The Avengers The Avengers: News and Speculation - Part 27A sub-se - - - Part 12

[BobbyCorwin88]

Iron Man was just as predictable. They're all equally predictable plot-wise.

True, but Iron Man kept me more engaged with its plot. The characters really drove the story and the film took the time to explore their sub-plots with a fair amount of detail. This is true with both IM and IM2. I felt like Thor and Cap didn't take the proper time to explore the world and characters around the two of them and that's why it became more of a waiting game until the next big action sequence. I could predict what would happen with IM, but because the story was being told so well it didn't matter. Thor and Cap didn't do that quite as well.

I'd argue that none of Iron Man's side characters save Pepper were fully fleshed out either. That's the nature of the beast- they don't need to be. They offer just enough to enhance the story and drive the plot forward and that's all we need to ask from them.

I'm not sure I agree. I agree that they serve to drive the plot, but they're also called supporting characters. They're meant to support our main character either for good or bad. They can only do that if they're given the proper amount of screen time and back story. Rhodey was a fully-realized character in both films and that's impressive seeing as how he was played by two different actors. We knew who he was, what he stood for and why he wanted to help and support Tony. He even took matters in his own hands when he realized Tony couldn't do it himself. I felt that Justin Hammer, Ivan Vanko, Obadiah Stain and the 10 rings were all equally fleshed out villains as well. They had an agenda, they were engaging throughout and they were believable characters. And let's not forget Yen Sid! What a great supporting role!

Tony & Pepper were fully realized characters in the Iron Man films, Thor & Loki in Thor, Cap & Peggy in CA. Everyone else offered enough and the actors were talented enough that the films felt complete even if the characters weren't.

I'm sorry, but I feel differently. The Iron Man films did have very fleshed out characters and that's why the films did so well IMO. Thor and Cap focused highly on their mains and gave very little attention to the supporting, which I feel hurt the story's progression.

The Warriors 3 felt a little too campy to me and they never really sold me on who they were. I love the whole Norse Gods gleefully going into battle thing, and it was there for a little bit, but it they never engaged me. I felt like they could be any Asgardian friends of Thor and not really anyone special. Same thing with Jane Foster and her gang. Thor's time on Earth I felt didn't work as well as it should have. His romance with Jane didn't make sense. I never felt that there was any one thing in their interaction together that suggested a romance. I saw admiration, but not love. I felt like the role was wasted on Natalie Portman, it felt too simple.

Same story with Cap. I loved Steve, Peggy and Col. Phillips on the screen and I really liked Doctor Erskine. I was genuinely upset when they

Spoiler

killed him

because I was very invested in his character. I started liking Bucky, but then

Spoiler

he got killed in a very abrupt manner. I expected Cap to respond to that very differently than he did in the film and that's upsetting.

The Howling Commandos suffered from the same problem as the Warriors 3. I think I heard Dum Dum Dugan's name once and it was only in passing. I realize we don't have to know everything about these guys, but I'd at least like to know their names. They could have been any random soldier and it wouldn't have made a difference. And why did they decide to cruise through their missions together in a montage segment? All they needed to do was showcase one complete mission with the guys working together and that would've been enough. It didn't show much investment at all in the supporting cast. I felt like Howard Stark was more of a glorified cameo as well.

Again, Thor and Cap are entertaining movies and I'm happy they've done well enough to get the public's attention. I certainly think they could have done more and that they're very obviously lacking in a few departments.

Once you talk them into seeing Thor and CA I'm sure they'll love them, too. The Iron Man films were more popular due to RDJ, not because they were less "safe".

I want to believe you, but considering how long it took for them to see Iron Man after it came out on DVD, I think it's gonna take even longer for Thor and Cap.

 

[Chewy]

The Thor/Jane romance was just what you describe it to be.. admiration. A mutual admiration and interest between two individuals. To play it off as though they were deeply in love after only a few days would have been disingenuous.

You pick out the Commandos and the Warriors, who were the most minor of supporting characters. Yes, Yinsen and Rhodey were great but ultimately they were no better developed than Odin, Heimdall, Col Phillips or Dr Erskine were. All were supporting characters played brilliantly by brilliant actors and all of them worked both as individuals and as plot devices. Yes there were more characters (like the Warriors or Commandos) who had very limited screen time and development but that's because there were more characters full stop.

