Sequels Rotating the Roster?

[Dark Raven]

Another thing fans need to understand is that the Avengers won't become a full fledged team until the end of the film, I think they deserve atleast sequel where they're a team from start to finish before any major roster changes.

A couple of additional members and maybe one member leaving would be fine, but basically the same team as the first film.

Yeah, the X-Men movies weren't really origin movies whereas the Avengers is (an origin of the team if not origin of each character). So I think people would like to see the same team in the next film, but just adding a few new people, not an entire roster change.

 

[BigThor]

Yeah, the X-Men movies weren't really origin movies whereas the Avengers is (an origin of the team if not origin of each character). So I think people would like to see the same team in the next film, but just adding a few new people, not an entire roster change.

Yep, people are so anxious to see new heroes that they forget that these characters need time to gain familiarity with audiences and become an efficient team before any major roster changes.

 

[cherokeesam]

That's because most of the characters no one cared about. They were stock characters talked in group shots and did their job. There's no way Don Cheadle's character was as interesting as Clooney, Pitt or Damon's. He wasn't intended to be. He was a minor character. All the rest were.

Avengers is different. It knows the audience already cares about each of the characters (except Hawkeye, but that'll change once it comes out), and it respects all of them, so they all have arcs and time to shine and more or less equal screen time. If you have all these characters that people care about, and then you bringing them on screen just to shortchange them, it's gonna bring a lot different reaction than seeing a minor character in Oceans 11 and finding out he's still, obviously, a minor character in Oceans 12.



They still have to have an arc though, or become cameos with little to no screen time like the Oceans 13 characters. If you have a 'smaller' movie like is planned for Avengers, then you don't actually have any additional time if you keep the initial team, because they all have personal arcs you're going to get into.



Rogue, Iceman and The Professor are X-Men in the comics, but they were not in the films. By the time we got to Last Stand there were six X-Men, one of which didn't even have any lines in the film. The films were basically Wolverine movies, with a lot of cameos and a couple actual secondary characters who mattered. Like the Ocean's 11 movies, actually. Because Avengers is doing it right and starting as an actual ensemble, I don't think regressing to the Oceans 11 model (2-3 important heroes, and a number of one-dimensional ones) will work, particularly because attachment to the characters is what helps suspend disbelief at their incredible abilities.

I understand what you're saying, and I love character development and arcs as much as the next guy, but I think it's the nature of an ensemble film that you throw all that out the window. Instead, an ensemble film is about a group of "stock characters," as you call them, and the film dynamic comes from their interactions with each other. You see that in team action films (Dirty Dozen, Wild Bunch, Ocean's Eleven), disaster movies (The Poseidon Adventure, 2012), anywhere there's an ensemble. Hell, I'm sure we'll see that in The Avengers, too --- everything I've seen and heard so far tells me that Widow and Hawkeye are marginalized in favor of face time for the "Big Three" (or Big Four, depending on how much they're giving to RuffaloHulk).

Even without knowing the characters at all, general audiences are savvy enough to buy into stock descriptions in an ensemble cast. Okay, this guy is the brick, this guy is the brainiac, this guy is the goody two-shoes, etc. They get that without having to spend a lot of time developing each character.


Not to belabor a point, though, but I'm still thinking that you and I saw different X-Men movies....I still don't understand why you don't consider Rogue, Iceman, Prof X, etc. to be X-Men....

 

[Dark Raven]

I understand what you're saying, and I love character development and arcs as much as the next guy, but I think it's the nature of an ensemble film that you throw all that out the window. Instead, an ensemble film is about a group of "stock characters," as you call them, and the film dynamic comes from their interactions with each other. You see that in team action films (Dirty Dozen, Wild Bunch, Ocean's Eleven), disaster movies (The Poseidon Adventure, 2012), anywhere there's an ensemble. Hell, I'm sure we'll see that in The Avengers, too --- everything I've seen and heard so far tells me that Widow and Hawkeye are marginalized in favor of face time for the "Big Three" (or Big Four, depending on how much they're giving to RuffaloHulk).

Even without knowing the characters at all, general audiences are savvy enough to buy into stock descriptions in an ensemble cast. Okay, this guy is the brick, this guy is the brainiac, this guy is the goody two-shoes, etc. They get that without having to spend a lot of time developing each character.


