The Avengers Avengers taking away from other Marvel films?

[TheShah]

While it still green lit thor and captain america (also called Captain America: The First Avenger) It seems that the quality of these films are greatly lacking in order to simply push for an Avengers film.

I mean I can't wait for a solid Avengers films, but thus far I am not interested in any of these characters teaming up at present. Iron Man 2 felt it was entirely at the mercy of the Avengers and the story was weakened just to add Avenger bits: Black Widow, Nick Fury without a solid point, Thor reference etc. They all felt tacked on for the Avenger Agenda.

I didn't get the point of IRON MAN 2.
It makes sense to me to do solid solo-hero movies as an intro to the character, to be later melded into a 'team movie'.
But a sequel to one of those movies while setting up for the big team movie, seemed like a big cash grab.

 

[RaZaTrOn]

I strongly agree that the avengers is taking away from thor and captain america.

You guys realise that without The Avengers we wouldn't be getting any of these films. When these films were announced it was said that they were building towards The Avengers. Your damn lucky that Marvel has taken 4 years to build up the characters rather than just throw them into film without any characterisation.

I agree with C. Lee, people don't seem to know what they hell they want. I think people just like to moan. Funny thing is I bet that if anyone who had 'great' ideas was given the chance to make these films they'd mess up because they'd make them for themselves, not everyone... which is what the idea is.

On a side note all my friends and family who have seen Iron Man 2 have no idea about comics. They weren't put off by S.H.I.E.L.D and were very curious as to why they are popping up. Hell when I showed them the Thor trailer they said that they will have to see it because it had Agent Phil Coulson in it, simply because they put 2 and 2 together and realised it's building up to something.

So go Marvel!

 

[Majik1387]

Putting 5-10 minutes of Shield/Avenger related stuff in a solo movie is NOT taking away from the other Marvel films. If anything, it adds to them.

 

[TheShah]

There was always going to be that risk as soon as Marvel made a big deal out of it. I don't think you can say they've taken away the emphasis of quality, I'm sure they're making this all with good intentions, the problem is that by having the set deadlines and making thing interconnect so blatantly they could be doing more harm than good. The deadline thing is the most problematic area, by setting these film down for these specific dates you've taken away the process of creating something truly special, the organicness is gone, and suddenly you've got a time limit, and not just for one film, 4 films. IM2 suffered from this already, no doubt in my mind that Favreau and the writers would have loved an extra year up their sleeve. I believe the better option for Marvel would have been to simply let things breath more naturally, make the movies as they come, concentrate on making them good one at time, then do the big team up movie when the time is right.

I completely agree with the timing of it all.
With IRON MAN and THE INCREDIBLE HULK it was like, 'wow, this is ****in' cool!! I wonder when the rest is gonna happen'
But now, you have the sequence of release of 4 films (IRON MAN 2, THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGERS, THE AVENGERS) and it's kinda like experiencing each movie as an episode to something larger, where you're not getting the full experience of the individual movie itself... but waiting for the larger picture to reveal itself.

I don't know if that made sense. :S. lol

 

[TheShah]

humanimal why does Marvel need to have the Avengers out in 2012? why not in 2014 or 2015?

why can they not make first a thor sequel or CA sequel?

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.

 

[TheShah]

Totally understand that but at the same time it's also an art form and things shouldn't be rushed, I mean it's not like the characters are going anywhere. What annoys me is that IM2 felt very much like a business decision first, hell I think I read somewhere a release date was put down before Marvel consulted with Favreau about it, the end result was a less than stellar sequel. There's already talk of WB working on GL 2 and 3, and this is before the first film is released, that already has me concerned. I don't get this need to pop these things out like pills, you're doing no-one any favours except the die hard fans who only care about see character-X on screen in any type of film. Just focus on making quality films.

The stupid thing is, they end up hurting the franchise too, when they decide to CHURN out films, instead of taking the time to adapt and make them.
I remember when sequels were only considered when the first movie was an incredible success, and the writer/director had more to say about the first movie and could do it bigger and better.
Now, sequel = "lets roll-over the profits from the first one... let it ride!!"