Cap's response to Bucky's death was truncated because he had a responsibility to his country. There's no way around that, he had to stop the Red Skull and that's what he did. That's the story that was being told. When

Spoiler

Winter Soldier

comes into play the emotional reaction will become more fully developed.

 

[Raiden]

The Thor/Jane romance was just what you describe it to be.. admiration. A mutual admiration and interest between two individuals. To play it off as though they were deeply in love after only a few days would have been disingenuous.

You pick out the Commandos and the Warriors, who were the most minor of supporting characters. Yes, Yinsen and Rhodey were great but ultimately they were no better developed than Odin, Heimdall, Col Phillips or Dr Erskine were. All were supporting characters played brilliantly by brilliant actors and all of them worked both as individuals and as plot devices. Yes there were more characters (like the Warriors or Commandos) who had very limited screen time and development but that's because there were more characters full stop.

Cap's response to Bucky's death was truncated because he had a responsibility to his country. There's no way around that, he had to stop the Red Skull and that's what he did. That's the story that was being told. When

Spoiler

Winter Soldier

comes into play the emotional reaction will become more fully developed.

I don't really understand the criticism behind the handling of Bucky and his

Spoiler

death.

Steve Rogers was seen very emotional after it happens, and later tried (and failed) to drown himself in alcohol. And I think it may have fueled his determination to bring down Red Skull as well. The war was still ongoing, and Bucky was a soldier, not a civilian who were caught in a collateral damage. It was given reasonable amount of time in the movie, and any more would've dragged it out too long. But I guess people won't be satisfied until Rogers wail to the heaven and pound his chest for ten minutes.

 

[Spideyfan93]

I still think that moment after Bucky falls, where Steve just looks down with sadness and covers his face was a good enough moment emotionally.

Agreed with Chewy.

 

[Threshold]

They were at war. Bucky wasn't just shot in the head on the streets of NY. They were on a mission, it went south. I think that Cap's reaction is completely legitimate and earned.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

One of the most hated [reasonably so] Marvel adaptations was X-Men Origins. One of the primary reasons it was severely hated by the fanbase is that it pretty much turned what shoulda been a truly emotional and violent tale into a 90-minute kids movie with drops of a much better movie splashed along the way.

The irony is that many of the same flaws in Origins are present in Captain America, and those similarities are all part of the "safe approach".

Luckily for Cap, Marvel Studios supporters will give that a break. That clearly wasn't the case with Origins.

For starters there's the war aspect of Captain America. We see these glorious [and violent] shots of Cap firing away with his Colt .45, yet they're all part of tiny montage. Same thing happened in Origins. We get these delicious shots of Logan and Victor raising hell in the various wars, but its all just part of an opening montage.

We never got a real WWII battle in Cap, and that for me is a huge failure designed to maintain the movie in a safe/kid friendly zone.

Next up is the supporting cast. In Origins we pretty much got zero development for everyone outside the brothers. Team X was thrown together terribly to appeal to the kids with their various abilities. We got zero motivations from each of the individual members. Same goes for The Howling Commandos in Cap. Zero motivation.

Finally there's the one thing that really distinguishes Cap from Iron Man and TIH quality-wise = the element of surprise.

Yes, we knew Cap had to end up frozen and that he would wake up in modern day to join The Avengers. But just because we knew these things doesn't mean they had to be done in such a by-the-numbers way.

With TIH we were given an ambiguous closing note to Bruce Banner. A final word that really completed the arc presented in HIS individual movie.

-He begins wanting to destroy the monster inside.

-He is forced to use the monster inside to help his loved ones.

-He chooses to embrace the monster inside.

Good writing.

With Cap we got a man desperately trying to embrace his heroic/patriotic nature and he's allowed that opportunity. That was done well and makes the first act of the film the best. The problem is that we really got nothing after that.

-So Cap's now a fully realized man of heroism.

Now what?

Characterization isn't safe. Establishing a complex arc for a character isn't easy to do when all you're worried about is getting to the next chapter in the story. That's what Marvel began to do after Iron Man and during TIH. It will forever infuriate me that Feige and co. would move the after credits scene with Tony to before the credits JUST to sell their Avengers movie that was YEARS AWAY at the time

That ruined the wonderful completion of Bruce's arc and left everyone with a completely unrelated closing shot of IRON MAN. It was a HULK movie. Jesus.

