time other than the ending scene of Stark meeting with Fury. All other scenes before focused on the current plot and problem at hand.

 

[Iron_Stark]

That basic dying part contradicts his attitude in IM2, where he put his life on the line to save lives. It is a contradiction to how he acted normally, and goes against his whole "new stark industry" image. He can still be trying to be straight edge and have new conflicts but the idea of a super disease which isn't addressed other then it is there is very weak.

See I felt all the problems with Rourke's character, Hammer's character would have been better if the Avenger moments were toned down severely and that time used to flesh out the characters.

Not to mention the whole shield bit felt entirely forced into the script. While I do like a nod to an outside universe, the blatant nod there takes me out of the movie.

I know many are enjoy how Marvel is going about the Avengers, but I would appreciate if the movies could feel like separate adventures rather then all reliant on one thing. These movies have a symbiote nature to them and if one fails it will leak into the others. If these films were able to stand on their own then I think they would have something better going for them.

Also I am not a fanboy, I really could care less if Thor had a helmet or if the Wings on Captain America's helmet were there. My gripe is that they are not looking before they leap and if they do misstep could ultimately ruin superhero movies for a while.

You do know Stark and SHIELD have a LONG history of working together and you do know that about two years ago Stark was even Director of SHIELD for a while.

This isn't like SHIELD showing up in a Ghost Rider or Dare Devil movie.

 

[C. Lee]

Let's not confuse people with facts....that's just cruel.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Let's not confuse people with facts....that's just cruel.

So would adding sources be seen as a cardinal sin?

 

[Ash Talon]

IM2's problem wasn't the Avengers tie-in scenes. Its main problem was a lack of a central story. What was Stark's conflict and how did he resolve it? It all centers on competing businessmen wanting to sell weapons to the US military. The physical conflict (IM vs Drones/Whiplash) isn't tied in very well with the personal conflict (ego). The movie is just kind of a mess storywise. I honestly don't feel the SHIELD stuff cause problems. I think it was an attempt to bring the different storylines together, because they had no natural cohesion.

How can anyone say DC is doing it right when the only successes of the last 3 decades are the Batman movies? How is Green Lantern proof of anything? It could very well end up sucking which will kill its sequels and any chance at at Justice League movie. And if it's a success, how long before JL is even attempted? Are they going to wait to get Flash going and see if it's a success (it's been in development hell for years now)? What about Wonder Woman (also in development hell for years)? It could very well be another 10 years before JL is even started, and GL would likely be recast by then.

You can't look at what Marvel's doing with Avengers and not realize how ambitious it is. It's never been done with film before. Introducing 3 different characters over 5 movies, and then uniting them in the 6th movie. It's really cool that they're trying it. I think we all hope it succeeds. Is it a model for how to do comic book movies? Maybe not, but it is something unique and special.

BTW, I don't think Thor and Cap will be riddled with Avengers plotlines. We know SHIELD is in it (in a way that makes sense from what I can tell). Cap is set 60 years in the past, so it probably won't have too many Avengers elements weaved into it. Cap probably has something weaved into the story/background regarding the Avengers villain (powerful device, shapeshifting aliens that had some bearing on his WWII adventures). I don't see either one being riddled with side stories, though. They'll each have plenty to do on their own.

It will be interesting to see them pull off the Avengers build-up. And it'll be interesting to see what happens after Avengers. I don't think Favreau will be back for Iron Man 3. I don't think he brings much to the table anyway, as he's a rather bland director. Will we get Thor 2 or Captain America 2 set in modern times? Obviously, it all depends how the next 3 movies do to see who the public really responds to.

 

[ironman29758]

The Avengers and S.H.I.E.L.D. being an important part of the Thor, Captain America, and Hulk movie makes sense and it wasn't a huge problem it makes sense. especially since the superhero are recenently coming out(Captain America in WW2, Hulk in 2003 and Iron Man in 2008)

Black widow appeared in an Iron Man book and so did Hawkeye way before Rhodey, Justin Hammer, Jarvis came along

and what was wrong was the bland last fight and that was it
Tony made a lot of tech for s.h.i.e.l.d., and appeared in the 94 cartoon, Iron Man armored avengers, Invincible Iron Man, Ultimates and Ultimate Avengers DTV, he is also a FOUNDING MEMBER FOR THE AVENGERS as well as the Ultimates and one of the big three(Captain America, Thor) and appearead in alot of Avengers cartoons. the same goes for and Hulk is a founding member as well as them being important part of S.H.I.E.L.D. and no superhero movie showed and really good conection to the superhero movies and followed through as dedictated as Marvel is doing so there still trying to get it right

( I realize Batman and Robin had that Superman joke and Superman Returns showed Gotham but neither movie said their in the same universes)

 

[Gamma Goliath]

Don't you mean hulk in 08?