 

[TheShah]

Whiney fanboys and their whiney ******** and being whiney.

All the Avengers business was in the first Iron Man movie as well. We knew about Avengers and what they wanted to do in 2006. We knew about it in 2008.

Is it hurting the movies? Only if they let it. Isn't an Avengers movie and crossover movies what we wanted? Why are people suddenly getting a bad attitude about it?

One of IMHO the best things about Iron Man to me was that they gave it that extra little sizzle of it being more than just a superhero movie. For instance they actually put SHIELD in the movie when they basically didn't need to. They put in the extra Nick Fury/Avengers Initiative scene. Iron Man showed that it was doing a lot more than just other comic book superhero movies before. We wouldn't get stuff like this in Spider-man or X-men or the other garbage movies like Ghost Rider, Daredevil, and Fantastic Four. These were huge steps and I felt they were positive ones.

So I mean why shouldn't we be seeing Avengers stuff?

Also Jon Favreau is the one that said he didn't want to do DEMON IN A BOTTLE. He said point blank he didn't want to do LEAVING LAS VEGAS.

So maybe you guys need to stop whining like little fanboy baby *****es and maybe acknowledge that Marvel is TRYING really hard to give us what we've been asking for, for years.

Agreed.
I mean, it's finally happening where we've gone from single, uncoodinated, diluted and corrupted stories about comic book characters, bastardized on film and churned out by the Hollywood machine...
To actualy having a universe of these characters be attempted on screen, by people that respect the source material, are trying to stay true to the comic books, and are creating a MOVIE CROSS OVER universe... that's, up until now been unprecedented.

For the people that say the AVENGERS seem like Marvel's 'end all be all'... you can't expect a Studio to plan 10 years in advance as to their slate of films.
If this movie-verse attempt is successful, from a BO POV and a critical POV, then who's to say we might not see a modified and condensed CIVIL WAR storyline depicted in a film?
Or any other Marvel character getting an intro and playing a part of this Universe?

It's ****in awesome to see this unfolding the way it is; yes there's risks and possible chance for **** ups... but cross your fingers and we can all ***** about it after we've see how it's happened.

 

[Squidboy]

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.

Don't forget Hawkeye still needs some intro into the movie. Maybe they'll go the Black Widow route and just assign him SHIELD duty, which wouldn't be bad. But if they go that route, I hope him and BW get some well-deserved spotlight, even in light of the characters they're working with.

I completely agree with the timing of it all.
With IRON MAN and THE INCREDIBLE HULK it was like, 'wow, this is ****in' cool!! I wonder when the rest is gonna happen'
But now, you have the sequence of release of 4 films (IRON MAN 2, THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGERS, THE AVENGERS) and it's kinda like experiencing each movie as an episode to something larger, where you're not getting the full experience of the individual movie itself... but waiting for the larger picture to reveal itself.

I don't know if that made sense. :S. lol

That brought to mind the fact that shows like Lost and 24 (shows that need to really be viewed as a whole, and not as a stand-alone episode) are so compelling because we are left wanting more each and every week. With these movies, they do carry their own weight, but these little hints and clues give that nod that the movies are building to something even bigger than itself.

I'm sorry for those who disagree, but the SHIELD bits do not take away from fan enjoyment of these films, especially when weighed against the alternative of having the first hour of the Avengers movie dedicated to establishing SHIELD, and then getting into the good stuff. Was the Thor trailer filled with SHIELD references? Yes, but it'll get asses in the seats at the end of the day, to let fans of Iron Man know that Thor is included in his universe. Do they have to show RDJ, or will he show up there at all in this movie? Probably not, but the recognition of Coulson will help draw some of the attention that would otherwise be absent.

I know with the limited time in the trailer, a minute and some change could've been better suited to show more of Asgard and of Thor in costume, but it'd be a hard pill to swallow for fans to go from Tony Stark and Hulk, right into the Norse Gods. This way, we get something to plant this movie in the reality of the Marvel universe, without necessarily making it campy or entirely unrealistic. It showed a very human story, which is what I'm guessing the story of Thor ascending back to God-status is going to do.

