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

[Alexei Belyakov]

The first act in Cap was all about Cap, well maybe not the stuff with The Cube, but nevertheless all about Cap. Once Steve becomes Captain America the film goes into Avengers-setup mode and characterization pretty much goes out the window as our protagonist isn't given time to do anything else but get frozen so he can wake up and join the team. The stuff that I really wanted to see, the stuff that would make Cap a truly iconic figure to the people in the MCU, was turned into a quick montage. With Iron Man and TIH there was no rush to end things at the very beginning of the cross-over film. With Cap that's pretty much what they did. I would have rather had them make a movie about Captain America from start to finish than a movie about how Captain America became an "Avenger". The inclusion of that title in the film always bothered me, as did the idea of Johnston directing.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

The first act in Cap was all about Cap, well maybe not the stuff with The Cube, but nevertheless all about Cap. Once Steve becomes Captain America the film goes into Avengers-setup mode and characterization pretty much goes out the window as our protagonist isn't given time to do anything else but get frozen so he can wake up and join the team. The stuff that I really wanted to see, the stuff that would make Cap a truly iconic figure to the people in the MCU, was turned into a quick montage.

The separation of Cap from his time is a part of his character arc, with or without the Avengers (who were the ones who woke him up in the comics, so its unavoidable anyway). Now if you're saying you preferred more Cap in WWII stories that's another story, but that's a disagreement with the creative direction, not a flaw.

 

[MahvelBaby!]

I don't care what anybody is complaining about right now, but Cap was awesome and it made me go back 3 times, And it wasn't to read "Cap will return in the Avengers" at the end.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I am hoping that this Disney Expo thing gives us some new info about the film (like official confirmation on who the villians are, beyond Loki, and beyond the Internet rumors). We obviously need something to talk about, beyond *****ing about the Marvel solo hero films.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

The separation of Cap from his time is a part of his character arc, with or without the Avengers (who were the ones who woke him up in the comics, so its unavoidable anyway). Now if you're saying you preferred more Cap in WWII stories that's another story, but that's a disagreement with the creative direction, not a flaw.

I know Cap is destined to become the fish outta water & I actually like that concept alot, but the problem here wasn't the pre-existing material on which the film is based on but rather the way they chose to adapt it. For starters, they didn't have to end the film with Steve's apparent death/70-year-sleep. That was a decision made because Marvel wanted to fast-track the bringing together of the heroes for The Avengers. Hell, at one point Cap was set to come out 2 months before The Avengers. Jesus. If they weren't in such a hurry we coulda gotten Cap & Thor sequels before the crossover instead of safe fast-tracked solo films to set-up The Avengers.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I could understand Iron Man 2, maybe, but explain how that applies to Thor and Cap.

Quite easily. As I already explained, the montage that I feel affected the pacing in Cap was put in, as has been said in interviews by the writers, in order to create pockets of unaccounted time for potential flashbacks in Cap sequels. Similarly with giving Bucky and unsatisfying and non-event death essentially so they can make him 'disappear' in order to come back as Winter Soldier. The death of Bucky, so he can return, was evidently more pressing than actually giving us a decent scene developing his character. All we know about him is that he is loyal to Cap and a ladies man. If instead they'd spent that middle period developing Bucky, and had his death towards the end, perhaps falling out of the plane instead, at the hand of Red Skull, it would have served both ends.

In Thor, I would say the inclusion of Hawkeye. I had no problem with SHIELD being there, it made perfect sense, but the way Hawkeye was handled confused me. Again, Hawkeye, as a SHIELD Agent, had a logical reason to be there, but the way that shot is filmed so dramatically, it does make Hawkeye seem a lot more important than he really is, in that film. If they wanted to include him, why not just have him as Coulson's 2nd in command? It felt a little forced to me. In that circumstance, I'd say either leave him out or commit to it. It was just a way to give a glimpse of him prior to Avengers.

