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

Status
Not open for further replies.
With that kind of budget I hope to see a fair bit of Hulk :).
 
I'm still wondering on which of these three Avengers will have the most when it comes to resolving their own issues/cliffhangers from their previous films?

1. Steve/Captain America

2. Bruce/Hulk

3. Thor
 
I would think Thor has a large part, since it's his brother that is the enemy. And I'm sure Steve will have a nice chunk as well considering he just woke up at the end of Cap. But that's just me, going off of that little bit of info.
 
I look at it two ways, The Asgardians are an advanced society that has the ability to easily travel to other worlds and produce extrodianary weapons making the alien. But because of their difference from humans early on and their advanced tech they were callled Gods. So they are both Aliens and Gods.
that's how i look at it, you pick what you want to think of them as.
 
Last edited:
I would think Thor has a large part, since it's his brother that is the enemy. And I'm sure Steve will have a nice chunk as well considering he just woke up at the end of Cap. But that's just me, going off of that little bit of info.

True, but unlike Thor, Steve is in a position where it'll be difficult to see any ray of hope or happiness for his personal life in the distant future. throughout most of the film, and his film was the last one to have been shown before the Avengers, so he might have the most to resolve when it comes to inner conflicts.
 
$260m is pretty huge for a budget, and risky too considering this might not make much more than the Iron Man movies. I can only expect (and hope) it's all gone towards some really great set pieces.
 
Hulk performed a feat of valor in the end of TIH. He's more likely to do it again than Abomination being a do-gooder on a team of superheroes.


You are looking at it from the perspective of what we know and suggesting Fury isn't morally grey.

You have Hulk who a scientist with an uncontrollable monster inside. Ross has made it his business to make Banner seen as a murdering psychopath in the government and military. Sure, he defeated Blonsky but who is say he did it out of goodness rather than just getting rid of the competition? Fury wasn't even there. He could be getting stories about how Hulk smashed Blonsky and ran off like an animal.

On the other hand you have Blonsky, a first rate soldier who only seemed to go nutso after exposure. He was seen as the new super-soldier. Fury is taking his chances on the good soldier before the mad scientist.
 
You are looking at it from the perspective of what we know and suggesting Fury isn't morally grey.

You have Hulk who a scientist with an uncontrollable monster inside. Ross has made it his business to make Banner seen as a murdering psychopath in the government and military. Sure, he defeated Blonsky but who is say he did it out of goodness rather than just getting rid of the competition? Fury wasn't even there. He could be getting stories about how Hulk smashed Blonsky and ran off like an animal.

On the other hand you have Blonsky, a first rate soldier who only seemed to go nutso after exposure. He was seen as the new super-soldier. Fury is taking his chances on the good soldier before the mad scientist.

That does make a good point; thought it begs one to wonder then, if things were like that, where the true situation behind the Hulk and Blonsky confrontation isn't well known to those it should be known to, why would Coulson feel as though Blonsky shouldn't be on the team then?
 
I would think that cast members such as Chris Evans and Chris Hemmsworth would want to take a rest from their characters after they finish filming their respective sequels for at least a year or 2 before they get back to those roles.
I recall hearing Hemmsworth say he wanted a break after the Avengers. Don't see how that is possible with Thor 2 being released in 2013.
 
I recall hearing Hemmsworth say he wanted a break after the Avengers. Don't see how that is possible with Thor 2 being released in 2013.

Well if I were part of the group in charge at Marvel Studios, I think it would be best for both the cast members and for profiting reasons to give CA and Thor a little break before having them appear on screen again after their respective sequels premiere.

I think they'll run the chance of audience members getting tired even of seeing them so many times over the years. They could use the breather time for them to dive into other characters as well, such as Antman/Wasp, Black Panther, and hell, they could even give the Hulk another shot at a sequel to the TIH.

That way, they not only give the cast and GA a rest from Thor and CA, but they're able to use that time to invest in new characters to bring for the sequel to the Avengers.
 
Well if I were part of the group in charge at Marvel Studios, I think it would be best for both the cast members and for profiting reasons to give CA and Thor a little break before having them appear on screen again after their respective sequels premiere.

I think they'll run the chance of audience members getting tired even of seeing them so many times over the years. They could use the breather time for them to dive into other characters as well, such as Antman/Wasp, Black Panther, and hell, they could even give the Hulk another shot at a sequel to the TIH.

That way, they not only give the cast and GA a rest from Thor and CA, but they're able to use that time to invest in new characters to bring for the sequel to the Avengers.
While I don't think the audience would get tired of them, I do think that they should give them a break for new characters, as you said. Though, along with Thor 2 and IM3, I'm sure we'll be getting antoher Marvel film based off of a character that hasn't been used yet. Ant-Man is the likliest, if you ask me.
 
While I don't think the audience would get tired of them, I do think that they should give them a break for new characters, as you said. Though, along with Thor 2 and IM3, I'm sure we'll be getting antoher Marvel film based off of a character that hasn't been used yet. Ant-Man is the likliest, if you ask me.

