Iron Man 2 SHIELD/Avengers complaints...

[Doc Samson]

The only Avengers stuff was the Cap shield and the final scene, which was basically a TIH scene. Why were people not complaining about Stark showing up in a Hulk movie? Yeah we didn't need SLJ there, but at least he helped drive the plot forward regarding helping Tony find the answer. My initial thoughts, when I heard the SHIELD was heavily involved, were that they were going to cut to scenes at SHIELD headquarters featuring all SHIELD members that set up Avengers threats and have nothing to do with IM and his main supporting characters. Once Rhodey took off I was like, "Let me load the gun and hoist it closer to my mouth" because I thought it would be a SHIELD movie right then and there. That was anything but the case.

This is what I'm trying to figure out, when it happened then it was the coolest thing ever, now it's not, a little under two years later?

 

[C. Lee]

This is what I'm trying to figure out, when it happened then it was the coolest thing ever, now it's not, a little under two years later?

It's typical for these boards...all you heard for years was how all the Marvel movies need to be in the same universe....now we get it....and lo and behold it's a problem.

 

[Iron_Stark]

It's typical for these boards...all you heard for years was how all the Marvel movies need to be in the same universe....now we get it....and lo and behold it's a problem.

lmao, that's so true.

 

[kaijunexus]

Frankly, I don't think that many people are complaining about it. I just think they're being very vocal. I'd like to believe that the vast majority of us are happy with the all-inclusive movieverse being set up.

 

[Figs]

But not Demon in a Bottle tone right? I could see what you mean if that's the case. But I think the film benefitted from not going down the straight up DIAB route.

I wouldn't have minded if they touched on it a little more. Like maybe have a serious scene of Tony drinking a mass amount of alcohol in his room before going to meet the guests for his birthday party. It would be cool if in that scene they had him drunkingly staring into a mirror like on the front of the comic.

Ultimately I would have rather had the more serious scenes(if they could have made the movie 5-10 minutes longer)involving the paladium poisoning. Someone in the past made a good point that Favreau pretty much replaced the alcohol threat from DIAB with the poisoning problem. I would have liked it even more if they had some more drama behind it moreso than the alcohol problem.

I almost don't want to watch the deleted scenes when it hits home video for fear that it may have some really good stuff on there like TIH had. Either way I still loved this movie and none of the stuff i'm *****ing about truly ruined it.

It's typical for these boards...all you heard for years was how all the Marvel movies need to be in the same universe....now we get it....and lo and behold it's a problem.

I swear, hardcore fanboys need to make an opinion and just stick with it. They flip-flop around too much.

The thing that cracks me up is all the complaints about how SHIELD is in the movie, not just too much but in the movie period. I won't get into the whole, "well SHIELD is a big part of IM's world in the comics too" because enough fans like myself have stressed that point out.

Why I find the complaints funny is because it wasn't just to solely tie into the Avengers film. Those scenes served a purpose in relation to this specific movie. Stark didn't have the knowledge his Dad found in regards to the new element so he had no real way of fighting off the poison. SHIELD being hi-tech and very knowledgable having been around for quite some time, came in to give Tony that temporary medicine to help him out and since Fury is interested in Tony joining the team because of the IM suit, he also wanted to wake Tony up because of his irresponsibility and letting one of his suits(which Fury recognizes can be dangerous of course)get taken from him.

The other scene was important because Fury decided to let Tony in on some stuff his Dad knew and discovered. Why does this tie into this specific movie's story? It ties in because, simply put, Fury wants Stark/IM to join the Avengers but needs him to get over the poison so he gives him his Dad's info to help him discover it. Now Fury could have easily done it for him but he obviously wanted Tony to get to know his father a bit better.

The only scene that I would consider more of a full on tie-in for the Avengers would be the very last one since they are in fact going over his eligibility for the team.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Of course I don't want the focus taken away from the main 4, but with Iron Man 2 ending and saying that Tony basically isn't qualified for the Avengers, I wanna see why he gets to join the team after all in the Movie and not just have him a full fledged member from the start, even though they said he can't be part of the team.

There doesn't even need to be much focus on Rhodey, he could be treated like a soldier in a suit, who gets advice and orders from Tony. Rhodey could even be taken out quickly, if you have him get severly injured on their first mission, so ge can't resume duty.