I'm just glad the press screening I saw the film in had the scene with Tony after the credits.

 

[Chewy]

Yes, we knew Cap had to end up frozen and that he would wake up in modern day to join The Avengers. But just because we knew these things doesn't mean they had to be done in such a by-the-numbers way.

What does this even mean? "By-the-numbers"? Because it's been done sooooooo many times? Yeesh.

"Yes I know that's how Cap's story ends. That doesn't mean that's how Cap's story should end. I'd prefer it end a different way".

A one-second closing shot of Bruce smiling does not stronger writing make. Sorry.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

What does this even mean? "By-the-numbers"? Because it's been done sooooooo many times? Yeesh.

It means I knew exactly what was gonna happen and because I knew exactly what was gonna happen, it was hard for me to care.

"Yes I know that's how Cap's story ends. That doesn't mean that's how Cap's story should end. I'd prefer it end a different way".

No, they didn't have to do it in a different way, just in a creative way.

A one-second closing shot of Bruce smiling does not stronger writing make. Sorry.

It completes the arc. That's all that matters.

I didn't get chills from Cap saying "I had a date". Or from the little kids running around the streets with the garbage can lids for shields.

I got chills from watching Bruce Banner resolve his conflict in an entirely different way that the first 2 hours of the film never would have had me expect.

^That's strong writing.

 

[Chewy]

His arc was completed. He wanted to serve his country and he gave everything for his country. He didn't get to dance with "the right one". You don't find it creative because you knew how the comic that was being adapted ended. Ok. Great. Not sure how to really respond to that when it's been used as a complaint against the film? Maybe you shouldn't watch adaptations that have specific endings? Since it seems to infuriate you.

It is in no way a flaw with the film.

 

[Dr Lee]

I knew how the movie ended going in.... And not cuz I peeked at the edited teaser for avengers when it was put online....

I thought both the original ending was great... And the original post credit bit had a good impacting ending as well....

 

[marvel_freshman]

Not really a spoiler, but

In the #Avengers movie there will be a fight scene between [BLACKOUT]#Thor & #Hulk[/BLACKOUT] where [BLACKOUT]hulk rips of the hood of a car[/BLACKOUT].

http://***********/#!/Bailey_Michaels

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

His arc was completed. He wanted to serve his country and he gave everything for his country. He didn't get to dance with "the right one".

Again, his becoming a hero was done well. Everything that came after his establishment as Captain America was treated as overkill.

You don't find it creative because you knew how the comic that was being adapted ended. Ok. Great. Not sure how to really respond to that when it's been used as a complaint against the film? Maybe you shouldn't watch adaptations that have specific endings? Since it seems to infuriate you.

Its not about me knowing what's gonna happen.

Its about giving depth and creativity to something that has an existing precedent.

You don't like TIH? Okay, I'll use Iron Man as an example. Another character who was given solid writing and who had a fantastic arc in HIS individual film.

-Tony Stark is a rich genius in the spotlight, without a care in the world about what his business is doing to people.

-Tony Stark is taken hostage and forced to see first-hand the damage his business was doing.

-Tony Stark chooses to erase his sins by becoming a hero and decides to do in the spotlight.

^That's good writing.

I never expected Tony to handle and conclude his growth in the picture the way he did.

The film had no agenda of setting up the next chapter or of remaining light enough (safe) for the kids to wanna watch. It was more concerned with developing its lead character than anything else regarding that lead character's future in the franchise.

"I am Iron Man" and "0 days from incident" are not only better closing notes on these characters but are beats that actually give the characters a sense of completion. They're much better than Sam Jackson (which is pretty much a random stranger to anyone that hasn't seen the other films) showing up to say "You're gonna be alright?"

*I took my folks to see Cap and when it was over they asked me "Who's that guy with the eyepatch?" I said "Don't worry about it. It really doesn't matter."

 

[Raiden]

*I took my folks to see Cap and when it was over they asked me "Who's that guy with the eyepatch?" I said "Don't worry about it. It really doesn't matter."

Is this supposed to be a knock on Fury's cameo at the end of the movie? To the casual moviegoer who never watched any of the previous Marvel movies, they can assume that the Man With The Eyepatch as the man in charge, and they aren't that far from the truth. Just as if they assume that SHIELD is some kind of government agency, and they can still enjoy the movie while being blissfully ignorant of its rich background in the comics.

