The Avengers Why all the cross-over hate?

[Aztec]

There's been a disturbing trend I've noticed from critics and fanboys alike lately when it comes to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. There have been endless complaints about films being a "set-up" for The Avengers. First of all I don't believe it's true of any of the films, second of all who cares if it was? Isn't the whole point here that Marvel is doing something different?

Let's start with Iron Man 2 a film that has become the poster for fanboys complaining that "it was an advertisement for The Avengers". I must ask you how is this so? Yes SHIELD played a larger role, but if you watched the after credits of IM and TIH then you would certainly expect that to be the case wouldn't you? The story itself was about Tony Stark. Period. SHIELD got some nice screen time for sure, but the story was 100% Tony Stark centered. Not to mention SHIELD was instrumental in Stark's character development by giving him the tools he needed to grow. With that in mind, there were some flaws in this film IMHO (weak final action scene, Whiplash not given enough screen time) but none of these problems were a direct result of "too much Avengers". In fact, the topic of The Avengers is only broached in two short Fury/Stark conversations. How is that taking away from the film?

Over on AICN reviewer Kristian Horn posted in his Cap review that "Thor was hamstrung from too many Avengers tie ins". What freaking movie was he watching? Stark and Banner were briefly referenced and SHIELD was present but otherwise how did that impede Thor's journey? Don't you think that a government agency (particularly one charged with protecting the earth from massive extraterrestrial threats) would show up to the scene of a strange object falling from the sky? I have also seen some recent Cap reviews over at RT that are complaining about Cap being a warm up for The Avengers. Really? Even though it took place 70 years before the Avengers? Idiots.

Now onto my second point. Marvel is doing something that has truly never been done before with this level of intention. They are taking four different franchises and tying them together into one massive outing. Instead of doing it all at once in one film (X-Men or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) they are taking the time to introduce each character, show their origin, allow the audience to learn and care about them as characters, and then bring them together. This allows for a greater affect for the inevitable clash of egos in order to try to form a coherent team. Am I the only one who thinks that's freaking awesome? Isn't this exactly what's been happening in the comics for the last 50+ years? Particularly in The Avengers who all originally started off as individual heroes.

"They are referencing other characters in this film. Waahhhh!" Exactly! That's the point. This whole universe is interconnected. Why in the world is that a bad thing? This is a 6 film saga (hopefully more) that will end in an enormous epic adventure that was inconceivable after the first film. That is good storytelling. That's like watching/reading Game of Thrones and complaining that the Targaryens don't contribute directly to the central Stark/Lannister storyline. People need to learn how to give it time and let it lead to something much larger. This is the very nature of epic storytelling.

I also like how Marvel is slowly introducing characters into the franchise. Black Widow needed to be in IM2 so that audiences could become familiar with her. They could get away with allowing her in the sequel because everyone knew who Tony Stark was by that point. Would you want to have to take time out of The Avengers to explain who she is and where she came from? Of course not, that's why you have 5 films leading up to it to thoroughly explain and develop all of the necessary characters.

Finally, can you just stop and think for one minute how cool this is? We have a five film arc that's leading into something truly epic; even by today's Hollywood summer blockbuster standards. It's all separate, yet connected. It's individual, yet united. In short: It's The Avengers! And it's really happening...and that's pretty cool. Be thankful. Thank you for reading.

 

[Weadazoid]

I think it's awsome.

From day 1 the SECOND TIH was over and Stark appear and talks somethin somthin to General Ross


I was into it.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

i think it's just "spoiled grapes" from fans of certain other Distinguished Companies who's owners lack the talant and imagination to make THEIR characters exist in a shared movie universe.

 

[Aztec]

i think it's just "spoiled grapes" from fans of certain other Distinguished Companies who's owners lack the talant and imagination to make THEIR characters exist in a shared movie universe.

The craziest thing about this element of the whiners (and they by no means represent all of the whiners- not even most) is that the WB never even had an excuse not to put their characters together since they had all the exclusive rights to DC characters from the get go. So as you said it truly is a lack of talent and imagination on WB's part.