It just would make sense from a story standpoint. They have the suit, they want Iron Man on the team, but not Tony. Do you think Fury would say "Ok, since Stark won't be part of the team, we're not going to have an armored member on the team at all, even though he would be highly valuable on the field. Doesn't matter if anyone could wear the armor."

Yeah that's what I'm thinking... maybe Norton/Hulk (hopefully) cripples WM in Act 1, and Stark has to fill in. I want to see IM vs the Hulk at some point though so if IM is largely absent in the beginning we may not get that. However, I don't think Thor or Cap should be in it right off the bat either in terms of action.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I wouldn't have minded if they touched on it a little more. Like maybe have a serious scene of Tony drinking a mass amount of alcohol in his room before going to meet the guests for his birthday party. It would be cool if in that scene they had him drunkingly staring into a mirror like on the front of the comic.

Ultimately I would have rather had the more serious scenes(if they could have made the movie 5-10 minutes longer)involving the paladium poisoning. Someone in the past made a good point that Favreau pretty much replaced the alcohol threat from DIAB with the poisoning problem. I would have liked it even more if they had some more drama behind it moreso than the alcohol problem.

I almost don't want to watch the deleted scenes when it hits home video for fear that it may have some really good stuff on there like TIH had. Either way I still loved this movie and none of the stuff i'm *****ing about truly ruined it.

But they would have to be really careful they don't go too far. Part of the great thing of these films is the fact that it doesn't need to go too dark. Tony downing alcohol in a PG-13 film that kids see is a little too much. Actually it's not even the fact about kids, it's the established tone I think that's most important. But I think they could have given Rhodey a little more to do, so scenes like this could have been good for him and Tony. Maybe just one scene of Rhodey and Tony talking about Tony's problem in context with the film.

 

[hatebox]

What strikes me as a little odd about Marvel's obsession with Avengers is that it really won't make much more money than the single superhero films. The demographic watching these movies is exactly the same. It's not like Avengers will make 2 or 3 times as much.

 

[roach]

How do you know that??

 

[hatebox]

How do you know that??

Because to think it will is to think it's going to make at least $1.5 billion worldwide, given IM2 will make at least $700m.

Don't think so somehow.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Who cares? Avengers is just another franchise. The way the Marvel movieverse works, one franchise promotes the other and they all promote the Avengers. Then each movie promotes Marvel comics and Marvel merchandise.

Furthermore, the Avengers is bound to have many superheroes as guest stars. Not only will they be able to evaluate them for potential movies of their own, but also sell merchandise, promote their comic books, etc.

If it works it will not only benefit the franchise in itself, but every other movie and comic book of Marvel's.

 

[hatebox]

What's more interesting to me is seeing when superhero fatigue kicks in. I can't blame Marvel for wanting to make money, but their glut of genre films and the rate at which they're spewing them out will make it inevitable.

 

[Infinity9999x]

What strikes me as a little odd about Marvel's obsession with Avengers is that it really won't make much more money than the single superhero films. The demographic watching these movies is exactly the same. It's not like Avengers will make 2 or 3 times as much.

It depends. If Thor or Cap reach IM popularity with the general public, then the movie is going to be huge on the draw that two immensely popular characters are going to be in one movie. That alone guarantees that it's going to have a gigantic opening weekend, even if the movie sucks. And if the movie is decent, or even if it's good, it'll make a crap ton.

However, a lot is riding on the upcoming movies. Specifically, the Captain America movie. People have to like Cap, like him enough to be okay with him leading the Avengers and being the leader of RDJ.

But like I said, if Thor or Cap hit IM level popularity, the movie will be huge.

 

[Mr. Earle]

What's more interesting to me is seeing when superhero fatigue kicks in. I can't blame Marvel for wanting to make money, but their glut of genre films and the rate at which they're spewing them out will make it inevitable.

Superhero fatigue will come no matter what. Its not just Superman, Batman, GL, Ironman, Cap, Thor, etc. Its also Jonah hex, Kick ass, and all the other smaller superhero movie franchises. Superheroes are the cool thing now. I am sure that in a few years both them and vampires will fade back to obscurity because of all the overexposure.