Also with Cap, as was previously mentioned, a good chunk of the story from the middle to the end was dedicated to quicky establishing the Cap legacy, so it could be in place in modern times, for Avengers. What started as a very engaging character driven plot turned at the midway point into iconic action set piece after set piece, only to reconnect with the character when Cap is flying the plane. These distractions stopped them from dedicating the whole film to purely focusing on the main players. I mean, how many characters just got forgotten? Some fans seem to be completely thrilled they got to see Dugan and Falsworth, I on the other hand was thinking "So, not only will we never get to see Dugan in modern times, but they get stiffed in their own film?" It just felt like they were missing one or two key scenes. I mean, why would Cap even want to choose them for his crack team, out of the 400 soldiers he saved? We just assume they bonded on the trip back, right? Why couldn't we have seen that? It would have taken 2 minutes.

Again, don't get me wrong, I did enjoy all the films, but it's my love of these characters that makes me ask these questions. I mean, Marvel obviously deserves to be commended for all of these films, but with such an ambitious project, regarding the whole MCU, you can't expect there to be a few inconsistencies or faults, and it's nothing that in anyway outshines how enormous an achievement bringing all these films together truly is. I simply think it's important to notice the pratfalls along the way, as I'm sure Marvel is too, to plan for the future, just like they would have to with the comics.

Take Thor for instance... I loved that film enormously, but I'm definitely looking forward to Thor 2 more (especially with the Game of Thrones director on board) because I know they will know what things to polish, it won't be bogged down with explaining origin stuff or Avengers stuff, and because they can spend more time exploring Asgard.

Anyway, enjoy skim reading this self indulgently long analysis :P

 

[Saitou Hajime]

I know Cap is destined to become the fish outta water & I actually like that concept alot, but the problem here wasn't the pre-existing material on which the film is based on but rather the way they chose to adapt it. For starters, they didn't have to end the film with Steve's apparent death/70-year-sleep.

Doesn't mean they couldn't have, nor is choosing to do so make Cap as a whole a setup for Avengers.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

One thing I really hope at least is we get a brief scene in the beginning of Avengers showing Cap getting thawed, and the rest of the Time Square scene. That scene really deserved to be longer, and I had quite a few non-comic friends asking me "So wait, HOW exactly did Cap stay alive for 70 years?" I explained the comic origins and they were like "So he was frozen in a block of ice?" and all I could say was "Well, in the comics... I, uh... I don't actually know the specifics in the film. I guess so?"

If, hypothetically, Cap had been 2 movies, say one movie establishing him as Cap, fighting in the war and beating a lower villain, like say Zola, with the reveal of Red Skull as the one pulling the strings, you could have taken a lot more time in Cap 2 building up to that, with a good 30 mins at the end of him being thawed etc, as a good lead up to the Avengers. But what we have still works, just isn't ideal, I guess.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

I second the notion that Hawkeye's scene in THOR did more good than bad. What essentially shoulda been the defining moment for the character, one that I'd been pining to see since the leaked comicon trailer, was made into a pointless Avengers set-up for a character I cared nothing about. That was THE moment, where all his guile and might were finally shattered at the very core. I was furious to see them ruin it, specially since prior to the midnight screening I attended, I was hoping the rumored Hawkeye cameo would take place after the credits. Yet another misstep at the hands of the great Kevin Feige. He takes out the Pym reference but leaves in that brutally blunt intro to Clint Barton. What a genius. Didn't ruin the movie for me altogether, but like Tony's scene in TIH, pissed me off.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

See, I thought Tony's scene in TIH was fine... It didn't interfere with the story telling or anything, it was a nice little epilogue to the film.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

Quite easily. As I already explained, the montage that I feel affected the pacing in Cap was put in, as has been said in interviews by the writers, in order to create pockets of unaccounted time for potential flashbacks in Cap sequels. Similarly with giving Bucky and unsatisfying and non-event death essentially so they can make him 'disappear' in order to come back as Winter Soldier. The death of Bucky, so he can return, was evidently more pressing than actually giving us a decent scene developing his character. All we know about him is that he is loyal to Cap and a ladies man. If instead they'd spent that middle period developing Bucky, and had his death towards the end, perhaps falling out of the plane instead, at the hand of Red Skull, it would have served both ends.