Not to belabor a point, though, but I'm still thinking that you and I saw different X-Men movies....I still don't understand why you don't consider Rogue, Iceman, Prof X, etc. to be X-Men....

All the examples you've cited are films where none of the characters existed in movies of their own beforehand. They were ensemble movies where these people came together for the first time and didn't have a life prior to that. We didn't know the names or background of any of these characters from The Poseidon Adventure, The Dirty Dozen, Oceans 11 etc. Did anyone care about the exploits of characters like Danny Ocean, Linus Caldwell, the Malloy brothers or "The Amazing" Yen before they assembled for Ocean's 11?

They are decidely different from something like The Avengers, which is a first for this type of crossover event where everyone has either had their own movie or already appeared in a previous movie.

So your idea to throw all character develoment out the window doesn't quite apply in this case. The Avengers aren't stock characters but people that the audiences are already familiar with and care about.

 

[DrCosmic]

I understand what you're saying, and I love character development and arcs as much as the next guy, but I think it's the nature of an ensemble film that you throw all that out the window. Instead, an ensemble film is about a group of "stock characters," as you call them, and the film dynamic comes from their interactions with each other. You see that in team action films (Dirty Dozen, Wild Bunch, Ocean's Eleven), disaster movies (The Poseidon Adventure, 2012), anywhere there's an ensemble. Hell, I'm sure we'll see that in The Avengers, too --- everything I've seen and heard so far tells me that Widow and Hawkeye are marginalized in favor of face time for the "Big Three" (or Big Four, depending on how much they're giving to RuffaloHulk).

Even without knowing the characters at all, general audiences are savvy enough to buy into stock descriptions in an ensemble cast. Okay, this guy is the brick, this guy is the brainiac, this guy is the goody two-shoes, etc. They get that without having to spend a lot of time developing each character.


Not to belabor a point, though, but I'm still thinking that you and I saw different X-Men movies....I still don't understand why you don't consider Rogue, Iceman, Prof X, etc. to be X-Men....

They didn't wear suits, they didn't go on missions. Why do you consider them X-Men in the first film?

Whedon says it's a full ensemble. (Meaning not the Ensemble in Name only of Oceans 11/Expendables). So, even though BW and Hawkeye are marginalized to a degree, even in the previews, we see that they have real character arcs. There are no stock characters on the Avengers. If Avengers 2 is a smaller more character-centric movie, what makes you think that would change?

It's never an issue of savvyness. It's not about the audience 'understanding' comic book psuedoscience, it's about them caring about characters when you rapidly remove them from human experience and audience investment.

 

[cherokeesam]

All the examples you've cited are films where none of the characters existed in movies of their own beforehand. They were ensemble movies where these people came together for the first time and didn't have a life prior to that. We didn't know the names or background of any of these characters from The Poseidon Adventure, The Dirty Dozen, Oceans 11 etc. Did anyone care about the exploits of characters like Danny Ocean, Linus Caldwell, the Malloy brothers or "The Amazing" Yen before they assembled for Ocean's 11?

They are decidely different from something like The Avengers, which is a first for this type of crossover event where everyone has either had their own movie or already appeared in a previous movie.

So your idea to throw all character develoment out the window doesn't quite apply in this case. The Avengers aren't stock characters but people that the audiences are already familiar with and care about.

Not necessarily. We've already discussed ad infinitum the highest/lowest-common-denominator factor in Avengers on these boards --- in other words, you can't assume that Avengers audiences saw all the prequels....or *any* of them, in fact. Whedon and Marvel are counting on the fact that there's going to be lots of people in the audience who never saw the lead-ins....otherwise, you go back to the argument that this movie can't have a bigger b.o. than its highest common denominator (i.e., Iron Man).

 

[DrCosmic]

And again, audiences are put off by super powered characters that they don't care about. People not seeing the lead ins is part of why Avengers has character arcs for all the Avengers, and Nick Fury too. So they can care instead of feeling like some random plot device has been thrown in to destroy the tension and add a bunch of 'yeah, but...' quesitons. This is why they'll continue to have character arcs for all characters, and not just assume, like Green Lantern did, that the audiences already care, or that if they can understand it, they'll like it.