 

[Figs]

However, a lot is riding on the upcoming movies. Specifically, the Captain America movie. People have to like Cap, like him enough to be okay with him leading the Avengers and being the leader of RDJ.

But like I said, if Thor or Cap hit IM level popularity, the movie will be huge.

Agreed! If the general audience likes Thor and Cap a lot, when they see that trailer with Thor, IM, Cap, the Hulk as well as Sam mother ****ing Jackson in the same film...they're going to flip their lid.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Superhero fatigue will come no matter what. Its not just Superman, Batman, GL, Ironman, Cap, Thor, etc. Its also Jonah hex, Kick ass, and all the other smaller superhero movie franchises. Superheroes are the cool thing now. I am sure that in a few years both them and vampires will fade back to obscurity because of all the overexposure.

I'm not saying I don't think Superhero fatigue will happen, but the thing the genre has going for it, unlike, say, westerns, is the versatility of it. TDK is much different from IM, which is different from Watchmen which is different from Kickass. And then you have all those superhero/comic movies that nobody realizes are comic movies, like Men In Black, The Mask, A History of Violence, Road to Perdition, ect. ect.

That might be the one thing that keeps the genre alive, since they can be so different. Still, I think Superhero fatigue will eventually come.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Avengers will be an event. A culmination. Unless Thor or Cap are disasters, it should make HUGE money. Well over any IM film. The sequels not so much. As far as oversaturation, the problem is all the other properties floating around at Fox/Sony that is causing all these films to be released at the same time. Once Marvel manages to get most of their properties in house, they can move on to smaller films, with maybe one tentpole a year. When you start releasing 3-4 superhero movies in the summer, there is a major problem. I see no problem with two Marvel movies and a DC movie every year, as long as they are spread out and not all released in the summer. You just have to even it out.

 

[Doc Samson]

Avengers will be an event. A culmination. Unless Thor or Cap are disasters, it should make HUGE money. Well over any IM film. The sequels not so much. As far as oversaturation, the problem is all the other properties floating around at Fox/Sony that is causing all these films to be released at the same time. Once Marvel manages to get most of their properties in house, they can move on to smaller films, with maybe one tentpole a year. When you start releasing 3-4 superhero movies in the summer, there is a major problem. I see no problem with two Marvel movies and a DC movie every year, as long as they are spread out and not all released in the summer. You just have to even it out.

Another solid point, and one that I've been making for awhile myself. The potential issue with this genre is the anticipation, warranted or unwarranted, that every new superhero flick will be a rousing summer popcorn flick, or even that it needs to be.

IMO, movies like Kick-ass or Wanted, the smaller property superhero movies, don't even need to be released around the summer, because no matter the quality, they just don't have that name recognition anyway. Even the Batman or X-men franchises could have gotten away from it if they really wanted to, but in those cases, I can understand the reasoning behind it.

Point being, when you release a comic film, especially in the summer, there's almost a cliche' blueprint that you have to follow in order to be successful. The smaller properties, along with the comics with darker themes, would do well to distance themselves from those expectations. There's no doubt in my mind Ang Lee's Hulk, Watchmen or even Daredevil would have been received differently if people (including critics) weren't expecting the typical popcorn summer movie

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Avengers will be an event. A culmination. Unless Thor or Cap are disasters, it should make HUGE money. Well over any IM film. The sequels not so much. As far as oversaturation, the problem is all the other properties floating around at Fox/Sony that is causing all these films to be released at the same time. Once Marvel manages to get most of their properties in house, they can move on to smaller films, with maybe one tentpole a year. When you start releasing 3-4 superhero movies in the summer, there is a major problem. I see no problem with two Marvel movies and a DC movie every year, as long as they are spread out and not all released in the summer. You just have to even it out.