But as you said, this is because they're setting up sequels to Cap, not the Avengers.

In Thor, I would say the inclusion of Hawkeye. I had no problem with SHIELD being there, it made perfect sense, but the way Hawkeye was handled confused me. Again, Hawkeye, as a SHIELD Agent, had a logical reason to be there, but the way that shot is filmed so dramatically, it does make Hawkeye seem a lot more important than he really is, in that film. If they wanted to include him, why not just have him as Coulson's 2nd in command? It felt a little forced to me. In that circumstance, I'd say either leave him out or commit to it. It was just a way to give a glimpse of him prior to Avengers.

Seems like you're making a mountain out of a molehill. People complain that Hawkeye's a cameo, and they complain that Black Widow's an important character. Marvel can't seem to win.

Also with Cap, as was previously mentioned, a good chunk of the story from the middle to the end was dedicated to quicky establishing the Cap legacy, so it could be in place in modern times, for Avengers.

Cap ending up in modern times is part of his story. The Avengers is just a bonus.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Yes, Cap ending up in modern times is part of his story. Thor getting banished to earth is part of his story too. It doesn't mean both things need to be rushed in order to get things underway for Avengers.

Cap sequel AND Avengers, both are things distracting from what is most important, which is the characters and the story at hand. If you have to make concessions due to future stories, then you're playing with fire and have to be very careful.

I never complained about Black Widow, or indeed the SHIELD focus in IM 2. Don't combine my comments on the Marvel films with other peoples, that's just generalising everyone's opinions that you don't agree with into one big bundle to make it easier for you to be dismissive of. I'm not making any mountains here, I've said I still loved each and everyone of these films. It's for that reason, above all others, that I'm not going to blindly accept anything with Marvel Studios slapped on it as a piece of perfection.

It's called objectivity, it's not about people whining or complaining, as it so often gets dismissed as, but rather looking for ways that Marvel can improve on their various franchises. As I said before, I hardly hold anything against them, since juggling 5 franchises at once is a huge thing to be doing for a relatively small studio. I'm making constructive feedback.

If you ever hear me saying "CAP IS TEH SUCKS, TDK IS BETTAH" then by all means, be as dismissive as you like, I would, in that case, deserve it.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Doesn't mean they couldn't have, nor is choosing to do so make Cap as a whole setup for Avengers.

The thing is, they chose to go the route they did because of The Avengers. If they weren't so worried about setting up that movie, like Wolvie said, they woulda given us a Cap movie about the consolidation of Cap as a hero and then a cliffhanger sequel like IM2 that lands us right on the crossover's lap. Instead of actually exploring the outcome of their very solid first act, they gave us a rushed, lacking, anti-climactic 2nd and 3rd act that did nothing more than show us how Steve Rogers ended up in the present day (done poorly too) and how Schmidt transported himself to another realm through The Tesseract - further stepping into Avengers territory since it establishes The Cube as a doorway to other worlds, which Loki will use to his advantage in the film.

 

[BigThor]

Take Thor for instance... I loved that film enormously, but I'm definitely looking forward to Thor 2 more (especially with the Game of Thrones director on board) because I know they will know what things to polish, it won't be bogged down with explaining origin stuff or Avengers stuff, and because they can spend more time exploring Asgard.

This

 

[Gamma Burst]

This

Seconded!

 

[gmanca]

I agree with Wolvie as well; the connective tissue to Avengers hurt Thor and Captain America because they were just forcefully inserted into the material as opposed to being organic to the film.

As mentioned, Hawkeye's cameo was pretty awful; they built up this unseen agent, grabbing the arrow, hovering over Thor, and yet there was never any purpose to his scene. He should have shot an arrow as a warning shot to Thor and backed off once Coulson said "stand down, let's see what he(Thor) does."