My biggest concern in this post still remains the film critics (amateur and professional) who can't grasp how revolutionary and unique this is.

 

[hatebox]

It doesn't bother me, but I get it - if you're a casual fan you have no reason to care at this point and a lot of moments in pre-Avnegers movies may feel like some big joke you're not in on. Never a nice feeling.

 

[Aztec]

It doesn't bother me, but I get it - if you're a casual fan you have no reason to care at this point and a lot of moments in pre-Avnegers movies may feel like some big joke you're not in on. Never a nice feeling.

But how does it take away from the films themselves? Do you have to know what The Avengers is to understand Thor? Or The Incredible Hulk? Or even Iron Man 2? I don't believe you have to be aware at all and you could still enjoy these films 100%.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Great topic.

Why? Because people either want to find something to cry and moan about or some certain other ones were brainwashed into believing characters should live in their own world and not be able to live in a larger universe.

I've been into this since day one.

I love the fact that a strange object can fall from the sky and rather than have some generic overused agency show up (FBI/CIA), friggen SHEILD shows up. I like the fact that General Ross comes out with some high tech weaponry with the Stark Industries logo on it to try to stop the Hulk, or have a character show up being someone part of the comic universe and it not being some character that looks like the character from said comic but with a different name. Nothing wrong with any of that because it didn't take away from the main story or the heroes journey.

As far as the complaints about Avengers coming so soon after the individual movies, the founding members, Hulk and Thor both made their comic debuts in '62, Iron Man in the spring '63, shortly there afterwards, the Avengers were formed in fall of '63, with Captain America returning in issue 4. With most of those characters working together or against each other for almost 50 YEARS.

So what's wrong with their movies coming out a few years apart with them forming the team just a year later?

I find it laughable when people want to make it seem like the Avengers superteam concept is some fanboy idea Marvel came up with after the Iron Man movie premier to put together characters that have no history whatsoever with each other on the big screen.

 

[Alientraveller]

Over on AICN reviewer Kristian Horn posted in his Cap review that "Thor was hamstrung from too many Avengers tie ins".

Odd considering how critics were pleased Thor didn't have as many tie-ins as Iron Man 2, perhaps it's more to do with how some people are unable to praise something without disparaging another.

I wonder, do people complain about the JLA appearing in The Sandman, and lip service is paid to in stories focusing on one hero just so fans don't wonder where they are? Or that other superheroes played big roles in Born Again and Guardian Devil? Are people upset characters introduced in Fantastic Four can have cosmic crossovers all to themselves?

 

[Raiden]

Excellent post, Aztec. Count me as one of the people who don't understand any criticism toward Marvel's efforts on building their movies toward the Avengers. First of all, despite the SHIELD characters and references in their respective films, none of them stand in the way of the movie, and they can be enjoyed as standalone movies. Secondly, this Cinematic Universe has NEVER been attempted before, even though DC's rights are owned by WB and if they want, they could've made a JLA movie long ago, while Marvel had to sell off their characters' film rights to stave off bankruptsy many years ago. The Avengers is a huge gamble, and while there's a huge potential to be the biggest blockbuster there is, there is also an element of risk as moviegoers are fickle and movie studios cannot dictate who will see their movie even with 100 million marketing. I for one cannot wait for the opus that Marvel will deliver next summer, and I hope it will be the first of many more to come in the future.

 

[sgaana]

I am completely with you on this. I don't understand any of the "oh IM2 and TIH and Thor are just commercials for the Avengers movie" complaints at all. I think the fact that they're all slowly but surely being tied together is exciting. And I think what Marvel Studios is trying to do is really intriguing -- like the next logical movie-series step after something like SW, LOTR and Harry Potter (all of which were film series where it's difficult to watch later installments if you haven't seen the previous ones). In contrast, IM, TIH and Thor (and to an only-slightly lesser extent IM2) can be enjoyed by themselves even if you aren't all that interested in The Avengers... but I honestly can't wrap my head around people who enjoy any of those films and AREN'T interested in the way they build towards The Avengers.

