The Avengers Why all the cross-over hate?

[weezerspider]

What does this mean? Are you trying to compare Iron Man 2 to Call of Duty?

Its a Bad Company 2 reference. Basically I'm saying your comment was bad-ass and I agreed with you.t:

 

[DACrowe]

To answer the OP's post, I think if it is kept in the background and not a major part of the film's central plot--where it can feel like a commercial for coming attractions--it can work. It worked fine in Iron Man, it worked well in The Incredible Hulk and it worked GREAT in Thor. SHIELD was present and were crucial to the plot, as was Hawkeye's presence. But it never overshadowed the story or felt like the plot stopped to work in this commercial for a later film. They were instead part of the texture of that movie.

In Iron Man 2 it fell on its face. The film came to a screeching halt in its second act to have Nick Fury show up and give some exposition and remind everyone that it's part of a franchise/marketing building scheme. The revelation that Scarlett Johansson was Black Widow was an afterthought. Like much of that movie, it felt rushed and half-baked. It just fell on its face.

In Captain America, I'd argue the film didn't have to end with him going to the future or Bucky dying right away. I honestly think they could have made several movies set in WWII and that shows in how uneven the third act is. To race to get Cap to the future (and thus in The Avengers), there is a rather unsatisfying montage to build up CAp's reputation and a sprint to the plain crash. They could have made the third act of that movie into its own film, IMO and the story/stories would have benefitted. However, once Cap made it to 2011, his interaction with both Black Widow (who was subtly used in a way that if you get it cool, but if you don't that's fine, there isn't a big neon sign needlessly pointing at her like in IM2) and later Nick Fury was well handled and set-up The Avengers nicely. However, I do think CA would have not ended with him in the future and would have been stronger for it, if The Avengers wasn't slated for 2012.

With that said, I think this is Marvel's chance to just shine in a fanboy geekfest project without feeling the need to hold back. This is the film where the characters should interact freely. I just hope Whedon, who I'm a great admirer of, can come up with a good story that makes them teaming up feel organic like SHIELD's/Hawkeye's interaction with Thor or Black Widow trying to dupe Cap and not "Hey Iron Man, let's get donuts." I'm just saying.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

^Agreed. And yeah, we needed more than one Cap movie before The Avengers.

 

[Xeno]

We didn't need another Cap movie. Marvel carefully planned how they were going to put together the big 4 to set up The Avengers and it worked very well, except for TIH's box office performance. Next the team movie debuts, then other solo films will roll out to set up the second installment. The studio has done a fine job building the team and laying out the MCU.

 

[Punisher_MAX]

i have NO idea how IM2 was ruined by this whole Avengers build up. everyone is exaggerating it beyond belief. Fury took up about 3 minutes of screen time in a 2 or so hour movie. all the SHIELD stuff was at most 10 minutes which didnt take away from the narrative. seriously?

 

[weezerspider]

To answer the OP's post, I think if it is kept in the background and not a major part of the film's central plot--where it can feel like a commercial for coming attractions--it can work. It worked fine in Iron Man, it worked well in The Incredible Hulk and it worked GREAT in Thor. SHIELD was present and were crucial to the plot, as was Hawkeye's presence. But it never overshadowed the story or felt like the plot stopped to work in this commercial for a later film. They were instead part of the texture of that movie.

In Iron Man 2 it fell on its face. The film came to a screeching halt in its second act to have Nick Fury show up and give some exposition and remind everyone that it's part of a franchise/marketing building scheme. The revelation that Scarlett Johansson was Black Widow was an afterthought. Like much of that movie, it felt rushed and half-baked. It just fell on its face.

In Captain America, I'd argue the film didn't have to end with him going to the future or Bucky dying right away. I honestly think they could have made several movies set in WWII and that shows in how uneven the third act is. To race to get Cap to the future (and thus in The Avengers), there is a rather unsatisfying montage to build up CAp's reputation and a sprint to the plain crash. They could have made the third act of that movie into its own film, IMO and the story/stories would have benefitted. However, once Cap made it to 2011, his interaction with both Black Widow (who was subtly used in a way that if you get it cool, but if you don't that's fine, there isn't a big neon sign needlessly pointing at her like in IM2) and later Nick Fury was well handled and set-up The Avengers nicely. However, I do think CA would have not ended with him in the future and would have been stronger for it, if The Avengers wasn't slated for 2012.

With that said, I think this is Marvel's chance to just shine in a fanboy geekfest project without feeling the need to hold back. This is the film where the characters should interact freely. I just hope Whedon, who I'm a great admirer of, can come up with a good story that makes them teaming up feel organic like SHIELD's/Hawkeye's interaction with Thor or Black Widow trying to dupe Cap and not "Hey Iron Man, let's get donuts." I'm just saying.