 

[TheShah]

Don't forget Hawkeye still needs some intro into the movie. Maybe they'll go the Black Widow route and just assign him SHIELD duty, which wouldn't be bad. But if they go that route, I hope him and BW get some well-deserved spotlight, even in light of the characters they're working with.



That brought to mind the fact that shows like Lost and 24 (shows that need to really be viewed as a whole, and not as a stand-alone episode) are so compelling because we are left wanting more each and every week. With these movies, they do carry their own weight, but these little hints and clues give that nod that the movies are building to something even bigger than itself.

I'm sorry for those who disagree, but the SHIELD bits do not take away from fan enjoyment of these films, especially when weighed against the alternative of having the first hour of the Avengers movie dedicated to establishing SHIELD, and then getting into the good stuff. Was the Thor trailer filled with SHIELD references? Yes, but it'll get asses in the seats at the end of the day, to let fans of Iron Man know that Thor is included in his universe. Do they have to show RDJ, or will he show up there at all in this movie? Probably not, but the recognition of Coulson will help draw some of the attention that would otherwise be absent.

I know with the limited time in the trailer, a minute and some change could've been better suited to show more of Asgard and of Thor in costume, but it'd be a hard pill to swallow for fans to go from Tony Stark and Hulk, right into the Norse Gods. This way, we get something to plant this movie in the reality of the Marvel universe, without necessarily making it campy or entirely unrealistic. It showed a very human story, which is what I'm guessing the story of Thor ascending back to God-status is going to do.

I completely agree.
One thing that a lot of people aren't mentioning is that despite these single movies being origins of the individual heroes, (i.e.: Thor, Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America) the string of these films have also served as the origin of SHIELD for the movie-verse.

IRON MAN showed the establishment of SHIELD.
THE INCREDIBLE HULK showed SHIELD having a hand in tracking Hulk down with Stark Tech.
IRON MAN 2 showed how SHIELD coordinates with Tony Stark.
And from the THOR trailer, it seems SHIELD is in full swing in all things superhero related.

I think that was a great way of showing that develop over the individual movies.

 

[Grommers]

You guys realise that without The Avengers we wouldn't be getting any of these films. When these films were announced it was said that they were building towards The Avengers. Your damn lucky that Marvel has taken 4 years to build up the characters rather than just throw them into film without any characterisation.

I agree with C. Lee, people don't seem to know what they hell they want. I think people just like to moan. Funny thing is I bet that if anyone who had 'great' ideas was given the chance to make these films they'd mess up because they'd make them for themselves, not everyone... which is what the idea is.

On a side note all my friends and family who have seen Iron Man 2 have no idea about comics. They weren't put off by S.H.I.E.L.D and were very curious as to why they are popping up. Hell when I showed them the Thor trailer they said that they will have to see it because it had Agent Phil Coulson in it, simply because they put 2 and 2 together and realised it's building up to something.

So go Marvel!

I love how you only read the first sentence of my argument. It shows that your moaning is just as bad as everyone else's about them setting up the avengers.

I said I had no problem with the avengers, but I do strongly believe it's taking away from the solo films and that they announced the avengers way to early. I'm all for it, I love the idea, the concept everything behind it. Hell, it would of been nice for the shield parts to still be in the movies as they currently are. However, I really wish it was never officially announced till after the solo movies have completed there run.

As I said, I barely if at all check the CA or Thor forums, and find myself looking for more avengers tid bits and hints in those movies than the movies themselves.

 

[RaZaTrOn]

Sorry mate, my post wasn't aimed at you it's just your post was the latest to agree so i quoted that part.

 

[C. Lee]

The stupid thing is, they end up hurting the franchise too, when they decide to CHURN out films, instead of taking the time to adapt and make them.
I remember when sequels were only considered when the first movie was an incredible success, and the writer/director had more to say about the first movie and could do it bigger and better.
Now, sequel = "lets roll-over the profits from the first one... let it ride!!"

