Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Marvel's The Avengers' started by PowerPacked, Mar 15, 2012.
I thought it was that David Maisel fella that was at the root of the TIH debacle.
I liked Banner's tortured isolation.
But heart rate causing a Hulk out? Consciously causing a Hulk out at will by raising your heart rate?
No, that's not Hulk. That's Hulk in name only. Like i said, he's not Billy Batson where he can yell out "SHAZAM!" and turn into a superhero.
Joss Whedon agrees with me, and apparently we are getting the best live action version of the Hulk ever seen.
Well said. The entire heart rate thing from TIH never gelled with me.
That's a misconception created by the press. Maisel's one of many fools that supported Feige's plans for TIH. As Chairman, Maisel could have intervened & said "Hey, what the **** are you doing cutting out all the pathos this guy worked so hard to build for this character?"
Instead he stood by Feige.
It was Feige who began assuming control of the Marvel Studios pictures after TIH creatively. During IM2 he pretty much walked all over Favreau & made sure after that film that whatever came next would grant him the "Showrunner" approach to producing - in an effort to avoid any kind of auteur method by directors (hence the uninspired nature of Thor & Cap).
That's Kevin Feige for ya'. The moment he took control, down is the direction in quality the Marvel Studios pictures took.
Hopefully Avengers is a return to Iron Man-level quality. From all these positive reviews, it seems to be.
If it wasn't for Kevin Feige, the MCU and Avengers wouldn't exist. There has been sacrifices along the way, but he deserves respect. He's not just some meddling exec like Tom Rothman who doesn't have any passion for comics or the characters.
Fiege has definately done more harm than good, sure he's done things we disagree with as with all execs but looking at the picture I'd say he's done a commendable job.
Feige is definitely a valuable and welcome partner to Marvel Studios. He's helped realized these heroes in ways that I've personally have found to be everything I ever wanted from these Marvel characters and then some.
The amount of guts it took to get to where we are now is groundbreaking. What's being achieved certainly in my view is a historic moment within the superhero/comic book adaptation field in general.
Shattering those preconceived obsidian ceilings put by all the skeptics is an accomplishment which shows the unprecedented amount of dedication invested in these movies.
Comic accurate? Prob not.
Did it work? Mos Def.
For further reference, see this here:
This is a huge misconception here on these boards that not enough people take the time to rectify.
You wanna thank somebody? Thank Jon Favreau. He's the reason all of this happened. He made a film with heart & intelligence that made so much money - it consolidated the notion of Marvel as a film studio.
Without Favreau's stellar Iron Man movie, no Marvel Studios & no MCU.
Ironically, if Feige like Maisel had left the studio, we woulda gotten more than just one truly great Marvel Studios picture prior to The Avengers.
Also, even if you hate Rothman for X3 & Origins, the studio has still managed to deliver 3 of the most important films in the genre, films that not only established it (X1), but elevated it (X2) and later allowed it to progress after a 3 year dry spell (First Class).
Marvel Studios (Jon Favreau) gave us Iron Man. One great film. No other endeavor on their part has done anything for the CBM genre nor the medium - though I hope The Avengers will be their second great film.
Interesting points. Something I'll have to think over and talk to the wife about. She's not particular found of action/violence in entertainment.
100% agree and hopeful.
This is laughable. The Incredible Hulk's mischaracterisation didn't work, did it? Otherwise it would have a sequel, or at least, the Hulk in Avengers would be portrayed in the same way.
He's not getting a sequel. The Hulk in Avengers is not being portrayed in the same way.
So unfortunately for you, your preference to "Hulk in name only" leaves you in a very small and unimportant minority. Contrary to your belief, your opinion in this case, is not the right one, is not the one that works best. And frankly, the idea of Banner being able to turn Hulk on and off at will is incredibly shallow and eliminates what makes the character interesting and more than a plot device that smashes stuff. So... there you go.
And yes Favs deserves a lot of credit. But he wasn't the one with the vision to have a series of interconnecting stories that build up to the Avengers. He wasn't the one liaising with all the different script writers and directors to make sure these stories linked up. He wasn't the one getting funds for a rookie studio that up until Disney bought them, had no margin for error and no real financial backing.
Don't blind yourself to reason and facts, it makes you look silly.
Okay, it's clear...we're sharing the same mind.
We'll know what Marvel Studios thinks of Favreau with Iron Man 3. He has to return as Hogan...
Hence the smart way they reintroduce Banner and Hulk in Thor, with this version in Avengers being kind of a reboot/last ditch effort to portray Hulk in a way to satisfy fans.
But if Favreau doesn't nail that first Iron Man picture, there's no MCU. Don't diminish Favreau. He found the star of the MCU in Downey Jr. Remember, they didn't want him at the outset.
I agree that THOR could've been longer, CA:TFA could've had a better third act, TIH would've been better with the deleted scenes etc.