I still wish WB would release Green Lantern in the Winter

 

[kedrell]

I've been hearing worry-warts and naysayers talk about superhero fatigue for a decade now. Where is it? I don't deny that it is possible(like western fatigue before it) but as Infinity9999X said, superhero films are far more versatile than westerns could ever be(since westerns are locked into a specific place and time period). And westerns took the better part of a century to run their course. I think we're going to be seeing superhero films for a very long time yet and that's something every fan of this film genre should be happy about.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I'm sorry to break it to you Kendrell, but there is no way Hollywood is getting away with this for another 10-15 years unless they re-think the strategy before it is too late. People are going to be interested in Thor, Cap, maybe GL because they are fresh takes and all, you got Avengers and BB3 coming, no doubt we are good until 2012. But once the Spidey reboot rolls around and reaches nowhere near the potential it has in the past, there is going to be an issue with saturation. General folk will be like, "why the **** do we need another Spidey movie about high school no less". It's fine if Sony could sit on it a few more years when interests wanes, but they can't. X-Men prequel, same ****. No way its going to be a revolutionary X film. Just rehashing what the GA can easily read between the lines. Praise the lord we actually get a decent X4-6 from either Marvel/Fox once Fox runs the franchise dry with these prequels and Wolverine movies. I know it's not Marvel's fault, but it is what it is. They would have been better off postponing these projects from Sony/Fox and extending their license so these movies would not conflict. And I think Disney will have serious issues finding tentpole material beyond Avengers, and there is no reason to believe it will be a sustainable franchise if its a new cast of characters every time out. Sure you can do C-listers, but the best material will long be exhausted.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I'm sorry to break it to you Kendrell, but there is no way Hollywood is getting away with this for another 10-15 years unless they re-think the strategy before it is too late. People are going to be interested in Thor, Cap, maybe GL because they are fresh takes and all, you got Avengers and BB3 coming, no doubt we are good until 2012. But once the Spidey reboot rolls around and receives nowhere near the potential it has in the past, there is going to be an issue with saturation. General folk will be like, "why the **** do we need another Spidey movie about high school no less". It's fine if Sony could sit on it a few more years when interests wanes, but they can't. X-Men prequel, same ****. No way its going to be a revolutionary X film. Just rehashing what the GA can easily read between the lines. Praise the lord we actually get a decent X4-6 from either Marvel/Fox once Fox runs the franchise dry with these prequels and Wolverine movies. I know it's not Marvel's fault, but it is what it is. They would have been better off postponing these projects from Sony/Fox and extending their license so these movies would not conflict. And I think Disney will have serious issues finding tentpole material beyond Avengers, and there is no reason to believe it will be a sustainable franchise if its a new cast of characters every time out. Sure you can do C-listers, but the best material will long be exhausted.

I can see a lot of your points, but I also think you're doing a lot of assuming. The Spidey reboot for example. I actually think that could be fine, especially if they actually let Spider-man act like Spider-man (what a novel idea right?)

However, even if it's good, it's going to get destroyed unless it moves farther away from Avengers and B3. Those two movies are going to be cinema tanks, and there's no way the SM reboot could stand a chance, even if it's good. It's going to be the Hulk effect. TIH wasn't that bad. But it had poor placement (being close to Indy 4) and the bad buzz from the last movie hurt it pretty badly. Same with Batman Begins (in regards to the bad buzz).

 

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah... it doesn't matter how good it is, you can't release Spidey anywhere near those properties right now like you said. Maybe the following winter but then again, Supes could be lurking there (go figure). The point is, there should never be a year where Spidey is second fiddle. There shouldn't be a year where Hulk is second fiddle. These are A-listers and if you give them movies, they HAVE to be the main attraction or priority that season, for the genre. Now DC vs Marvel, I get that competition is inevitable. But I knew these leases would get Marvel into major trouble long term. Of course they aren't losing anything short term as far as making money, but these properties will be dirt poor once they come back, for the simple fact that they weren't even the priority superheros that given year.

 

[Rock Sexton]

What's more interesting to me is seeing when superhero fatigue kicks in. I can't blame Marvel for wanting to make money, but their glut of genre films and the rate at which they're spewing them out will make it inevitable.

2 Superhero films a year will result in fatigue?

Your logic in this thread is elusive.

 

[Figs]

Like Infinity9999x said, the Spider-Man reboot is going to get owned if it doesn't move it's release date. You have the Avengers film which is being built up from all these other Marvel films and as I said before, when the audience who doesn't get all these connections surprisingly sees this trailer with all 4 of those guys and Sam Jackson I guarantee it's going to be big.

Then you have B3, which is coming off the sequel TDK, which made a **** ton of money. People will be hyped for that as well.

They better pull some good moves for this next S-M film.