 

[cherokeesam]

And again, audiences are put off by super powered characters that they don't care about. People not seeing the lead ins is part of why Avengers has character arcs for all the Avengers, and Nick Fury too. So they can care instead of feeling like some random plot device has been thrown in to destroy the tension and add a bunch of 'yeah, but...' quesitons. This is why they'll continue to have character arcs for all characters, and not just assume, like Green Lantern did, that the audiences already care, or that if they can understand it, they'll like it.

I certainly understand (and agree with) the need for character arcs in the initial Avengers film, because you might as well consider that an origins film. Even though at least 4 of the characters have already had their origin stories told, this is the first time they come together as a team, so you pretty much *have* to introduce and re-introduce the characters, and give them a story arc that brings them together as a team by movie's end.

But I *don't* agree that Avengers 2 and future sequels needs to go back through that again and again, nor does it need to establish story arcs for Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor and the other Founders (at least, the MCU version of the Founders). Reason being: franchise characters do *not* work well with story arcs. Audiences *want* to see franchise characters retain their same attitude and persona from beginning to end, because that's what they bought into. In other words, nobody wants to see James Bond or Indiana Jones or Spider-Man be anyone else but James Bond, Indiana Jones or Spider-Man. You start trying to throw an arc in there and give them a personality "growth" or change, and your audiences will revolt against the franchise. Same goes for Avengers sequels.

 

[Dark Raven]

I certainly understand (and agree with) the need for character arcs in the initial Avengers film, because you might as well consider that an origins film. Even though at least 4 of the characters have already had their origin stories told, this is the first time they come together as a team, so you pretty much *have* to introduce and re-introduce the characters, and give them a story arc that brings them together as a team by movie's end.

But I *don't* agree that Avengers 2 and future sequels needs to go back through that again and again, nor does it need to establish story arcs for Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor and the other Founders (at least, the MCU version of the Founders). Reason being: franchise characters do *not* work well with story arcs. Audiences *want* to see franchise characters retain their same attitude and persona from beginning to end, because that's what they bought into. In other words, nobody wants to see James Bond or Indiana Jones or Spider-Man be anyone else but James Bond, Indiana Jones or Spider-Man. You start trying to throw an arc in there and give them a personality "growth" or change, and your audiences will revolt against the franchise. Same goes for Avengers sequels.

All three Spider-Man films had character arcs and Peter went through a journey in them in which he wasn't the same person exactly as he was when he started that journey. Sam Raimi even said that he based the villains on who best fit those character arcs. I didn't see any audiences revolting against this.

I'm sure the same approach is taken by Marc Webb for The Amazing Spider-Man.

And as for James Bond, since the reboot with Casino Royale, he's been given a character arc where he is allowed to grow and change. They got tired of doing the static Bond who never develops and is basically a cardboard superhero. Far from revolting, audiences seem to like Daniel Craig and this new approach.

So apart from Indiana Jones, the characters you list don't fit with your argument.

 

[cherokeesam]

All three Spider-Man films had character arcs and Peter went through a journey in them in which he wasn't the same person exactly as he was when he started that journey. Sam Raimi even said that he based the villains on who best fit those character arcs. I didn't see any audiences revolting against this.

I'm sure the same approach is taken by Marc Webb for The Amazing Spider-Man.

And as for James Bond, since the reboot with Casino Royale, he's been given a character arc where he is allowed to grow and change. They got tired of doing the static Bond who never develops and is basically a cardboard superhero. Far from revolting, audiences seem to like Daniel Craig and this new approach.

So apart from Indiana Jones, the characters you list don't fit with your argument.

I'm sure Marc Webb will give Parker a great story arc, just like Raimi did in Spidey 1, because both of those are origin films, and origin films necessarily create a story arc.

I do *not* agree that Parker followed any arc at all in Spidey 2; and the "arc" in Spidey 3 was entirely contrived by artifice, i.e., the black suit. Personality-wise, Parker remains Parker, beginning to end.

And I haven't seen *any* story arc for Craig as Bond. He's a different version of the character, with more ice in his veins than previous incarnations, but what kind of arc have you seen where he changes and grows and becomes a different person....? I didn't see any of that in CR or QOS.

 

[DrCosmic]

I certainly understand (and agree with) the need for character arcs in the initial Avengers film, because you might as well consider that an origins film. Even though at least 4 of the characters have already had their origin stories told, this is the first time they come together as a team, so you pretty much *have* to introduce and re-introduce the characters, and give them a story arc that brings them together as a team by movie's end.