I don't know that I've ever heard anyone complain that "The Empire Strikes Back" was "merely advertising for" "Return of the Jedi"... yet you can't really watch TESB without seeing RotJ, because TESB really isn't a complete story. What's the difference? (I'm leaning on SW here rather than LOTR or HP, because the usual excuse given for those is that people know beforehand that they are based on longer fictional works, so they know when watching movie 1 or 3 or whatever that there is more coming in the story.) The only difference I can really see is that when TESB came out, "continuing the story" sequels to blockbusters, or movies in general outside of serials, wasn't common. So another SW film felt like such a treat, and then the revelations and cliffhangers of TESB were so exciting that everyone was like "oh god please how long until the sequel?" I mean, when SW came out, nobody knew there'd be a sequel. When TESB did, you felt sure there would be one (they can't leave it THERE!), but you didn't know when. (And it was... a while.)

So what are people objecting to with the MCU? That, with the except of IM, they now know there's going to be sequels and that it's building towards The Avengers... and somehow, instead of that being a feature, it's somehow a bug? I just don't get it at all.

The only difference between, say, the HP movie series, and the MCU, seems to be that the HP series is based on a very specific set of fictional works, while the MCU is instead is based on more of an established concept already embodied by a set of fictional works, but the movies aren't closely following any one particular existing work about either the individual characters or the team. To me, that's what makes it interesting. It exists in between projects like LOTR and HP, and a movie-only storyline like the original SW trilogy (meaning one where nobody knew the developing story already, until each movie came out).

I wonder if critics and certain members of the audience would feel differently if, right after IM, Marvel Studios had said outright, "we have a game-plan for the next 5 movies, and it's going to take us the next 5 years to do it". Which I don't see as any different in concept from, "we're making a series of 7/8 movies that in the end will tell an entire story" (i.e. Harry Potter).

Also, finally... I agree with you that the story in "Thor" would not have made any sense if someone from the government had not shown up to investigate what happened, especially the landing of Mjolnir and subsequent failure to be able to move it. If the gov't hadn't wanted to look into it, frankly that would have been a huge conceptual plot hole that would have bugged the hell out of a lot of people. So... what I don't get is why critics/audience would be okay with "the CIA showed up" (or you know, whoever), but because the gov't agents who showed up belong to a sub-organization unique to the MCU, suddenly it's some big issue?

Yet, still, you can watch "Thor" and enjoy it if you just treat Coulson and SHIELD as "here's the standard men in black to investigate this weird thing", without needing to know or care that Coulson and SHIELD link up with IM, IM2, etc.


Sorry. TL;DR. Short version: I don't get it either, I think this whole linked-MCU thing is tremendously exciting, and I've enjoyed every bit of linking and Easter-Egging they've done.

 

[Pinky021]

Great post!,, I completely agree. As for me, I love all the tie-ins and easter eggs in the Marvel movies, heck, I'd like for them to have more!,, more references to other Marvel heroes,, like for ex, once they all meet in the Avengers, in future sequels for IM, Thor, Cap,, I'd like for them to reference their friend by name... Avengers, can't wait!!

 

[Vartha]

I personally have no hate over the crossovers with each individual film.
I do know of people who are fed up with all the Comic events and it's effected the hate of other character easter eggs in the individual movies.

 

[Chewy]

This thread is a failure because no one posted the Cap "Haters gonna hate" picture. I assumed it would be the first reply.

 

[Godzilla2014]

There's been a disturbing trend I've noticed from critics and fanboys alike lately when it comes to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. There have been endless complaints about films being a "set-up" for The Avengers. First of all I don't believe it's true of any of the films, second of all who cares if it was? Isn't the whole point here that Marvel is doing something different?