I agree the third act was a little rushed, but it IS possible that Cap sequels can have story lines taking place in WWII via flashbacks like The Godfather II. I also don't think The Avengers was the only reason we had him thawed out at the end of the first film. I think that would have happened regardless of an Avengers film or not, simply because I would think Hollywood would think modern time films would sell better in this genre. I'm not saying I agree with that statement. I'm just saying I've always had a hunch a lot of people assume the GA doesn't like superheros in fictional versions of history. In fact there was an article about it around the time Watchmen was released. XM:FC and Cap have proven that wrong though.

 

[weezerspider]

i have NO idea how IM2 was ruined by this whole Avengers build up. everyone is exaggerating it beyond belief. Fury took up about 3 minutes of screen time in a 2 or so hour movie. all the SHIELD stuff was at most 10 minutes which didnt take away from the narrative. seriously?

Yeah I've been saying this for awhile. Natasha has played a big part in the Iron Man mythos so I don't really think her screen time should count towards "the cross over" stuff, but even if it did, the SHIELD stuff still is a small portion of the film and it is all related to the plot(SHIELD sees Stark is reckless, directs him on the right path to a cure so he can go back to saving the world). If anything, WAR MACHINE was forced in IM2. In fact, didn't Natasha appear in IM comics before War Machine?

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

We didn't need another Cap movie. Marvel carefully planned how they were going to put together the big 4 to set up The Avengers and it worked very well, except for TIH's box office performance. Next the team movie debuts, then other solo films will roll out to set up the second installment. The studio has done a fine job building the team and laying out the MCU.

No, the studio did a fine job with Tony Stark but gave us an undercooked Captain America. Instead of developing the character & exploring his consolidation as a hero, they rushed him into the ice - pretty much sacrificing the remainder of the film after he rescues Bucky's unit. This is what rubbed the critics wrong with all the post-Iron Man MCU movies. Marvel seemed more focused in bringing these characters together than delivering truly solid individual films. Had they just taken their time with Cap, we coulda gotten a superb origin film where the stuff that matters (like Bucky's death) isn't glossed over.

 

[DACrowe]

I think it was just another symptom of IM2's main problem. It was directionless. It had no real goals or ambition other than to offer more of the same and while it worked well in the first act (especially in the scenes that they're in France), it just kind of peters out. By the middle of the second act Tony has almost nothing to do except be an ******* until very comical bad guys try to kill him in the climax. And so much of it felt like filler in the middle. Part of that filler included an underwhelming intro to Black Widow (after building up Natasha she just casually strolls into the donut shop like "hi,") and the less than subtle inclusion of Nick Fury who said Avengers two or three times. It was where the movie's pace--or what little it had left--completely vanished and it felt like we were lost in the weeds. And what were those weeds? Set-ups for more Marvel films (The Avengers and Thor to be specific). It just was very underwhelming.

 

[Aztec]

I think what some people need to understand is that Captain America was an origin story. Captain America is a MODERN superhero. His origin happens to be in WW2 but he is not a "WW2" hero. If the film did not bring him to the present day then it failed to tell his origin. As someone else mentioned they left plenty of room in that three year period to tell a Godfather II type story set during WW2.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I think Marvel has done well overall with the set-up for the Avengers. I do think that subtitling Captain America "The First Avenger" is a big mistake, as it makes the film sound like a 2-hour ad for Avengers. Did it really need a subtitle? Why not just title it Captain America? Were they really concerned that audiences would confuse it with the other films that were horrible faliures?

 

[Raiden]

I think Marvel has done well overall with the set-up for the Avengers. I do think that subtitling Captain America "The First Avenger" is a big mistake, as it makes the film sound like a 2-hour ad for Avengers. Did it really need a subtitle? Why not just title it Captain America? Were they really concerned that audiences would confuse it with the other films that were horrible faliures?

It was done for the international market, mostly. Marvel was concerned that moviegoers from other countries will not like to attend a movie with "America" on it, and the hero is wearing the American flag. Their concern was validated when three countries (Ulkaine, Russia, and S. Korea) decided to ditch the title "Captain America" and use "The First Avenger" as its main movie title, instead. I don't like it, but I can agree with their decision.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

The last thing Captain America is, is modern. The guy's first decade of comic book history took place in the 40s. He'd been around 25 years by the time he joined The Avengers. Had Marvel not been so eager to get to The Avengers film, Johnston's film, particularly its 2nd & 3rd acts, woulda had a chance to breathe. Batman Begins is considered to be the template for great origin films, the reason for that being that the film explores the hero's journey to becoming a hero & closes with his establishment as one. It doesn't go overboard trying to explore that consolidation of heroism. That's something that as much as the origin, requires time & a sequel. The film should have ended with Cap fighting & defeating a foe inferior to Schmidt, gaining him the confidence to embrace his newfound heroism. That would have also allowed us to get to know Bucky more & actually care about his death in the sequel. Again, the psychology of being a hero needs to be explored, not glossed over in a montage.