As for your comparison between Steve Rogers' journey vs Tony Stark's, it's a poor comparison because whereas Tony Stark was this egoistic multi-billionaire who only cared about himself and the women he slept with, his capture as a POW and the subsequent development of Mark armors changed his life. On the other hand, Steve Rogers' journey is extremely different, because unlike Stark he was a man who was virtuous and who has been doing the right thing even when he was a 98-pound weakling, so he never had to have an epiphany to alter his life mission. Rogers' journey is at first about how even after his achieved his dream to serve his country, he ended up selling war bonds instead. And after he finally joined the military, his life then was defined by loss, first of his longtime friend Bucky, and later his life and a chance to be with the woman he loves, Peggy.

Steve Rogers' story is more about how a man fulfilled his dream to serve his country, but had to give up everything in the process. Even after waking up in the modern era, he has lost everyone that he knows in his 70-year slumber. This change is what made Rogers an even more complex character, as he became shaped by this major event personally. It is also something I hope they will explore further in the Avengers and Cap 2.

 

[Chewy]

A sense of completion was not what was striven for. A lack of closure was the point; a man out of time, that has lost everything, that has nothing, that's the film's closing beat. Closure on its own merits is not an indication of strong writing. A lack of closure on its own is not an indication of weak writing.

You're arguing a point of view by reasserting your same points over and over again. You're citing narrative choices as weaknesses and flaws, which seems completely illogical. Essentially your argument is that you hate these films are a series, and hate that there are moments wherein aspects from other films within the series are alluded to or present. If that's all you have to offer then I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Is this supposed to be a knock on Fury's cameo at the end of the movie? To the casual moviegoer who never watched any of the previous Marvel movies, they can assume that the Man With The Eyepatch as the man in charge, and they aren't that far from the truth. Just as if they assume that SHIELD is some kind of government agency, and they can still enjoy the movie while being blissfully ignorant of its rich background in the comics.

In Iron Man and the original cut of TIH, SHIELD/Fury was handled properly. Their presence is supposed to be an easter egg for the fans. It shouldn't ever intrude in the individual character's journey because its only there as a stepping stone for a future venture (IM2 is what happens when you take it too far)

As for your comparison between Steve Rogers' journey vs Tony Stark's, it's a poor comparison because whereas Tony Stark was this egoistic multi-billionaire who only cared about himself and the women he slept with, his capture as a POW and the subsequent development of Mark armors changed his life. On the other hand, Steve Rogers' journey is extremely different, because unlike Stark he was a man who was virtuous and who has been doing the right thing even when he was a 98-pound weakling, so he never had to have an epiphany to alter his life mission. Rogers' journey is at first about how even after his achieved his dream to serve his country, he ended up selling war bonds instead. And after he finally joined the military, his life then was defined by loss, first of his longtime friend Bucky, and later his life and a chance to be with the woman he loves, Peggy.

Steve Rogers' story is more about how a man fulfilled his dream to serve his country, but had to give up everything in the process. Even after waking up in the modern era, he has lost everyone that he knows in his 70-year slumber. This change is what made Rogers an even more complex character, as he became shaped by this major event personally. It is also something I hope they will explore further in the Avengers and Cap 2.

Yes, Tony Stark and Steve Rogers are polar opposites. Does that mean that because Tony is the "darker" of the two, that his tale is more interesting than Steve's? Not at all.

There was potential for a great arc in Captain America, the first act of the film is evidence of that. But as usual with Johnston, and Marvel's storytelling tactics since TIH, the moment Steve Rogers became Captain America, his development as a character pretty much disappeared.

Cap's film coulda had as much emotional resonance as IM and TIH had they just taken their time to explore what it really means to be Captain America. Instead we basically got a "Well, let's wrap this up now that he's Cap because we need to set up the next film" 2nd and 3rd act.

Iron Man and TIH were not at all concerned about connecting the dots to the cross-over film. They didn't gloss over valuable time spent on developing the motivations of their respective protagonists. What bothers me is that in Cap there were so many chances to really delve into the mind of Steve Rogers.

