The Avengers What if Avengers were an afterthought from the other MCU films?

[Dark Raven]

This is a purely speculative thread. I got the idea for this while I was reading about the future of the Justice League movie on wikipedia and came across this bit:

Although Christopher Nolan has been rumored to be director for a Justice League film, Nolan himself wishes to keep the Superman and Batman series individual as he is involved in the making of both the next Batman and Superman films, "Marvel are doing what they are doing and people will either respond to that really well or they won't. It's not something I ever applied a blanket rule to, but Marvel characters are very different to DC characters...

I was thinking that what if, after all his opposition to keeping the Superman and Batman series separate, Nolan did end up incorporating them into a combined Justice League movie with the same actors?

And then that got me thinking: What if, instead of the way everything was planned by Marvel to lead into the Avengers, the Avengers movie was an afterthought from the other MCU films?

What if Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor and Captain America had been separate films which never referenced each other or set things up for the Avengers, but then at the last moment Marvel decided that it would be a great idea to combine them into a single crossover event movie?

How would Marvel reconcile everything and make them feel unified if they were never planned that way? What are some of the things they would have to do and would it be successful or would it require a lot of ret-cons and other explanatory bits in the movie?

 

[Raiden]

How would Marvel reconcile everything and make them feel unified if they were never planned that way? What are some of the things they would have to do and would it be successful or would it require a lot of ret-cons and other explanatory bits in the movie?

My simple answer will be: they can't. That's why despite the fact that MCU isn't perfect, and may never please all the distractors because some think it doesn't go far enough, and some think it went too far, I think it really connects all the MCU films together, and incorporate storylines and characters (such as Loki, Cosmic Cube, Fury, Agent Coulson, BW, and Hawkeye) from those cameos and references into the Avengers movie where they finally bear fruits of their labor. If the Avengers just suddenly introduce all these new characters, backstory, and plot points in a 2 hour-and-half to 3 hour movie, the audience would've became overwhelmed, not to mention that it may backfire and turns into a mess.

Marvel believes that it is a better idea to lead the movies toward the Avengers with those references to SHIELD and guest-stars, and I think despite the criticisms that they had to endure from some message forums, people will see that they made the right decision after all once the movie comes out.

 

[Herolee10]

My simple answer will be: they can't. That's why despite the fact that MCU isn't perfect, and may never please all the distractors because some think it doesn't go far enough, and some think it went too far, I think it really connects all the MCU films together, and incorporate storylines and characters (such as Loki, Cosmic Cube, Fury, Agent Coulson, BW, and Hawkeye) from those cameos and references into the Avengers movie where they finally bear fruits of their labor. If the Avengers just suddenly introduce all these new characters, backstory, and plot points in a 2 hour-and-half to 3 hour movie, the audience would've became overwhelmed, not to mention that it may backfire and turns into a mess.

Marvel believes that it is a better idea to lead the movies toward the Avengers with those references to SHIELD and guest-stars, and I think despite the criticisms that they had to endure from some message forums, people will see that they made the right decision after all once the movie comes out.

Agreed; Hell, while Captain America and the Incredible Hulk have enough material to stand as solo films, there are factors present in those films that were influenced by the events that were shown to have taken place from other films.
The Super Soldier Serum is utilized in some form of manner in TIH for Blonsky, and the Cosmic Cube that was used by the Red Skull to gain power was a result of Odin’s trips towards Earth from his battles with the Frost Giants.

Marvel Studios have done a great job at maintaining a fine line of continuity shared within their films so far. Hell, the continuity is better here than it is for franchises such as Star Wars and X-Men.

 

[Shadowlord X]

Got to agree with Raiden and Herolee10.

This is working beautifully because of this plan. Not everybody will find every movie to their liking but that is the nature of the thing.

 

[Dark Raven]

I wonder if it would come off at all like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which would have been a similar type of movie with several unconnected characters all thrown together in one movie. If there were never any planning for the Avengers when all the previous MCU films were made, they would pretty much be unconnected as far as the general audience are concerned.

Could movies like Raimi's Spider-Man, Fox's Daredevil, Fantastic Four and X-Men, and Sony's Ghost Rider be connected as an example of Marvel characters who are, for all intents and purposes, unconnected?

 

[Spider-Vader]

I think we could see this happen with Bale's Batman & the new Superman, if Avengers is a mega hit.

 

[Quasimod0]

They don't HAVE to be pre-connected, but it sure does make it better and alot more enjoyable!

 

[Dark Raven]

I think we could see this happen with Bale's Batman & the new Superman, if Avengers is a mega hit.

Well we could (and I would hope so too), but would there be any explaining needed to show how they occupy the same universe? Batman seems to be almost the sole hero of his, although I suppose the same could've been said of Iron Man in his first movie (even though Nick Fury challenged this at the very end in the after credits scene). Certainly Iron Man didn't seem as if he could really mesh with Thor at the time.

