The Avengers The Avengers: News and Speculation - Part 27A sub-se - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 28

[RealIrOnMaN]

because it raises more questions than it answers. I already had several friends ask me how he survived for 70 years. I had to explain it to them.

This! + the fact, that the whole conversation is pretty simple & obvious. I hope it won't be like that in The Avengers (in terms of Whedon's dialogue).

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

because it raises more questions than it answers. I already had several friends ask me how he survived for 70 years. I had to explain it to them.

But weren't those the questions everyone was asking anyway? I mean, he was really just stating what everyone was thinking at the time. It's not really derailing at all.

 

[Kane52630]

Finally saw the deleted scene on Cap's DVD called "There's a place for you here", which is basically an extended version of Fury & Steve's meeting at the end of the movie.

To be honest, I'm really glad, that Joe & Joss (since he wrote the dialogue & directed the scene) decided to cut it. It felt a little bit forced & weak, though it explained some details & etc. Here, take a look:

I hope it shows up on youtube.

 

[Verbal21]

I could easily see it. Sorry you can't.

no need to be sorry, I'm not gonna lose any sleep. I just don't see how people actually wanna see three entire WWII-era movies involving Cap and thank god we won't have to. I agree they could've extended the battle motage, but no more than that. I much prefer to see him kick ass in modern times

 

[steintym]

Finally saw the deleted scene on Cap's DVD called "There's a place for you here", which is basically an extended version of Fury & Steve's meeting at the end of the movie.

To be honest, I'm really glad, that Joe & Joss (since he wrote the dialogue & directed the scene) decided to cut it. It felt a little bit forced & weak, though it explained some details & etc. Here, take a look:

I don't know, I kind of like it. Not sure how it plays out in real action, but that dialogue doesn't bother me much.

 

[Herolee10]

With the end scene, I think the overall goal imho, was to focus, or emphasize more on the emotional trauma of Steve learning that he's in a different time right now and that everything that he once knew and loved is long gone, and for the film to end on that note.

If anything, the only thing that cut scene would have done is show why Steve was so trusting of Fury since in the Theatrical cut, Fury doesn't say who he is specifically and I've read posts of people asking on why Steve would immediately trust him.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don't think we need sequels to Cap being in the 1940s, nor that we needed a trilogy for the 40s before bringing him here. I think everyone just likes the number 3.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

I still don't understand the current hollywood trend of trilogies. Why don't we worry about making one good movie first? then if it does well enough, make a second good movie. and if you're really lucky, that will do well enough to warrant a third.

I hate it when people go into making a movie saying, "We're gonna make this a trilogy."

 

[Scarecrow_King]

really Hype? that's the 3rd double post in 10 minutes.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

I still don't understand the current hollywood trend of trilogies. Why don't we worry about making one good movie first? then if it does well enough, make a second good movie. and if you're really lucky, that will do well enough to warrant a third.

I hate it when people go into making a movie saying, "We're gonna make this a trilogy."

Uhhh... Lord of the Rings anyone? Sometimes you have to go into it with sequels in mind. If you don't plan the whole thing out ahead of time then in the sequel you might run into problems that you can't change because of the first move being stand alone.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Uhhh... Lord of the Rings anyone? Sometimes you have to go into it with sequels in mind. If you don't plan the whole thing out ahead of time then in the sequel you might run into problems that you can't change because of the first move being stand alone.

Sometimes doesn't mean always. LOTR was written as one story, that was later seperated into 3 sections. Star Wars was conceived as a trilogy. Comic books have a serial tradition more like pulp novels, so limiting yourself to 3 films is not always the best idea. James Bond is a far more similar comparison to most comic franchises, and they did fine not doing things in sets of 3. I don't see why we need conceived trilogies for all these superheroes. Just build off what came before, and to this point, I think for the MCU, it has worked. I don't see why we needed a 40s Cap trilogy before Avengers. There is no point. Cap's man out of time element is a key reason people today love him. Why wait so long to introduce it? Especially since his battle with the Red Skull is not isolated to the 40s. It's better that they're both relics of the past looking at the future their own ways.

 

[Gunga Diner]

I'm incredibly slow, has it been confirmed that the Skrulls aren't in the movie?

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

Sometimes doesn't mean always. LOTR was written as one story, that was later seperated into 3 sections. Star Wars was conceived as a trilogy. Comic books have a serial tradition more like pulp novels, so limiting yourself to 3 films is not always the best idea. James Bond is a far more similar comparison to most comic franchises, and they did fine not doing things in sets of 3. I don't see why we need conceived trilogies for all these superheroes. Just build off what came before, and to this point, I think for the MCU, it has worked. I don't see why we needed a 40s Cap trilogy before Avengers. There is no point. Cap's man out of time element is a key reason people today love him. Why wait so long to introduce it? Especially since his battle with the Red Skull is not isolated to the 40s. It's better that they're both relics of the past looking at the future their own ways.

I do agree here. CBM's have the ability to transcend the trilogy formula. There's just a lot to draw on, I don't see a reason to limit yourself to 3 for any reason other than actor contracts. Pirates of the Caribbean seems to be abandoning the tradition and now, sadly, Transformers seems to be getting more money thrown at it.