There's a shot of Steve in a B&W reel that Peggy's watching where he's caught off guard looking at the picture of her inside his pocket watch. With more of that and less focus on the next film, we coulda gotten a much better/deeper Captain America movie.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

A sense of completion was not what was striven for. A lack of closure was the point; a man out of time, that has lost everything, that has nothing, that's the film's closing beat. Closure on its own merits is not an indication of strong writing. A lack of closure on its own is not an indication of weak writing.

Its called rushing to get to the next chapter. I think that pretty much says it all. "Let me just do a film to establish a character rather than do a film to explore the character."

^That last line is pretty much the strongest argument against the film that most critics bring up.

Marvel just wanted to set-up Cap rather than take us on a journey with Cap.

That for me is weak writing, and a motivation behind a film based entirely on its future franchise-appeal.

 

[Raiden]

In Iron Man and the original cut of TIH, SHIELD/Fury was handled properly. Their presence is supposed to be an easter egg for the fans. It shouldn't ever intrude in the individual character's journey because its only there as a stepping stone for a future venture (IM2 is what happens when you take it too far)

Nick Fury didn't really intrude on the films he was in, and in IM2 he actually served some purpose, by giving Stark a temporary solution to his medical illness, and a clue from his father on where to find it. Given the greater role that Fury will be in in the Avengers, I think it is great that he won't just be standing around doing nothing or only show up in the after credit scene. His cameo still did not do anything to ruin IM2 or any film anyway, and would it have been different if it was another character that gave Stark the advice?

Yes, Tony Stark and Steve Rogers are polar opposites. Does that mean that because Tony is the "darker" of the two, that his tale is more interesting than Steve's? Not at all.

There was potential for a great arc in Captain America, the first act of the film is evidence of that. But as usual with Johnston, and Marvel's storytelling tactics since TIH, the moment Steve Rogers became Captain America, his development as a character pretty much disappeared.

Cap's film coulda had as much emotional resonance as IM and TIH had they just taken their time to explore what it really means to be Captain America. Instead we basically got a "Well, let's wrap this up now that he's Cap because we need to set up the next film" 2nd and 3rd act.

Iron Man and TIH were not at all concerned about connecting the dots to the cross-over film. They didn't gloss over valuable time spent on developing the motivations of their respective protagonists. What bothers me is that in Cap there were so many chances to really delve into the mind of Steve Rogers.

There's a shot of Steve in a B&W reel that Peggy's watching where he's caught off guard looking at the picture of her inside his pocket watch. With more of that and less focus on the next film, we coulda gotten a much better/deeper Captain America movie.

It seems to me that you'd prefer Cap to be kept in the WWII setting instead of having him be frozen and woke up in the present time, which obviously is mandatory given his presence in the Avengers movie. As I said, I think Rogers' journey is defined by loss and sacrifice, which he did experience in the second half of the movie. And his character development won't stop in the Avengers or in Cap 2, because a large part of Steve Rogers is about a man who is out of his time, and he has to deal with the struggle to not only integrate into the modern society, but also deal with the fact that everyone he knew has died or is in very old age. I just have the sense that what you are really doing is criticizing Marvel's strategy to build their movies toward the Avengers, and since both IM1 and TIH have the minimum references to the Avengers, you praise them the most. That is something that you obviously are very stubborn about, and therefore any further discussion is rather counterproductive. Not everyone can be pleased about Marvel's strategy, but imo they have gave this project a great effort, and as a Marvel fan I can't wait to see the end result.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

Not really a spoiler, but


http://***********/#!/Bailey_Michaels

I hope Hulk has feats of strength alot more impressive than that...

 

[Xeno]

Is this supposed to be a knock on Fury's cameo at the end of the movie? To the casual moviegoer who never watched any of the previous Marvel movies, they can assume that the Man With The Eyepatch as the man in charge, and they aren't that far from the truth. Just as if they assume that SHIELD is some kind of government agency, and they can still enjoy the movie while being blissfully ignorant of its rich background in the comics.

As for your comparison between Steve Rogers' journey vs Tony Stark's, it's a poor comparison because whereas Tony Stark was this egoistic multi-billionaire who only cared about himself and the women he slept with, his capture as a POW and the subsequent development of Mark armors changed his life. On the other hand, Steve Rogers' journey is extremely different, because unlike Stark he was a man who was virtuous and who has been doing the right thing even when he was a 98-pound weakling, so he never had to have an epiphany to alter his life mission. Rogers' journey is at first about how even after his achieved his dream to serve his country, he ended up selling war bonds instead. And after he finally joined the military, his life then was defined by loss, first of his longtime friend Bucky, and later his life and a chance to be with the woman he loves, Peggy.