Good point.

In the worst case scenario, if RDJ decides not to reprise the role of Tony Stark for any more MCU films, they'll have to try (keyword is try, not succeed.lol) and fill the void by having Antman, BP, and Wasp come in as new recruits.lol


Man, I'm stoked right now for the Avengers. Right now, I'm hoping on two things to be true:

1. The Production budget is in fact 260 million

2. Sharon Carter is IN this film

I really do hope that they go for a alien invasion or just an invasion period with the whole world going to hell, and with the Avengers being the only ones capable of saving it.

It'll be so awesome to see the Avengers in action, battling it out throughout a wasted city.

I may be shooting myself in the toe right now, but I think that the film has the chance on making a billion at the BO. There has been a good amount of years of investment and subtle promotion for this film, and the GA are well aware of this film coming out.

Heck, every time I saw the Post Credit scene for CA at theaters, I heard everyone leaving talking about how excited they are for the film.
 
If the budget is $260 million, I will be BEYOND happy. The budget for an Aveners film should be no elss than that.
 
TDKR alone has $250 so I'm glad Marvel/Disney/Paramount are putting a lot of effort in this.

These two will be the juggernauts of next year.
 
Hell, it'll certainly live up to Sam Jackson's narration line of..."Being a day unlike any other".lol
 
Hmm, I like the sound of this potential $260M.

If it does end up being that, it would beat SM3 by a mere $2M, (a perfect example of why money isn't everything ^^).

It would be joint second with Disney's Tangled (ikr) for most expensive movies ever made. Pirates of the Caribbean 3 currently holds top spot with $300M, and I don't see this film even needing to reach such a total.

Still, i'm not taking it as gospel just yet. Yeah it was found in an article, but it wasn't actually a quote from the guy they interviewed. Personally, I would of been fine with even the $170M lol, but this great news!
 
I wish it was May 2012, lol.

Technically speaking, the film was originally supposed to be released this month of this year, but due to the contract negotiations with Sam and Scarlet, it got moved to a year later.lol
 
By the way, that photo calling Thor 'Fabio' is kinda manipulative, since the image is flipped, to make it look like he has his hair parted like a girl. In the other photos, the ones where the hair looks much cooler, his part is clearly on the other side, the same side it was on for 'Thor'.

Also, they didn't 'make' his hair more brown, they simply didn't dye his eyebrows and beard, which always looked quite fake. Also, the hair, if it is still a wig, is much more convincing. The 'Thor' hair was always way too flat and obviously fixed in place.
 
Check my post, it had black bars, didn't it?

I'm sure it's because it was kind of just thrown out there. Effects were pretty much the priority. Not the colour correction and aspect ratio.
The trailer having black bars doesn't say much. Avatar was in 1.78:1 and still had the trailers in 2.35:1, so we won't really know until either Marvel gives us confirmation or we see the actual movie.
 
By the way, that photo calling Thor 'Fabio' is kinda manipulative, since the image is flipped, to make it look like he has his hair parted like a girl. In the other photos, the ones where the hair looks much cooler, his part is clearly on the other side, the same side it was on for 'Thor'.

Also, they didn't 'make' his hair more brown, they simply didn't dye his eyebrows and beard, which always looked quite fake. Also, the hair, if it is still a wig, is much more convincing. The 'Thor' hair was always way too flat and obviously fixed in place.

Pretty much, yeah. Also, the images look quite similar, and they both look good, so I'm not feeling the negative vibe at all. Main differences are the lighting and the length of the hair. The sleaveless look is an improvement imo, though I have no problem with the armor from the Thor movie either.
 
That does make a good point; thought it begs one to wonder then, if things were like that, where the true situation behind the Hulk and Blonsky confrontation isn't well known to those it should be known to, why would Coulson feel as though Blonsky shouldn't be on the team then?

Maybe he's the one that debriefed Betty after the whole incident.
 
You are looking at it from the perspective of what we know and suggesting Fury isn't morally grey.

You have Hulk who a scientist with an uncontrollable monster inside. Ross has made it his business to make Banner seen as a murdering psychopath in the government and military. Sure, he defeated Blonsky but who is say he did it out of goodness rather than just getting rid of the competition? Fury wasn't even there. He could be getting stories about how Hulk smashed Blonsky and ran off like an animal.

On the other hand you have Blonsky, a first rate soldier who only seemed to go nutso after exposure. He was seen as the new super-soldier. Fury is taking his chances on the good soldier before the mad scientist.


Exactly what I was saying. You maybe worded it a little better though :woot:

I see it as playing out much the same way.
 
I'm still wondering on which of these three Avengers will have the most when it comes to resolving their own issues/cliffhangers from their previous films?

1. Steve/Captain America

2. Bruce/Hulk

3. Thor

Man, I gotta say you have been analyzing the bejesus out of this film. LOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,338
Messages
22,087,671
Members
45,887
Latest member
Elchido
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"