Let's start with Iron Man 2 a film that has become the poster for fanboys complaining that "it was an advertisement for The Avengers". I must ask you how is this so? Yes SHIELD played a larger role, but if you watched the after credits of IM and TIH then you would certainly expect that to be the case wouldn't you? The story itself was about Tony Stark. Period. SHIELD got some nice screen time for sure, but the story was 100% Tony Stark centered. Not to mention SHIELD was instrumental in Stark's character development by giving him the tools he needed to grow. With that in mind, there were some flaws in this film IMHO (weak final action scene, Whiplash not given enough screen time) but none of these problems were a direct result of "too much Avengers". In fact, the topic of The Avengers is only broached in two short Fury/Stark conversations. How is that taking away from the film?

Over on AICN reviewer Kristian Horn posted in his Cap review that "Thor was hamstrung from too many Avengers tie ins". What freaking movie was he watching? Stark and Banner were briefly referenced and SHIELD was present but otherwise how did that impede Thor's journey? Don't you think that a government agency (particularly one charged with protecting the earth from massive extraterrestrial threats) would show up to the scene of a strange object falling from the sky? I have also seen some recent Cap reviews over at RT that are complaining about Cap being a warm up for The Avengers. Really? Even though it took place 70 years before the Avengers? Idiots.

Now onto my second point. Marvel is doing something that has truly never been done before with this level of intention. They are taking four different franchises and tying them together into one massive outing. Instead of doing it all at once in one film (X-Men or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) they are taking the time to introduce each character, show their origin, allow the audience to learn and care about them as characters, and then bring them together. This allows for a greater affect for the inevitable clash of egos in order to try to form a coherent team. Am I the only one who thinks that's freaking awesome? Isn't this exactly what's been happening in the comics for the last 50+ years? Particularly in The Avengers who all originally started off as individual heroes.

"They are referencing other characters in this film. Waahhhh!" Exactly! That's the point. This whole universe is interconnected. Why in the world is that a bad thing? This is a 6 film saga (hopefully more) that will end in an enormous epic adventure that was inconceivable after the first film. That is good storytelling. That's like watching/reading Game of Thrones and complaining that the Targaryens don't contribute directly to the central Stark/Lannister storyline. People need to learn how to give it time and let it lead to something much larger. This is the very nature of epic storytelling.

I also like how Marvel is slowly introducing characters into the franchise. Black Widow needed to be in IM2 so that audiences could become familiar with her. They could get away with allowing her in the sequel because everyone knew who Tony Stark was by that point. Would you want to have to take time out of The Avengers to explain who she is and where she came from? Of course not, that's why you have 5 films leading up to it to thoroughly explain and develop all of the necessary characters.

Finally, can you just stop and think for one minute how cool this is? We have a five film arc that's leading into something truly epic; even by today's Hollywood summer blockbuster standards. It's all separate, yet connected. It's individual, yet united. In short: It's The Avengers! And it's really happening...and that's pretty cool. Be thankful. Thank you for reading.

The problem I think people have with a film "feeling like it's an ad for the Avengers" is that when I go to see Iron Man 2, I am paying to see Iron Man, not a 2-hour ad for the Avengers movie.

i think it's just "spoiled grapes" from fans of certain other Distinguished Companies who's owners lack the talant and imagination to make THEIR characters exist in a shared movie universe.

That's not it at all. What you are doing is trying to dismiss the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you by discrediting them as being envious DC fans.
Also, it's not a lack of imagination that has lead to the lack of DC Cinematic Universe. A lack of talent or imagination would not have produced The Dark Knight, would it? It's that their primary franchise that is up and running, Batman, was designed to exclude such a possibility to focus solely on Batman himself and make him more unique, so it's more so a different philosophy than a lack of talent or imagination.

 

[Pinky021]

2-hour ad for the Avengers movie???

 

[Pinky021]

It would be nice to see a JL movie,, but I don't think it will work in the big screen,, Batman will not fit, he's only human, and the rest have superpowers,, forget his stupid prep time, any supervillian/superhero will end Batman in no time,, better leave him in his own movies... and bring on Avengers!!