However, despite their flaws each one of those films have treat those characters with the respect and faithfulness they deserve. The characterization was almost spot on and we were given great peformances from pretty much all of the films' main characters.
So as a fan of these characters I can't but appreciate the dedication and effort Marvel Studios has put into making them come to life.
Reintroduce Hulk in Thor? What? And it's not to satisfy fans, it's to satisfy everyone. Going from the reviews and crowd reports, where Banner/Hulk is being spoke of as a show stealer, seems they've done their job.
I'm not diminishing Favs, at all. I love the guy. But whose idea was it to put that Fury scene in Iron Man? Wasn't Favs.
But you shouldn't be diminishing Feige. Fact is, the MCU wouldn't exist, Avengers wouldn't be happening, and Feige wouldn't be in the running to become the head of Disney if he was doing something wrong.
Wouldn't their job be to ensure that the entire team "steal the show"?
So you're supporting your argument by bringing up the fact that a sequel was never greenlit? You realize Kevin Feige greenlights these movies now, right?
You also realize that TIH didn't fail commercially because of its quality, but rather due to its terrible marketing & poor release date? It was set in between IM, Indy IV & TDK with less than 4 months of trailers & media coverage.
If anyone's blind here its you & this way of thinking that I still to this day cannot understand.
You're an inch away from comparing the strategy for the MCU to J.R.R. Tolkien's architectural design to writing.
You think its some kind of genius concept to give Nick Fury a cameo at the end of an already near-perfect Iron Man movie? To give Tony Stark a cameo at the end of a great Hulk movie? To turn a sequel to Iron Man into a SHIELD meet and greet? To place an unidentified Hawkeye in the middle of Thor's existential breakdown?
Its not brilliant writing nor an example of great vision.
Its just a bunch of useless cameos that ruined some of those films.
And get your facts straight regarding the money behind Iron Man. Avi Arad brokered all those deals. Not Kevin Feige.
Sometimes I read stuff like this & I wonder if people even know why they defend Kevin Feige.
You clearly have no clue as to what he's done for this franchise.
Dude, the reference by Selvig in Thor was a way to reintroduce Banner in the MCU. Remember, SHIELD didn't show up at all in the Incredible Hulk. But that's how Selvig references the character. "SHIELD showed up and he was never heard from again."
Yep. Yep. And more yep.
Well considering Hulk could be perceived as toxic after two disappointing, critically and financially, movies, he was the one they had to dig up out of the doldrums. The fact that they've made a character that no one gave a **** about into one of the biggest highlights of the film is no small feat.
It wasn't the fact that no one gave a **** about Hulk as an individual, it was more along the lines of no one cared about Ang's Hulk and in turn were hesitant to give TIH a chance.
That & what I mentioned above. Less than 4 months of mass exposure & a release date crushed by cinematic titans.
TIH failed because people were uninterested in Hulk and Bruce Banner. You can go on about bad marketing, poor release date all you want. Fact is, if it was a good movie, it would have had good WOM. It didn't, and ended up making about 10 million more than Ang's despite inflation.
IM2 a SHIELD meet and greet? SHIELD didn't even turn up until about an hour and 20 minutes into the film. And a shady government agency having an interest in a person like Tony Stark, and an interest in strange phenomena like in Thor makes sense. If that was real life it would be the CIA or FBI. In the MCU, it's SHIELD.
It is an example of great vision, of great ambition. Feige was the guy who saw an opportunity to make something bigger than just solo stories that have no connection to each other. Sometimes the execution was off sure.
No, you don't. I've got info from insiders. The FACT is, the MCU wouldn't exist, Avengers wouldn't be happeing and Feige wouldn't be in the running to replace Rich Ross as head of Disney Entertainment if he was doing something wrong. ***** and moan all you want. You don't know the facts and your opinion is in a very small, and ultimately, unimportant minority.
The idea that you think Avi Arad is less of a meddling suit than Feige is utterly laughable, and kinda sad. If you knew any inside info you'd know that Avi Arad is poison. He might have got funding for the first Iron Man, but Feige did all the rest for the other movies. He was the one who convinced Disney to plow all this money into the MCU. He was the one who convinced them that the MCU and Avengers was plausible, could make tons of money and not just a fanboys pipe dream.
SHIELD was in TIH. How did you miss this? They were the ones tracking Banner and liaising with General Ross. Not to mention the experiment that made Banner into the Hulk was connected to the super soldier experiment that created Captain America.
Yep I think with a no baggage, a less conjested released and marketing similar to THOR and Cap's it could've easily done CA:TFA numbers or even more. Even before the first trailer the GA was more excited for Hulk than any other character in TA just because he's the Hulk.
Were they referenced as SHIELD in the film? No. It was strictly military. SHIELD is referenced in every MCU by NAME except for Incredible Hulk.