You're young....I remember when studios turned out films and sequels to films all day long. There used to be sequels to all kinds of movies in lots of genres. It just seems that nowadays the sequels are generally saved for torture porn and whatever is the biggest hit of the summer. The fact that Marvel is willing to bet on thier movies and plan sequels for them is heartening to me.

 

[jmc]

I completely agree with the timing of it all.
With IRON MAN and THE INCREDIBLE HULK it was like, 'wow, this is ****in' cool!! I wonder when the rest is gonna happen'
But now, you have the sequence of release of 4 films (IRON MAN 2, THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGERS, THE AVENGERS) and it's kinda like experiencing each movie as an episode to something larger, where you're not getting the full experience of the individual movie itself... but waiting for the larger picture to reveal itself.

I don't know if that made sense. :S. lol

That to me is the problem, the characters should be the larger picture first and foremost with The Avengers being the icing on the cake, if you start putting the cart before the horse and treat films like comics where the audience is niche, fans shouldn't be surprised if Joe Public doesn't end up caring for the films.

 

[Majik1387]

But they will care for them as all the solo films are released prior to Avengers.

 

[jmc]

You're assuming they'll give a damn about the remaining solos films in the first place.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

That to me is the problem, the characters should be the larger picture first and foremost with The Avengers being the icing on the cake, if you start putting the cart before the horse and treat films like comics where the audience is niche, fans shouldn't be surprised if Joe Public doesn't end up caring for the films.

All of the characters were a larger picture in their films.

 

[Majik1387]

You're assuming they'll give a damn about the remaining solos films in the first place.

They are giving a damn. Do you not check out the new reports; hell even the rumors in the Cap and Thor sections?

 

[jmc]

They should be the sole picture, keep the focus on them only, leave the team up build up stuff until after the credits like in IM1.

 

[jmc]

They are giving a damn. Do you not check out the new reports; hell even the rumors in the Cap and Thor sections?

Where are these new reports that Joe Public is eagerly awaiting all of this?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

But why doesn't it have to be after the credits? I have no problem with it being the end like in TIH and IM2 (though I still feel like Norton's scene before it should've been the last scene). It won't pique curiousity if its after credits.

 

[Majik1387]

Where are these new reports that Joe Public is eagerly awaiting all of this?

Sorry, meant to write 'news' reports.


Who said that Joe Public even knows what they want? Or what they're craving?

 

[Squidboy]

They should be the sole picture, keep the focus on them only, leave the team up build up stuff until after the credits like in IM1.

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.

 

[C. Lee]

Well...whenever I log in to my computer and check the news on MSN page and then go to IMDB there always seems to be some story on who's cast in this Marvel movie or that one. Talk of the upcoming movies are on more than comic geek sites.

 

[Figs]

They should be the sole picture, keep the focus on them only, leave the team up build up stuff until after the credits like in IM1.

I liked that Stark met up with Ross in the bar at the end of TIH. A lot of the GA won't stay until after the credits except for the small percentage that were with a friend or family member that's a fanboy like all of us. Putting it as the last scene was a good idea and didn't take away from the film since it was at the very end and it let the GA know that one character from another movie is in the same scene with a character from the movie they just watched.

Fanboys tend to think the GA are complete morons which isn't true. After seeing that scene I think most of them can figure things out. Then you add in the scenes from IM2 with S.H.I.E.L.D. and it really connects for them.

I also have to mention that i'm one of the fans that believes putting S.H.I.E.L.D. in IM2 didn't hurt the film. People are forgetting they were in it for roughly 3-5 minutes...that's nothing.

 

[TheShah]

You're young....I remember when studios turned out films and sequels to films all day long. There used to be sequels to all kinds of movies in lots of genres. It just seems that nowadays the sequels are generally saved for torture porn and whatever is the biggest hit of the summer. The fact that Marvel is willing to bet on thier movies and plan sequels for them is heartening to me.

"..young"
Thanks? lol

But you're right, looking back hoardes of films back in the day had sequels leading upto 4's and 5's.
Well I guess I meant more in principle than actual practise.
The reasoning behind a sequel should be to be able to further tell a story beyond what the first film may have done, not the pure monetary gains of it.
Even that, at the end of the day is fine, it is a business after all.

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.