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

[TheDragonator]

That'd be awesome, I don't want defenders without Surfer though

Well, if a FF film isn't in development by 2014....

 

[Gamma Goliath]

Well, if a FF film isn't in development by 2014....

That's soooooo far from now

 

[TheDragonator]

Also, I did a bit of reading on Wikipedia. Apparently, in 2009, they hired people to write not just Black Panther, Iron Fist, and Doc Strange: They also have writers hired to do Nighthawk and Vision films.

Also, Cable, which I guess they own somehow.

 

[TheDragonator]

[=Gamma Goliath;21673561]That's soooooo far from now [/QUOTE]

Not to mention, Disney is apparently really interested in getting them back, since they're a family of superheroes and they really, really like that idea.

 

[Mysteryman]

Well one of the SEEN relics in Odin's vault belongs to Stranges world, you never know

Are you talking about
The Orb of Agomotto?
I thought that was debunked.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

That was the eye of agomotto that was debunked

 

[Ramsay Snow]

I wonder how they'll keep the after credits scenes and general hype to their second "event" film fresh when it's a similar premise of heroes teaming up in a group. You can't just have Samuel L. Jackson show up again, so I'd like to see what they have in store. Maybe have Thanos take over the "mystery man" role, working behind the scenes from the shadows or something.

I think it will be the opposite of the pre-The Avengers end credits scenes. Now it will be a mystery man who will be bringing several villains together to form a team that will rival the Avengers. Then the next The Avengers can have the villain team squaring off against the Avengers team.

 

[JKM]

"Not to mention, Disney is apparently really interested in getting them back, since they're a family of superheroes and they really, really like that idea."

Not that it doesn't sound awesome and all, but have you got a source for that? First i've seen it mentioned.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

JAK brings up a good point in that "Phase 2" whilst a cool-sounding concept at a first glance, might signify more unexceptional solo films. Thor, IM2 & [specially] Cap suffered greatly for being unofficial prequels to The Avengers. A solo film that has to juggle both the character's personal arc as well as an underlining team-up agenda just doesn't amount to the truly great story it could be were it to just focus on that individual character's tale. Cap coulda been an amazing film had it not been worried about the film to come after it. Same can be said for IM2 & to some extent Thor (although I think outta the 3, Thor had the least Avengers prequel syndrome). I really don't want IM3, THOR II, Cap 2, ANT-MAN, BP & Doc Strange to be just trailers to Avengers 2. The lead-in can be done right if they keep things subtle - following the after-the-credits gimmick from the first Iron Man & the original cut of TIH. You can have cameos, just not in pivotal moments (Renner's in Thor).

 

[TheDragonator]

It was an old article on a site called IESB, which I guess closed down since the link from the CBM article gets a 'no website defined' error. The CBM one is still up, though:
http://www.**************.com/fansites/joshw24/news/?a=24162

just replace the censored bit with 'comic book movie'

 

[JAK®]

JAK brings up a good point in that "Phase 2" whilst a cool-sounding concept at a first glance, might signify more unexceptional solo films. Thor, IM2 & [specially] Cap suffered greatly for being unofficial prequels to The Avengers. A solo film that has to juggle both the character's personal arc as well as an underlining team-up agenda just doesn't amount to the truly great story it could be were it to just focus on that individual character's tale. Cap coulda been an amazing film had it not been worried about the film to come after it. Same can be said for IM2 & to some extent Thor (although I think outta the 3, Thor had the least Avengers prequel syndrome). I really don't want IM3, THOR II, Cap 2, ANT-MAN, BP & Doc Strange to be just trailers to Avengers 2. The lead-in can be done right if they keep things subtle - following the after-the-credits gimmick from the first Iron Man & the original cut of TIH. You can have cameos, just not in pivotal moments (Renner's in Thor).

Eh, you've kind of twisted my point. I don't think any of the films so far have been affected by The Avengers. I just want them to develop more on their own, while retaining the shared universe feel.

 

[marcvader]

So, can someone update me on any new info regarding the Avengers movie we've learned at NYCC?

 

[darkslayer101]

has there bin any leak on the footage that was shown during the panel?

 

[Tony Starkk]

The Avengers should stay the same in the sequel. I don't want them to add any new Avengers. It's perfect the way it is.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

JAK, I think its safe to say that if IM2 was about Tony, it woulda been a good film. I think its also safe to say that had The Avengers not been set for production just a year after Cap, that we coulda gotten a Cap film with great 2nd & 3rd acts, as well as a sequel prior to the team-up. There's really no need to repeat the aforementioned mistakes in further films just for the sake of hyping movies years away from being in production. You can have a truly great solo film that sets up the next installment (Iron Man). You don't have to place the next installment within the solo film (IM2). Iron Man (2008) still stands as the most profitable of the MCU films. Its no coincidence that its the one film in the franchise that wasn't worried about the films to come after it.

 

[DyeLorean]

I gotta be honest, if Avengers is THE hit it threatens to be, I'm loving the idea of this set of parallel superhero movies happening in the same universe, sharing details, plot points, clues of what happened and/or what's to come. I find that extremely refreshing, and from a marketing strategy I think it works better than some might expected. Specially when the superhero era that started like a decade ago (with Blade, and then with X Men) is feeling a little old and repetitive in some cases.
Marvel is handling this aspect in a very respectable and satisfying way. Can't wait to see what happens in Avengers - Phase One, and what's to come in new entries like Dr Strange and Ant Man. Even if they are not featured in a sequel to Avengers, I'm pretty sure they're gonna make them share the MCU.
Man, what a great couple of decades to live in if you're a comic book and superhero fan.