 

[amazingfantasy15]

The problem I think people have with a film "feeling like it's an ad for the Avengers" is that when I go to see Iron Man 2, I am paying to see Iron Man, not a 2-hour ad for the Avengers movie.

How was Iron Man 2 not an Iron Man movie, he was front and center the entire time. Even during the SHIELD scenes it was about helping Iron Man/Stark or him joining or not being able to join the Avengers. The only scenes that weren't about Iron Man were the throwaway lines from Coulson about New Mexico. If anything was an ad for the Avengers it was Hulk, you had the Super Soldier Serum, Stark Industries, SHIELD, Stark himself, that movie was loaded with Avengers stuff.

I'm all for the shared universe, I see the different crossover pieces as more Easter eggs than anything else, it's like looking for Stan Lee in all the movies, what connections are there in this one to the universe as a whole.

 

[bored]

"Iron Man 2" was the only movie I felt had this problem, just with how much time they gave to Black Widow. "Thor" did it much better, with Hawkeye basically being an easter egg.

 

[Avenger]

Black Widow and Nick Fury took up, what, about a combined ten minutes of IM2, at the most? IM2 had several flaws, but the Avengers stuff was far from its biggest.

 

[Iron_Stark]

The problem I think people have with a film "feeling like it's an ad for the Avengers" is that when I go to see Iron Man 2, I am paying to see Iron Man, not a 2-hour ad for the Avengers movie.

Do you even know how much Avengers talk was in Iron Man 2 or are you just talking out of your [behind].

Please add up the minutes and scenes in Iron Man 2 that had Avengers talk or Avengers references.

 

[jacobed]

Shield was definitely not the problem with Iron Man 2 if anything it helped with a storyline that was going absolutely no where. They were in it for what maybe 10 minutes at the most.

 

[Aztec]

1) The problem I think people have with a film "feeling like it's an ad for the Avengers" is that when I go to see Iron Man 2, I am paying to see Iron Man, not a 2-hour ad for the Avengers movie.



2)The Dark Knight, would it? It's that their primary franchise that is up and running, Batman, was designed to exclude such a possibility to focus solely on Batman himself and make him more unique, so it's more so a different philosophy than a lack of talent or imagination.

1) As others have said (myself included): How was Iron Man 2 a "2-hour ad for the Avengers movie"? SHIELD took up less than 10-15 minutes of the movie and their presence was entirely relevant to Tony's story, and was a direct continuation of the end of the first movie. Since it is a sequel, doesn't make sense that they would continue stories from the first one? Besides the fact remains that they ARE building towards The Avengers so it makes sense to bring in SHIELD in an expanded role since they are not getting their own film.

2) Look I love Batman as much as the next guy. Excellent character, mythos, rogue's gallery, and Dark Knight was one of the best FILMS (let alone comic book movie) of all time. With that said, that is the only thing WB has gotten right. Nolan has talent, vision, and imagination for sure; but not the WB head honchos (except the ones who hired him of course). They have failed to show that with any of their other characters on the big screen since Superman II. I do agree however that the Nolan trilogy is not conducive to a cinematic universe and should remain on its own. If they want a DC cinematic universe they will have to do it after TDKR with a reboot of Batman. But I ask what about Green Lantern or Superman? Why are they not doing it with these characters?

With that all being said what Marvel is doing is unique, risky, revolutionary, and truly attempting to bring 50+ years of shared comic universe to the big screen. You can look at these 6 films as one epic saga, or as 5 independent stories (clearly IM & IM2 are combined here). It works both ways. That's exactly what makes this so unique. You don't need to see Iron Man, Hulk, and Thor to watch Captain America; but if you do you'll enjoy it all the more.

 

[Godzilla2014]

How was Iron Man 2 not an Iron Man movie, he was front and center the entire time. Even during the SHIELD scenes it was about helping Iron Man/Stark or him joining or not being able to join the Avengers. The only scenes that weren't about Iron Man were the throwaway lines from Coulson about New Mexico. If anything was an ad for the Avengers it was Hulk, you had the Super Soldier Serum, Stark Industries, SHIELD, Stark himself, that movie was loaded with Avengers stuff.