I believe if movie studios want to do anime adaptations, which I think is happening pretty soon, they should do them in 2-parters. It'd be enough.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

Uhhh... Lord of the Rings anyone? Sometimes you have to go into it with sequels in mind. If you don't plan the whole thing out ahead of time then in the sequel you might run into problems that you can't change because of the first move being stand alone.

are you really going to use that as a defense? Lord of the Rings was published as 3 books. The only way they could do it justice is to make 3 movies. But to come into a a movie that you're writing the story for yourself? Going ahead and deciding "yeah, this is gonna be good enough to make into 3 movies" is incredibly arrogant. You're gonna end up with a Matrix situation where the first movie may be really good, but you'll end up losing money on the next 2 movies.

 

[Sebastos]

I'm incredibly slow, has it been confirmed that the Skrulls aren't in the movie?

Not yet but it's looking/could be likely.

 

[Spider-Fan]

are you really going to use that as a defense? Lord of the Rings was published as 3 books. The only way they could do it justice is to make 3 movies. But to come into a a movie that you're writing the story for yourself? Going ahead and deciding "yeah, this is gonna be good enough to make into 3 movies" is incredibly arrogant. You're gonna end up with a Matrix situation where the first movie may be really good, but you'll end up losing money on the next 2 movies.

Actually, I think it was published as 1 book and later seperated into 3 sections, which became the 3 books. I think so, at least.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

No, it was originally published as 3. Tolkien fought it tooth and nail, but the publisher gave him an ultimatum. they pretty much said "It's 3 books or none. Your choice."

 

[Scarecrow_King]

No, it was originally published as 3. Tolkien fought it tooth and nail, but the publisher gave him an ultimatum. they pretty much said "It's 3 books or none. Your choice."

 

[cherokeesam]

Do people honestly see a Cap trilogy completely taking place in the 1940's? I honestly don't and am glad they're not doing it that way

As fun as Golden Age superhero-dom can be, let's face it: Cap's introduction to the general public did not really begin until 1964, with Avengers #4. Nobody (still alive) became a fanboi of Captain America in 1941; and the kids who *did* pick up the comic during the war years understood it for what it was --- flag-waving propaganda. Golden Age Cap wasn't even part of the Marvel mythos --- hell, he wasn't even Marvel, but part of Timely Comics.

The Golden Age adventures of Cap that anybody can even recount are strictly retroactive stories from the Invaders comic of the 70s. Cap's story really begins in 1964 in the ice; everything before that (including the godawful non-canonical failed revivals in the postwar 40s and 50s) is just prologue and backstory.

So no, I don't believe Marvel Studios needs to focus a trilogy on a propaganda-rag-for-kiddies Golden Age character who had little connection or continuity with his Silver Age revival...the Cap we all know and love.

because it raises more questions than it answers. I already had several friends ask me how he survived for 70 years. I had to explain it to them.

Tell them that Marvel hasn't answered that question in 70+ years; why the hell would they start now? In all seriousness, I'm starting to latch on to this Internet blogosphere "arc reactor/cosmic cube parallel" theory that, if it exists in the script anywhere beyond the overly speculative minds of bored fanboys, could wind up uniting the four major Avengers. Recent info about Banner's story in the Avengers --- the Banner-Black Widow scene where she tells him that the Tesseract emits gamma radiation, the same kind that gave rise to the Hulk --- seems to back that up. So now, if you postulate that the Super Serum was somehow derived from that same cosmic energy, and that gave Steve the superhuman ability to survive in a block of ice for 70 years....

....Just sayin'.

 

[cherokeesam]

n/m

Yay for friggin' double-posts.
Why is Hype so slow to respond tonight....? grrr

 

[The Squirrel]

Actually, I think it was published as 1 book and later seperated into 3 sections, which became the 3 books. I think so, at least.

Nope, they wouldn't let him publish it as one book because of the length.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Nope, they wouldn't let him publish it as one book because of the length.

It was still conceived as one story, not 3 stories as part as the same underlying story...which is my point

 

[Avenger]

Nope, they wouldn't let him publish it as one book because of the length.

Sort of, yeah. Tolkien wrote it as one book, but the publishers split it up into three books because of paper shortages in the early 1950s.

 

[BigThor]

Are you really defending Cap by saying it was supposed to be just mindless popcorn with no depth at all? To each his own, but there will never come a day when I want my CBMs to be popcorn nor that I approve of CBMs being made with that "creative" motivation.

Well then you're gonna get disappointed time and time again.

Just saying...

 

[CustomFib]

I still don't understand the current hollywood trend of trilogies. Why don't we worry about making one good movie first? then if it does well enough, make a second good movie. and if you're really lucky, that will do well enough to warrant a third.

I hate it when people go into making a movie saying, "We're gonna make this a trilogy."

Im pretty sure its because of saving money to hopefully make more money. Like tying down the actors to multi-year contracts so that if they DO make a big-hit movie, they can try again and already have the actors in contract and not have to spend a lot of money trying to get them onto another script