But I *don't* agree that Avengers 2 and future sequels needs to go back through that again and again, nor does it need to establish story arcs for Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor and the other Founders (at least, the MCU version of the Founders). Reason being: franchise characters do *not* work well with story arcs. Audiences *want* to see franchise characters retain their same attitude and persona from beginning to end, because that's what they bought into. In other words, nobody wants to see James Bond or Indiana Jones or Spider-Man be anyone else but James Bond, Indiana Jones or Spider-Man. You start trying to throw an arc in there and give them a personality "growth" or change, and your audiences will revolt against the franchise. Same goes for Avengers sequels.

A character arc is just the character learning something and becoming better, from the film's terms, than they were before. It's not their persona or attitude changing. You put quotations around growth like you don't believe in it or something, that's really odd to me.

I think what you're seeing is that origin stories usually have much more dramatic character arcs than sequels. Usually the arc picks back up strong for the third one though, and there's always an arc, and it is hard to do, because you have to figure out how to add to the character without taking away what people like about them. But they do it all the time.

I'm sure Marc Webb will give Parker a great story arc, just like Raimi did in Spidey 1, because both of those are origin films, and origin films necessarily create a story arc.

I do *not* agree that Parker followed any arc at all in Spidey 2; and the "arc" in Spidey 3 was entirely contrived by artifice, i.e., the black suit. Personality-wise, Parker remains Parker, beginning to end.

And I haven't seen *any* story arc for Craig as Bond. He's a different version of the character, with more ice in his veins than previous incarnations, but what kind of arc have you seen where he changes and grows and becomes a different person....? I didn't see any of that in CR or QOS.

You may just not notice, but it certainly happened. In Spider-Man 2, Peter had to face and overcome his self confidence issues, and become the guy who would give up everything he wanted to save others. In Iron Man 2 Tony had to deal with daddy issues, and became capable of being in a real relationship. Craig's James Bond went from an ambitious agent to a romantic man in love to a heartless rage-fueled killer in Casino Royale. We'll not even touch Aragorn and Frodos immense arcs. Some people just go for the action, and to see comics brought to life, some people go for the story, characters and emotion. Big blockbusters, especially successful franchises, appeal to both, or they don't make bank. Even the mindless Transformers had Sam grow up in TF2 and learn humility in TF3.

Some films, like, Crank, or Predators, don't have character arcs, and they usually have much lower budgets, cuz they know they're basically only going to get the young men demo.

 

[Dark Raven]

A character arc is just the character learning something and becoming better, from the film's terms, than they were before. It's not their persona or attitude changing. You put quotations around growth like you don't believe in it or something, that's really odd to me.

I think what you're seeing is that origin stories usually have much more dramatic character arcs than sequels. Usually the arc picks back up strong for the third one though, and there's always an arc, and it is hard to do, because you have to figure out how to add to the character without taking away what people like about them. But they do it all the time.



You may just not notice, but it certainly happened. In Spider-Man 2, Peter had to face and overcome his self confidence issues, and become the guy who would give up everything he wanted to save others. In Iron Man 2 Tony had to deal with daddy issues, and became capable of being in a real relationship. Craig's James Bond went from an ambitious agent to a romantic man in love to a heartless rage-fueled killer in Casino Royale. We'll not even touch Aragorn and Frodos immense arcs. Some people just go for the action, and to see comics brought to life, some people go for the story, characters and emotion. Big blockbusters, especially successful franchises, appeal to both, or they don't make bank. Even the mindless Transformers had Sam grow up in TF2 and learn humility in TF3.

Some films, like, Crank, or Predators, don't have character arcs, and they usually have much lower budgets, cuz they know they're basically only going to get the young men demo.

I missed this thread yesterday so didn't reply to it, but yeah, pretty much all that Dr Cosmic said above outlines the character arcs. Also, in Spider-Man 2, there was this theme of growing up and taking responsibility, even when the right thing meant giving certain things up. Peter thought he was growing up and putting away childish things by giving up his Spider-Man identity (while he was losing his powers), but in the end it turned out that it wasn't the case. Yes, he's still Peter and hasn't turned into someone completely different by the end, but he has matured, gained a new perspective and is a somewhat different person to the one he started off with at the beginning of the movie.