Bale's Batman doesn't seem like he would fit with anyone else, but maybe things could be worked out so that it wouldn't seem all that impossible to share a universe with Superman and all these other DC heroes.

 

[Quasimod0]

MAYBE he'll become the awesome batman we all know in tdkr. MAYBE. otherwise nolans batman couldnt hold his own at all with the justice league. He had issues with dogs. lol

 

[Herolee10]

I think the only other franchise that I can think of where it's had a variety of characters established in certain films that finally met with each other for the first time a in another film was Fast Five.lol

 

[Xeno]

It strikes me as strange that WB is allowing individual directors to dictate to the studio how its properties will be used. By giving Nolan control of Superman as well as Batman, the studio has essentially endorsed his vision of each character being isolated in his own little universe. That signals that WB has no intention of ever creating the kind of interconnected universe that Marvel has.

One could rationalize that with the old argument that a world with a Superman needs no other heroes, I suppose. But Supes can't be everywhere, so even though he could handle all the petty villains Batman faces without breaking a sweat he wouldn't necessarily be able to respond. He might not even care since he deals with more cosmic foes (or should).

Can any foe realistically face off against a team containing a character as ridiculously powerful as Superman? Would any villain ever be able to go toe-to-toe with Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash and Green Lantern? Batman would probably end up getting in their way because he's not on the same level.

 

[Dark Raven]

Hasn't Batman previously devised ways to take down all of his teammates if the need arises? Or was that Iron Man with the Avengers? I can't remember now.

The thing is that even though Batman and Superman are isolated in their universes, it doesn't mean that a story couldn't be created to break down those walls of isolation. Iron Man didn't seem as if he could occupy the same universe as Thor when you watch most of his first movie. It seems to be an almost entirely different genre (more like a military thriller). It's like combining a Jack Ryan thriller with a fantasy sword and sorcery movie.

 

[November Rain]

well to be fair, outside of a couple of scenes, the marvel films aren't particularly that connected as they are now

all they would need to do is extend the avengers films by about 15 minutes to join everything together and voila, we're back in business.

 

[Shadowlord X]

It strikes me as strange that WB is allowing individual directors to dictate to the studio how its properties will be used. By giving Nolan control of Superman as well as Batman, the studio has essentially endorsed his vision of each character being isolated in his own little universe. That signals that WB has no intention of ever creating the kind of interconnected universe that Marvel has.

One could rationalize that with the old argument that a world with a Superman needs no other heroes, I suppose. But Supes can't be everywhere, so even though he could handle all the petty villains Batman faces without breaking a sweat he wouldn't necessarily be able to respond. He might not even care since he deals with more cosmic foes (or should).

Can any foe realistically face off against a team containing a character as ridiculously powerful as Superman? Would any villain ever be able to go toe-to-toe with Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash and Green Lantern? Batman would probably end up getting in their way because he's not on the same level.

You've raised some interesting issues which I'd like to comment on.

Firstly nolan is a god at WB. What he says goes. It's far more important to WB to keep him happy than it is to keep a bunch of DC fans happy. He generates the huge money.

That said I actually question whether nolan is truly 'in charge' of Superan. I know he worked on the script but I suspect that is all. Of course I cannot be certain but here is what I suspect is really going on. WB failed on everything superhero except nolan's Batman. So they asked nolan (not the other way around) to get involved in the superman pre-production, primarily by overseeing the script, which he did. His involvement as a producer is probably minimal to non-existant as he is working on a $260 million production known as tdkr. His minimal involvement is all a ploy by WB so that when advertising they can attach his name to it to boost interest.


The whole in aworld with Superman no other heroes are needed is pure BS. Superman has a human identity and a job; he cannot be everywhere at once, and he is not omniscient.

A DC connected universe can exist is just that:
1: nolan is not interested in that and rightfully so. His nolanverse doesn't fit into a comicbook universe and he was never asked to do this from the start.
2: GL failed. I suspect that if WB were being coy. From early on indications were that GL was crap and would bomb. So they did not come out and say that this was the start of a connected DC universe, because if they did and it failed the whole project would auto-fail. So they waited and looked at how GL did. If GL had been a success despite its shortcomings I suspect that WB would have announced that it was the start of connected universe.


Your final point is a very valid one, especially when expanded upon. Can any foe realistically stand a chance against the JL which has Supes, BM, WW, GL, Flash, MM, etc. The power level is extreme, and thus the force they go up against must be equally or more extreme. Firstly story wise it would be difficult and budget-wise it would be insane. That's the difficulty with a JL movie.

 

[Dark Raven]

Your final point is a very valid one, especially when expanded upon. Can any foe realistically stand a chance against the JL which has Supes, BM, WW, GL, Flash, MM, etc. The power level is extreme, and thus the force they go up against must be equally or more extreme. Firstly story wise it would be difficult and budget-wise it would be insane. That's the difficulty with a JL movie.