I'm all for the shared universe, I see the different crossover pieces as more Easter eggs than anything else, it's like looking for Stan Lee in all the movies, what connections are there in this one to the universe as a whole.

I wasn't that Iron Man 2 felt like a 2-hour ad for the Avengers movie per se, just that the problem people have with a film feeling like an ad for the Avengers.

"Iron Man 2" was the only movie I felt had this problem, just with how much time they gave to Black Widow. "Thor" did it much better, with Hawkeye basically being an easter egg.

Agreed.

Do you even know how much Avengers talk was in Iron Man 2 or are you just talking out of your [behind].

Please add up the minutes and scenes in Iron Man 2 that had Avengers talk or Avengers references.

I haven't seen Iron Man 2 since I saw it at the drive-in, so I couldn't really tell you how many minutes were spent on this or that, but if I recall correctly the film's problem overall was that Stark didn't do much, so things like the Avengers set-up might have become exacerbated. Hell, the Avengers talk is most of what I remember of the film.

1) As others have said (myself included): How was Iron Man 2 a "2-hour ad for the Avengers movie"? SHIELD took up less than 10-15 minutes of the movie and their presence was entirely relevant to Tony's story, and was a direct continuation of the end of the first movie. Since it is a sequel, doesn't make sense that they would continue stories from the first one? Besides the fact remains that they ARE building towards The Avengers so it makes sense to bring in SHIELD in an expanded role since they are not getting their own film.

I was primarily just saying what a person's problem with a "2-hour Avengers ad" would be. Not saying it was an actual problem with the film (because I don't remember much of it, having not seen it since watching it at the drive-in when it was in theaters). Also, because the film overall didn't give Tony Stark much to do, things like S.H.I.E.L.D.'s screentime could become exacerbated in the eyes of the viewer.

2) Look I love Batman as much as the next guy. Excellent character, mythos, rogue's gallery, and Dark Knight was one of the best FILMS (let alone comic book movie) of all time. With that said, that is the only thing WB has gotten right. Nolan has talent, vision, and imagination for sure; but not the WB head honchos (except the ones who hired him of course). They have failed to show that with any of their other characters on the big screen since Superman II. I do agree however that the Nolan trilogy is not conducive to a cinematic universe and should remain on its own. If they want a DC cinematic universe they will have to do it after TDKR with a reboot of Batman. But I ask what about Green Lantern or Superman? Why are they not doing it with these characters?

With that all being said what Marvel is doing is unique, risky, revolutionary, and truly attempting to bring 50+ years of shared comic universe to the big screen. You can look at these 6 films as one epic saga, or as 5 independent stories (clearly IM & IM2 are combined here). It works both ways. That's exactly what makes this so unique. You don't need to see Iron Man, Hulk, and Thor to watch Captain America; but if you do you'll enjoy it all the more.

And "the one thing Warner Brothers has gotten right" they knocked out of the damn park. As the old adage goes, "Quality over Quantity". I, and I think general audiences would agree with me, would rather have 1 excellent film than 4 or 5 good films.

 

[Son of Coul]

It became a concern with skeptical fans and critics alike ever since they announced their lineup after IM and TIH were released. These people still feel that these movies make up some kind of an "Avengers Series," when that is absolutely not the case and Avengers is its own separate franchise.

Even more erroneous is the frequent claim that all the solo movies exist solely to "advertise and lead up to The Avengers." Yes, making five $150 million movies in order to promote just one by putting vague winks and nudges to it throughout them. Those scheming sunza*****es.

Do you even know how much Avengers talk was in Iron Man 2 or are you just talking out of your [behind].

Please add up the minutes and scenes in Iron Man 2 that had Avengers talk or Avengers references.

I'm here again, about 3 1/2 minutes including the 40 sec post credit scene.

 

[bored]

Are you counting all the screen-time Black Widow got?