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Black Widow is completely useless in the film, she's not even a love interest, what the hell does she add?

Lee covered it, but she definitely added some romantic tension between Pepper and Tony. And one of the best fight scenes by a female character ever. And it doesn't hurt that she was smoking hot.

You don't need Iron Man or Tony to be dark, but you just need him to be responsible. Tony went back in character in IM2 much like Jack Sparrow in the 2nd Pirates of the Caribbean

Stark was convinced that he was dying in Iron Man 2, so he threw all caution to the wind and figured that he'd enjoy what little time he had left, hence all the irresponsible actions.

That was my impression. I don't see why the character has to leave his "fun" side behind forever. No one is just one thing all the time.

How can anyone say DC is doing it right when the only successes of the last 3 decades are the Batman movies? How is Green Lantern proof of anything? It could very well end up sucking which will kill its sequels and any chance at at Justice League movie. And if it's a success, how long before JL is even attempted? Are they going to wait to get Flash going and see if it's a success (it's been in development hell for years now)? What about Wonder Woman (also in development hell for years)? It could very well be another 10 years before JL is even started, and GL would likely be recast by then.

Hey...stop depressing me! I want my Flash movie and I want more GL movies!

 

[Tony Stark]

You can't look at what Marvel's doing with Avengers and not realize how ambitious it is. It's never been done with film before. Introducing 3 different characters over 5 movies, and then uniting them in the 6th movie. It's really cool that they're trying it. I think we all hope it succeeds. Is it a model for how to do comic book movies? Maybe not, but it is something unique and special.

That's my feeling on it. I really hope it works, because it is so bold, and if it fails everyone is going to say "see I told you so!" But no one knows this more than Marvel.

So far Marvel Studios has yet to make a bad film. The Incredible Hulk might not have lived up to expectations, but I think most people enjoyed the film and thought that it really improved on what was a pretty boring movie Ang Lee put together, that destroyed most of what was special about the Hulk.

I don't expect Thor and Cap to make 300 million each, but I hope they can do 200 mil plus type buisness. If so, then they'll be a success. But most of all, I hope they are good movies and do justice to the characters.

 

[Grommers]

I strongly agree that the avengers is taking away from thor and captain america. I really wish they would of kept it a bigger secret, because even now I find myself checking out the avengers forum more than CA and Thor by 100 - 1.

You know how big this would of been had they not announced any thing officially and people just "talked" secretly about it. It would of been a much larger hit I think as well at the box office when it would be announced after all the original movies are done.

Another big issue I feel is I'm already expecting avengers to be grand and I'm looking at it as supposed to be an even bigger experience than the solo movies...

and realistically, I don't think it can be. I think it can match the dark knight in terms of creativity, experience, and ingenuity. However, even that is a feat I think that is a lot harder to imagine than most could conceive.

I picture it more on ironman 1's level in terms of story, extremely good with some better cinematic experiences.

The next hard part is that it's a sequel...to four movies arguably this will be the 5th movie in the series (4th if TIH is not included but thats another discussion).

That alone is pretty intense and well, quite hard to achieve, I feel this movie will have to be at 2.5 - 3hours long, and considering I already know a lot younger kids who love the heroes will want to see it. It doesn't make it reasonable to go to see it 2-3 times. However even with ironman and TIH they are extremely more child friendly than TDK. (No pencil killing tricks for one). And they still did not bring in the same amounts as TDK. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but they definitely have a different target audience and a much broader one.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I highly doubt Cap will have a focus on Avengers, since it's takes place 60 some years before the other movies. Thor could have some Avengers stuff, but probably not as much as IM2's.

Have you not noticed than even the title of Captain America is an advert for Avengers?

 

[Majik1387]

I had no problem what so ever with Black Widow's part in the film. Black Widow is part of Iron Man's history (just like Happy Hogan is part of his history...but no one is complaining about him being in the film and basicly only driving Tony around). Every character in a movie doesn't have to be absolutely necessary and key to the plot. They are there to add abience and sometimes as a nod to the main characters 40+ years of history.