I disagree with how the Bucky sequence was handled but I don't think he should have been on the bomber. The emotional thread in that final act is between Peggy and Steve; to add Bucky would be to muddle the focus. The Bucky "death" should have been spaced after the montage with another sequence, either action or emotional because the quick transition from the factory escape to the start of the train mission was too fast to establish how the relationship between Bucky and Steve has changed since he became Cap.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Agreed. Ideally, with Cap, I think it could have been 2 movies, with Bucky's death at the hand of Red Skull occurring at the end of the first, and Steve's tragic sacrifice at the end of the second film.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Hopefully we'll get a sequel with a better, more competent director & a superior script that won't have any interest in setting up a future crossover film. A sequel that can focus on Cap and Cap alone. Then again, knowing Feige, it'll end up having a random scene right in the middle of the film where Namor shows up at Cap's Army post to talk about The Invader Initiative.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I am hoping that this Disney Expo thing gives us some new info about the film (like official confirmation on who the villians are, beyond Loki, and beyond the Internet rumors). We obviously need something to talk about, beyond *****ing about the Marvel solo hero films.

I hope so as well.

 

[Alientraveller]

Agreed. Ideally, with Cap, I think it could have been 2 movies, with Bucky's death at the hand of Red Skull occurring at the end of the first, and Steve's tragic sacrifice at the end of the second film.

I hope you mean the start of the second film, I would agree with you there. There's an old Hollywood screenwriting adage that cracking a story is about determining what the hero wants. I think CA comes to a natural conclusion when Steve liberates the POWs because Steve gets what he wants: he's allowed to fight in the war. Then the movie gets into a muddle about exploring whether Steve's decision was right after Bucky dies and wanting to be with Peggy but having to put his duties above that.

Still a great movie, but there's room for improvement and I think the sequel will have a clearer focus with Steve wanting to go home and coming to terms with that you can't, what with an elderly Peggy and a brainwashed Bucky.

 

[roach]

I agree with Wolvie...and I also did enjoy the movies. An easy test is to think if this movie was a stand alone movie would it still work. If there was no IM movies, no Thor....no Avengers.....would this still be a satisfying film

 

[Aztec]

I agree with Wolvie as well; the connective tissue to Avengers hurt Thor and Captain America because they were just forcefully inserted into the material as opposed to being organic to the film.

As mentioned, Hawkeye's cameo was pretty awful; they built up this unseen agent, grabbing the arrow, hovering over Thor, and yet there was never any purpose to his scene. He should have shot an arrow as a warning shot to Thor and backed off once Coulson said "stand down, let's see what he(Thor) does."

Oh dear. Here we go again...

I'd respond but there is a whole thread dedicated to this very topic: http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=360027

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Again, this isn't cross over hate, this is assessing the movies in general and how they each work and achieve what they're supposed to. It's so easy to dismiss something you don't agree with as 'hate'. Hate is when it's not constructive, pure emotional response and judgement. All of this is critical evaluation, and everyone here, myself included, has admitted to loving the films.

 

[Gamma Ra]

I think every minor detail used in each movie connecting them, was a necessary component needed to set up the Marvel Movie Universe. with all it's super powered people and advanced aliens civilizations. Now that it is done, every movie afterwards should be able to stand on it's own.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

As mentioned, Hawkeye's cameo was pretty awful; they built up this unseen agent, grabbing the arrow, hovering over Thor, and yet there was never any purpose to his scene. He should have shot an arrow as a warning shot to Thor and backed off once Coulson said "stand down, let's see what he(Thor) does."

I disagree. That's not Hawkeye at all. Also, This cameo gives you a sense that SHIELD is actually this big agency with many different heroes already, and not just generic MiB..
Or as Adamantium Man said it in another thread:

Imagine a nameless soldier in the role. He takes a bead, Coulson orders him to wait because "I want to see this", and Thor fails to lift the hammer. It puts SHIELD in another light than the usual bad guy military seize power function the men in black usually have in these flicks. (The same thing applies when Coulson lets "Don Blake" go, despite knowing that the ID was falsified. They wait and watch.) It makes for a powerful scene and characterizes SHIELD as the good guys.

Putting a name to that SHIELD agent (and one that only fan boys will recognize) detracts in no way from this effect. I loved it, and it made me hyped up for his appearance in Avengers. Mission accomplished.