 

[dony2012]

Some comments about that subject from /Film.com:


"all the Marvel movies are just a teas for The Avengers."

"The Avengers better be ****ing worth it."

"I fear that even The Avengers could turned out to be just a teaser for The Avengers 2.
That's how Marvel works. No movie is really a stand alone, they are all just a teas for what comes next.

In other words, the continuity is ruining everything!

So far Iron Man 1 was the only stand alone film by Marvel Studios."


"I am so sick of Marvel movies. They're all so boring and generic and safe and AWFUL! ARGH! I'm ready for the superhero genre to die already.

They aren't even stories. They're set-ups. We know none of the characters are in any danger because a) the movies are designed for kids and b) the characters will need to return for the 17 sequels and 23 spin-offs. The Marvel franchise is the franchise-iest franchise around, and that bothers me. They're products, not movies, not stories."

"There's an even bigger problem. Not only that Marvel won't let their heroes die, but also their archenemies.
So you can be sure that Loki, Red Skull, Mandarin or any other archvillain is safe from real death which could be frustrating. What Marvel refuse to realize is that movies and comics are just completely different mediums. They aren't the same and SHOULDN'T be the same."

http://www.slashfilm.com/marvels-latest-rumor/



"i predict something average! like every movie marvel puts out of their factory."

"First one was mediocre AT BEST.

It had the same problem that most of the Marvel Studios films have.

It felt like nothing more than a set-up for The Avengers..."

"I see some people saying that Marvel Studios are like the Pixar of comic book films and It boggles me.
How the **** is Marvel Studios even remotely close to the level of Pixar?

I mean, let's have a look at the quality of their films so far:

Iron Man - Great.

The Incredible Hulk - Was okay.

Iron Man 2 - BAD!

Thor - Mediocre.

Captain America - Was okay.


Yup, with that amazing record and consistent quality in their films there's really no doubt they're the next Pixar. Cuz most of the Pixar films are average at best, right? :/"

http://www.slashfilm.com/hired-direct-thor-2/



Kind of true, I have to say.

 

[Adamantium Man]

^ Lol. If the Marvel movies are 'average', I say they can continue making 'average' movies for the rest of my life, and I'll be happy.

And I'll never, ever, agree that Iron Man 2 was bad.

Also, what the hell is wrong with teasing the next movie with the one preceding it? Can somebody explain to me how that is a bad thing? Hasn't that been the way of the sequence of movies for decades? Back to the Future, anyone?

 

[dony2012]

^ Lol. If the Marvel movies are 'average', I say they can continue making 'average' movies for the rest of my life, and I'll be happy.

And I'll never, ever, agree that Iron Man 2 was bad.

Also, what the hell is wrong with teasing the next movie with the one preceding it? Can somebody explain to me how that is a bad thing? Hasn't that been the way of the sequence of movies for decades? Back to the Future, anyone?

TIH was average, Thor was average, Cap was average.

Iron Man 2 was BAD, I mean, it started with someone watching a press conference on television while he's DYING!

Just... so stupid.


And there isn't any problem with teasing the next movie with the one preceding it... it just that Marvel doesn't do that, they don't treat their movies as films, but as teasers for their upcoming films (mostly Avengers). Every movie needs to feel like a stand alone but they spend too much time from each film on those teasers and it makes for some pointless sub-plots that doesn't contribute with anything and ruined their films.

 

[Adamantium Man]

^ Yeah, right. Don't watch 'em, then.

 

[kedrell]

Some comments about that subject from /Film.com

Cine'stas can blow me. They'd be better off watching their art house crap.

 

[Punisher_MAX]

i dont know about you but having a living, breathing shared universe within a film series just makes it possible to go a million directions and allows for fresh ideas. considering all the awful Marvel movies we had years ago i am glad they are making "average" movies.

to this day i am satisfied and enjoy every single Marvel film.

 

[Shadowlord X]

@ dony2012

That post with all the quotes is one of the silliest posts I have ever seen. It basically is let me go to another site and pick out all the opinions that agree with my dc fanboy own and thus this will show that the majority of people agree with me. ROTFLMAO!