Steve Rogers' story is more about how a man fulfilled his dream to serve his country, but had to give up everything in the process. Even after waking up in the modern era, he has lost everyone that he knows in his 70-year slumber. This change is what made Rogers an even more complex character, as he became shaped by this major event personally. It is also something I hope they will explore further in the Avengers and Cap 2.

A sense of completion was not what was striven for. A lack of closure was the point; a man out of time, that has lost everything, that has nothing, that's the film's closing beat. Closure on its own merits is not an indication of strong writing. A lack of closure on its own is not an indication of weak writing.

You're arguing a point of view by reasserting your same points over and over again. You're citing narrative choices as weaknesses and flaws, which seems completely illogical. Essentially your argument is that you hate these films are a series, and hate that there are moments wherein aspects from other films within the series are alluded to or present. If that's all you have to offer then I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.

Thanks to both Raiden and Chewy for summing things up so perfectly.

 

[Raiden]

Its called rushing to get to the next chapter. I think that pretty much says it all. "Let me just do a film to establish a character rather than do a film to explore the character."

^That last line is pretty much the strongest argument against the film that most critics bring up.

Marvel just wanted to set-up Cap rather than take us on a journey with Cap.

That for me is weak writing, and a motivation behind a film based entirely on its future franchise-appeal.

As I said, your fundamental problem with Cap's movie is that it's being used as a set-up for the Avengers, which is something that cannot be avoided once they are determined to create the MCU and the crossover movie. I for one think that even with all the cameos and references, the movies are still done extremely well, and can be appreciated in their own right. And non-crossover movies do not guarantee a better movie, such as X3, GL, Catwoman, Fantasic Four, etc. The bottom line is that Fury, SHIELD, and all those Avengers references did not hurt the movie, and you could've taken them out of IM2 and its weaknesses will still remain. That's the way it is.

 

[jadejaws]

I hope Hulk has feats of strength alot more impressive than that...

I was thinking the same thing...

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Wanting a film about an individual character to focus primarily on his current journey doesn't make me "stubborn". Iron Man & TIH (before the bad editing) were able to successfully tell the stories of their respective characters without compromising the quality of that storytelling in favor of setting up a years-away sequel/cross-over. When I'm watching Captain America, all I'm concerned about is Captain America. I don't care about what he'll be doing next summer. I care about what he's doing here & now. Its not mandatory to support the idea of the cross-over. This is exactly why Jon Favreau walked away from the Iron Man franchise. He realized Marvel was only interested in making 2-hour trailers to future films. Favreau pretty much made Marvel with his very solid Iron Man film, so for them to interfere with his plan to make Iron Man movies about Iron Man, was a perfect omen for him to step out. Notice how we haven't gotten a Marvel Studios movie as good or financially succesful since Iron Man.

 

[Iceman]

Notice how we haven't gotten a Marvel Studios movie as good or financially succesful since Iron Man.

TIH also made less than the other "Avengers obsessed" films but that doesn't make it any worse.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

Wanting a film about an individual character to focus primarily on his current journey doesn't make me "stubborn". Iron Man & TIH (before the bad editing) were able to successfully tell the stories of their respective characters without compromising the quality of that storytelling in favor of setting up a years-away sequel/cross-over. When I'm watching Captain America, all I'm concerned about is Captain America. I don't care about what he'll be doing next summer. I care about what he's doing here & now. Its not mandatory to support the idea of the cross-over. This is exactly why Jon Favreau walked away from the Iron Man franchise. He realized Marvel was only interested in making 2-hour trailers to future films. Favreau pretty much made Marvel with his very solid Iron Man film, so for them to interfere with his plan to make Iron Man movies about Iron Man, was a perfect omen for him to step out. Notice how we haven't gotten a Marvel Studios movie as good or financially succesful since Iron Man.

It seems you'd rather the movie had ended at the part where the kids are in the streets with the Captain America comics and garbage can lids. I for one don't give a crap how it ends as long as the movie as a whole is satisfying, which it was.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

TIH also made less than the other "Avengers obsessed" films but that doesn't make it any worse.

Captain America is thought by many to be better than Iron Man anyway.