 

[marcvader]

I'd be fine with less SHIELD involvement, Hulk leaving for a solo, and the addition of a couple classic members like the Pyms and BP.

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

JAK, I think its safe to say that if IM2 was about Tony, it woulda been a good film. I think its also safe to say that had The Avengers not been set for production just a year after Cap, that we coulda gotten a Cap film with great 2nd & 3rd acts, as well as a sequel prior to the team-up. There's really no need to repeat the aforementioned mistakes in further films just for the sake of hyping movies years away from being in production. You can have a truly great solo film that sets up the next installment (Iron Man). You don't have to place the next installment within the solo film (IM2). Iron Man (2008) still stands as the most profitable of the MCU films. Its no coincidence that its the one film in the franchise that wasn't worried about the films to come after it.

See I think the benefits that come from having a shared universe in the MCU lies in what was just stated; being able to use plot points and story elements from the different films in other films, and seeing how the different characters react to it. Look no further than the comics when dealing with this kind of stuff.

Whenever Marvel has an event like Civil War or Fear Itself, they have companion issues to the event detailing the different heroes and their involvement with the overall story. Granted, not all of them are good, but I'd argue a lot of them are worth reading. These companion issues do a very good job of focusing on the characters they're titled after, while at the same time connecting them with the overall event taking place.

I've always loved the idea of a connected movie universe just not at the event of some future film, no matter how good it may be, overshadowing the story at hand. I'm hoping that after Avengers Marvel will focus a little more carefully on the solos. No more unbelievable dates to rush toward.

 

[JAK®]

JAK, I think its safe to say that if IM2 was about Tony, it woulda been a good film. I think its also safe to say that had The Avengers not been set for production just a year after Cap, that we coulda gotten a Cap film with great 2nd & 3rd acts, as well as a sequel prior to the team-up. There's really no need to repeat the aforementioned mistakes in further films just for the sake of hyping movies years away from being in production. You can have a truly great solo film that sets up the next installment (Iron Man). You don't have to place the next installment within the solo film (IM2). Iron Man (2008) still stands as the most profitable of the MCU films. Its no coincidence that its the one film in the franchise that wasn't worried about the films to come after it.

IM2 was about Tony. There was a lot of Avengers stuff, which was based on a lot of Iron Man history anyway (Black Widow is an Iron Man character, Nick Fury has always been a recurring character in Iron Man comics) but it didn't take anything away from his character arc. In fact, the whole film was about him not having to work alone.

Anything lackluster about Cap and Thor (which wasn't much) I attribute to a lack of budget or the limitations of being origin films. I thought the Avengers subplot was integrated flawlessly.

 

[Marvin]

So far I think marvel goes against the superhero rule of sequels. Based on their studio geared goals, they actually do their best work before the sequel and with introductory character exposition. Their 2 and mainly 3rd acts have always been weaker than their first. And their sequels have simply been the continuation of that to the point where they may as well be considered the 5th and 6th acts.

Everyone loves the first act of cap, most complaints about the film come after that. Same for Thor and same for Iron man. Hulk wasn't an origin film so it was basically the problem throughout.

Now Avengers presents an interesting experiment. But from what I've seen it may literally be Marvel's first "sequel" to take advantage of the superhero sequel syndrome. That is, explaining time is over and engaging plot time is about to commence.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

IM2 was about Tony. There was a lot of Avengers stuff, which was based on a lot of Iron Man history anyway (Black Widow is an Iron Man character, Nick Fury has always been a recurring character in Iron Man comics) but it didn't take anything away from his character arc. In fact, the whole film was about him not having to work alone.

Anything lackluster about Cap and Thor (which wasn't much) I attribute to a lack of budget or the limitations of being origin films. I thought the Avengers subplot was integrated flawlessly.

Don't argue with Alexei, fair warning....

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Marvin's on point with the MCU films consistently having weak 2nd & 3rd acts. While Iron Man had a lackluster 3rd act, it closed on a fantastic note. Cap had a strong first act, but once Steve became Cap, all we were left with was an Avengers prequel. IM2 you can pretty much just dub "IRON MAN: MAN OF SHIELD". Thor, again, I think suffered the least from Avengers seeds (Renner's presence in the film being the exception). I too believe that The Avengers will probably [finally] amount to being a great MCU film because the setting up is finished & it can just be its own animal without any need to juggle subplots for future ventures.

 

[JAK®]

You seriously think Hawkeye's cameo in Thor was that bad?

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

I'm loving the idea of this set of parallel superhero movies happening in the same universe, sharing details, plot points, clues of what happened and/or what's to come. I find that extremely refreshing, and from a marketing strategy I think it works better than some might expected. Specially when the superhero era that started like a decade ago (with Blade, and then with X Men) is feeling a little old and repetitive in some cases.
Marvel is handling this aspect in a very respectable and satisfying way. Can't wait to see what happens in Avengers - Phase One, and what's to come in new entries like Dr Strange and Ant Man. Even if they are not featured in a sequel to Avengers, I'm pretty sure they're gonna make them share the MCU.
Man, what a great couple of decades to live in if you're a comic book and superhero fan.

I agree 100%

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

JAK, I love Renner. I love Renner as Hawkeye. But he really took me outta the moment. I wanted my attention directed at Thor's emotional breakdown, not at Renner's awesomeness. Hell, I couldn't wait to see him once I heard he was in Thor. But to put him in that scene? No cigar.