I also had no problem with the drunk fight scene. The point was to show Tony's downward spiral because he thought he was going to die soon.

All of the complaining about IM2 and the SHIELD/AVENGERS stuff just blows my mind. It's as if no one on here has ever read a comic book, read a serial of novels, or watched a movie made from a serial of novels. FORSHADOWING is done in all of these. Something is mentioned or shown or introduced that doesn't destroy the continuity or current storyline...but will be expanded on later.

Black Widow is introduced in IM2 as a secretary. The viewers who have no previous knowlege of her character see her as she is intended to be seen...as someone to catch Tony's eye and to make Pepper jealous. The people who do know her backstory know that she is there to catch Tony's eye, make Pepper jealous, AND possibly be a connection to SHIELD. How does that make anything bad? It's the same as the Harry potter books. I haven't read them, my wife has. When we see the movies, I have absolutely no idea what's going to happen, she has a fairly good idea of what's going to happen (because some things do get changed). We both enjoy watching them. Why can't the comic book people like that? Why is everything something to complain about?

I have been here at the Hype for 8 years. I have seen uncountable number of threads and posts in threads crying OH HOW I WISH SOME STUDIO WOULD PUT THIS CHARACTER INTO THAT CHARACTERS MOVIE...EVEN IF IN ONLY A CAMEO. And now someone is doing that, and its all HOW DARE THEY!!! BY TALKING ABOUT THIS OTHER CHARACTER THEY ARE RUINING THIS MOVIE'S STANDALONENESS!!!! OH MY GOD, THEY MENTIONED AND SHOWED ANOTHER COMIC BOOK CHARACTER BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEM BE THE MAIN PLOTLINE!!!!

I shake my head in bewilderment at some people.

Thank you for posting this. It's pretty much how I would sum up my feelings without cursing out idiots.

 

[Spider-Vader]

Have you not noticed than even the title of Captain America is an advert for Avengers?

Yeah. That'd probably be the biggest hint about Avengers. The whole idea of the Avengers wasn't created (in universe) until probably mid-Iron Man 1.

We'll probably see a scene about the Avengers at the end & that'd be it.

 

[ironman29758]

Don't you mean hulk in 08?

The Incredible Hulk, although is a reboot took place 5 years after the opening sequence/Bruce's origin. and as for the Captain America thing I think they will implie creating Avengers initiave or the start of a brainstorm through Howard Stark or one of the Howling Comandos

 

[Tony Stark]

Yeah. That'd probably be the biggest hint about Avengers. The whole idea of the Avengers wasn't created (in universe) until probably mid-Iron Man 1.

We'll probably see a scene about the Avengers at the end & that'd be it.

We know that Howard Stark will be in CA, but how prevalent a roll he has is unknown. My guess is that some of the elements of CA will deal with the founding of S.H.I.E.L.D. and more info on the super soldier syrum which was a huge plot point in TIH.

To me the way Marvel is going about this is completely in line with how the comics were. Marvel was really the first company before DC to really push the continuity bit. You'd be reading an issue of Spider-man and there'd be a reference "*See FF # 127" or something like that. That's been going on with Marvel since the 60's, and seeing those threads played out in the MCU is very exciting.

What I find hillarious is before IM1 people were saying that "IM was a secondary character that most people don't know", and now you could argue that he is the new flagship character for Marvel and with all the Avengers tie-in's there is now a huge public awareness for Thor, Cap and Avengers before there was any special screening footage or a trailer.

We'll see if they can pull it off, but I give full credit to Marvel for having the stones to attempt to do this in the first place.

 

[TheShah]

I highly doubt Cap will have a focus on Avengers, since it's takes place 60 some years before the other movies. Thor could have some Avengers stuff, but probably not as much as IM2's.

Actually, I think THOR will have a LOT of Avengers related stuff, considering it's the last piece of the puzzle, in terms of movie-verse sequence of events that set up the Avengers story.
THOR is the last character to be introduced since Cap's movie is an origin set in the 40's.
And THOR is being introduced when everything else is already set up, SHIELD, Iron Man, Hulk, etc.
The Comic-Con trailer alone, shows a lotta tie-ins already.

I think the Cap movie will be the departure that takes us away from the modern day Avengers set up, so that all the previous movies kinda blend into background as we focus on Captain America's origin story... then will tie back into the present... kickstarting the Avengers movie.

My take on it anyways.