@ Adamantium man
Dude, I so agree with you. MARVEL can keep on making these 'average' movies forever cause I'll be happy.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don't think we needed more than 1 Cap film before Avengers. I think the film ended just fine, and while a lot of what is to come in Avengers was set up in Cap, I don't feel the 3rd act was overtly rushed. I think the montage and such to show time has passed worked well, since this is Cap's journey to becoming an icon in WWII, and why he is so fondly remembered. I don't think we needed to wait til film 2 for him to be frozen. How it happened in Cap was great, IMO. I loved it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

No, the studio did a fine job with Tony Stark but gave us an undercooked Captain America. Instead of developing the character & exploring his consolidation as a hero, they rushed him into the ice - pretty much sacrificing the remainder of the film after he rescues Bucky's unit. This is what rubbed the critics wrong with all the post-Iron Man MCU movies. Marvel seemed more focused in bringing these characters together than delivering truly solid individual films. Had they just taken their time with Cap, we coulda gotten a superb origin film where the stuff that matters (like Bucky's death) isn't glossed over.

Most critics liked all the Marvel films after IM1. Not to the extent of IM1, but they liked them by and large.

 

[SterlingArcher]

Some comments about that subject from /Film.com:


"all the Marvel movies are just a teas for The Avengers."

"The Avengers better be ****ing worth it."

"I fear that even The Avengers could turned out to be just a teaser for The Avengers 2.
That's how Marvel works. No movie is really a stand alone, they are all just a teas for what comes next.

In other words, the continuity is ruining everything!

So far Iron Man 1 was the only stand alone film by Marvel Studios."


"I am so sick of Marvel movies. They're all so boring and generic and safe and AWFUL! ARGH! I'm ready for the superhero genre to die already.

They aren't even stories. They're set-ups. We know none of the characters are in any danger because a) the movies are designed for kids and b) the characters will need to return for the 17 sequels and 23 spin-offs. The Marvel franchise is the franchise-iest franchise around, and that bothers me. They're products, not movies, not stories."

"There's an even bigger problem. Not only that Marvel won't let their heroes die, but also their archenemies.
So you can be sure that Loki, Red Skull, Mandarin or any other archvillain is safe from real death which could be frustrating. What Marvel refuse to realize is that movies and comics are just completely different mediums. They aren't the same and SHOULDN'T be the same."

http://www.slashfilm.com/marvels-latest-rumor/



"i predict something average! like every movie marvel puts out of their factory."

"First one was mediocre AT BEST.

It had the same problem that most of the Marvel Studios films have.

It felt like nothing more than a set-up for The Avengers..."

"I see some people saying that Marvel Studios are like the Pixar of comic book films and It boggles me.
How the **** is Marvel Studios even remotely close to the level of Pixar?

I mean, let's have a look at the quality of their films so far:

Iron Man - Great.

The Incredible Hulk - Was okay.

Iron Man 2 - BAD!

Thor - Mediocre.

Captain America - Was okay.


Yup, with that amazing record and consistent quality in their films there's really no doubt they're the next Pixar. Cuz most of the Pixar films are average at best, right? :/"

http://www.slashfilm.com/hired-direct-thor-2/



Kind of true, I have to say.

Hmmmmmmm Let Me See

 

[dony2012]

@ dony2012

That post with all the quotes is one of the silliest posts I have ever seen. It basically is let me go to another site and pick out all the opinions that agree with my dc fanboy own and thus this will show that the majority of people agree with me. ROTFLMAO!

@ Adamantium man
Dude, I so agree with you. MARVEL can keep on making these 'average' movies forever cause I'll be happy.

Well, actually I'm a DC hater (hate Superman, hate Green Lantern, some of the most boring superheros ever made) and a big Marvel fan.

That's why I was very disappointed in the way that Marvel Studios treated their movies so far.

But don't get me wrong, I did quite enjoyed every one of their films so far, just didn't think they lived up to their potential. And some of them (Like Thor and Iron Man 2) felt like nothing more than a preview for what comes next.

The worst part is, I really don't like Wonder Woman, but LOVE Thor. But her short, DVD animated movie was a better Thor movie than THOR was.

Thor lacked a sense of scale, a believable romantic relationship and a satisfying ending.
And S.H.I.E.L.D's involvement was a pointless sub-plot.

I don't hate the continuity that Marvel Studios built, I just don't like the WAY they built it.
They need to treat it better, to make each one of their films to feel like their own thing, THEN a part of a bigger universe. Not the other way around.

 

[dony2012]

I don't think we needed more than 1 Cap film before Avengers. I think the film ended just fine, and while a lot of what is to come in Avengers was set up in Cap, I don't feel the 3rd act was overtly rushed. I think the montage and such to show time has passed worked well, since this is Cap's journey to becoming an icon in WWII, and why he is so fondly remembered. I don't think we needed to wait til film 2 for him to be frozen. How it happened in Cap was great, IMO. I loved it.

Speaking of which, Captain America is supposed to be a legend in modern times, right? But we didn't get any indication of that in any of the other Marvel movies. It's true that we saw the shield in Tony Stark's lab and there were some talks on the Super Soldier experiment but we haven't really got a real clue that he's supposed to be a legend and that Tony Stark know who he is, which is more proof for how much of a mess the continuity is.