Can any foe stand a chance against them? No. But foes maybe. In the mini series "Justice" by Jim Krueger, Alex Ross and Doug Braithwaite, which was essentially a modern version of the Justice League vs the Legion of Doom, Lex Luthor and Brainiac found ways to systematically and effectively attack and disable the League and even have some turn on each other using these living microbes.

The combined power of the Legion seemed to be a force to be reckoned with. I think for the JL, it would have to be like the Avengers in terms of enemies - it can't be a single foe, but a team/army they would have to battle, or if itis a single foe, he or she has to be so powerful that even the combined might of the League would struggle. I think possibly someone like Amazo (especially the version from the Justice League cartoon who didn't have such a ridiculous looking costume) would be able to take them on. However, he's almost pretty much like Super Skrull in that he can replicate all of their powers.

 

[scifiwolf]

I think, and this has always been my opinion, that because Marvel doesn't operate in fictional locations, but rather real-world cities, the characters (and thus The Avengers) are more accessible. I know that's just a slice of the pie, but that's always struck me as a big slice of it. The other big slice is the characters themselves and how they're portrayed. DC is too entrenched in Golden Age ideas. It seems to me that those characters were crafted around powers, with back stories as afterthoughts. From what I understand of Marvel characters, a lot of weight was given to the dramatic premise of new characters, either before establishing powers or alongside that process. Marvel's also had less problems updating characters as they moved through eras into modern comics and other media. A prime example of this divide is costume threads in each of the forums. In the Marvel forums, it's a lot of discussion about choosing between and incorporating multiple versions and takes. In the DC forums, it's a lot of complaining if something doesn't adhere to 70-80 years of history for a singular look. The worst is Superman.

To bring this all back around to the topic, I don't think that Marvel's approach to set up The Avengers or WB's ignoring JLA is the issue. It certainly does make it easier on Marvel that they went into all of this with a plan, but that whole plan came about as an afterthought to an Easter egg Jon Favreau included on his own in IM. WB would have a harder time of it because nothing's been done in Batman to set that up. Ultimately, I don't think it matters toward success for either venture, as I just don't think JLA really works with general audiences like Avengers is working.

 

[wampa1]

The Avengers movie WAS an afterthought. The Nick Fury scene at the end of Iron Man was basically thrown in there for a laugh.

 

[Dark Raven]

The Avengers movie WAS an afterthought. The Nick Fury scene at the end of Iron Man was basically thrown in there for a laugh.

Not really. The Avengers can't be described as an afterthought because they've seeded all subsequent movies since IM with references and set ups to the 2012 film. It has all been deliberately planned to culminate in this event next year.

An afterthought would've been if IM, IM2, TIH, Thor and CA were all made independently of each other with no references to the Avengers and no thought of how they might connect, and then someone decides in 2011 "hey, I've got an idea: let's get all these characters to team up for a movie next year!"

 

[Marvin]

so without movies that have sam jackson clapping at the end and a bunch of plot slowing mentions of shield people wouldn't be ready to accept a cross over?

I'm not buying it.
The real reason marvel did all that was to give their films a marketing push in and of themselves. Watch this movie so you will feel like your a part of something bigger.

I hope DCU keeps their films seperate, it will make the final result feel bigger imo.

For example if the xmen and spiderman had a cross over after their first sequels it would have been dope, no agent balding needed.

 

[wampa1]

An afterthought would've been if IM, IM2, TIH, Thor and CA were all made independently of each other with no references to the Avengers and no thought of how they might connect

And an afterthought would also be "Hey, that Nick Fury scene sure was popular. Let's put something like that in all our movies".

The hypothetical in this thread is more The Avengers as an after-a-specific-thought.

 

[November Rain]

but why bother putting a samuel l jackson scene in when it has no relevance to anything in the iron man film in the first place.

 

[Marvin]

but why bother putting a samuel l jackson scene in when it has no relevance to anything in the iron man film in the first place.

like I said
it gives the movie in question a buzz bump under the disguise of smart planning

 

[November Rain]

how?

 

[Raiden]

so without movies that have sam jackson clapping at the end and a bunch of plot slowing mentions of shield people wouldn't be ready to accept a cross over?

I'm not buying it.
The real reason marvel did all that was to give their films a marketing push in and of themselves. Watch this movie so you will feel like your a part of something bigger.

I hope DCU keeps their films seperate, it will make the final result feel bigger imo.

For example if the xmen and spiderman had a cross over after their first sequels it would have been dope, no agent balding needed.

So you think it would be better if none of these movies had any references about SHIELD that connects them together, but in the Avengers they all just suddenly appear and the GA are going to accept the fact that they were all in this shared universe from the beginning? I'm not buying it. As for that Samuel L. Jackson cameo scene at the end of IM, as I understand it SLJ had already signed a 12-picture deal or something like that from the beginning, which means that Marvel had planned this from the start.

 

[Raiden]

like I said
it gives the movie in question a buzz bump under the disguise of smart planning

Do you have some facts to back up this statement?