The Avengers Why all the cross-over hate?

[Aztec]

1) And you are saying this, in this movie, in the Captain America forums?
You guys do know that the movie's subtitle is THE FIRST AVENGER, right?
Do you want anymore set-up than that ridiculous subtitle?


2) What about anyone that actually likes the characters and want a movie about them, not just movies to introduce the characters so they can make The Avengers in 2012?
I'll care about The Avengers in The Avengers movie, not before.
In a Captain America movie i want to care about Steve Rogers, in an Iron Man one i want to care about Tony Stark and so on...

3) Iron Man II is awful in every regard not just because SHIELD was there (but it didn't helped either, and the least we talk about Black Widow the best), in Thor it was just painful to watch SHIELD there.
SHIELD is everywhere, it´s ridiculous.


4) The best 6 comic book movies so far, imo, are:

1 - The Dark Knight
2- Ang Lee´s Hulk
3- X-Men 2
4- Hellboy
5- Sin City
6- Kick-Ass

1) Ummm....You do know why they have a subtitle right? It has a little something to do with the fact that he's called "Captain America" and they want to market it internationally. America is not exactly loved many places overseas (rightly or wrongly).

2) Call me crazy but Iron Man WAS about Tony Stark. Thor WAS about Thor Odinson. The Incredible Hulk WAS about Bruce Banner. Just because there was 1 minute worth of background lines in each film (literally in most cases) about another character that doesn't mean that the rest of the two hour movie should be written off as an advertisement. Sheesh.

3)You are aware that Iron Man 2 was a sequel right? You are aware that sequels further the story of the original right? You are aware that SHIELD entered Tony's life in the first one right? So, why the hell are you surprised that SHIELD plays a larger role in the sequel? It's just following a logical story progression. Again, Iron Man 2 had only two brief conversations between Stark and Fury about Avengers. That's it! The rest of the movie was all about Tony solving his daddy issues, mechanical heart problem, and dealing with the pitfalls of the world knowing his identity. It's a Tony Stark film, plain and simple. I don't know how people don't see that.

4) Did you just list Ang Lee's Hulk as #2 BEST anything? Instant loss of what little credibility you had...

 

[the dmg]

I´m sorry, you guys don't understand why some people are saying that this last movies are just a set-up for The Avengers?
And you are saying this, in this movie, in the Captain America forums?
You guys do know that the movie's subtitle is THE FIRST AVENGER, right?
Do you want anymore set-up than that ridiculous subtitle?

He is the First Avenger. Hence the subtitle.

 

[kedrell]

The best 6 comic book movies so far, imo, are:

1 - The Dark Knight
2- Ang Lee´s Hulk
3- X-Men 2
4- Hellboy
5- Sin City
6- Kick-Ass

Funny how your top 2 are my most 'reviled from the depths of Faustian Hell' comic book movies ever made.

I think different folks complain for different reasons.

Fans of rival companies are jealous thus they complain.

Cine'stas/film buffs/critics are tired of superhero movies and this whole concept is merely insuring that the genre ain't going away for a very long time....thus they complain. And so on and so forth.

Doesn't bother me.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

1) Ummm....You do know why they have a subtitle right? It has a little something to do with the fact that he's called "Captain America" and they want to market it internationally. America is not exactly loved many places overseas (rightly or wrongly).

If they wanted to have the subtitle because of marketing reasons, they would have called Super-Soldier or The Sentinel of Liberty or whatever, the first AVENGER was to get geekgasm among fanboys.
In a movie about Captain America, the least important thing if he is an Avenger or not.

2) Call me crazy but Iron Man WAS about Tony Stark. Thor WAS about Thor Odinson. The Incredible Hulk WAS about Bruce Banner. Just because there was 1 minute worth of background lines in each film (literally in most cases) about another character that doesn't mean that the rest of the two hour movie should be written off as an advertisement. Sheesh.

When i said that in the Captain America movie i want care about Steve Rogers and to care for Tony Stark in the Iron Man movie, it was in response of you saying that "who cares if the movie were set-ups for The Avengers".
Besides, to have SHIELD and Black Widow all over the movie, is hardly a 1 minute line.
To have Agent Coulson, in Thor, all over the place is hardly a 1 minute line.

Thor was an origin movie, which means there shouldn´t have been any SHIELD there in the first place, it should have been all about Thor, his place among mortals and his lesson in humility.
Then again, the script sucked and they went in the exact opposite of what they should have done with the character.
Not saying that the movie was bad, it was fun, but it could have been so much more.

3)You are aware that Iron Man 2 was a sequel right? You are aware that sequels further the story of the original right? You are aware that SHIELD entered Tony's life in the first one right? So, why the hell are you surprised that SHIELD plays a larger role in the sequel? It's just following a logical story progression. Again, Iron Man 2 had only two brief conversations between Stark and Fury about Avengers. That's it! The rest of the movie was all about Tony solving his daddy issues, mechanical heart problem, and dealing with the pitfalls of the world knowing his identity. It's a Tony Stark film, plain and simple. I don't know how people don't see that.

I´m not surprised that SHIELD was in IM2, like i said in my previous post, SHIELD being there is the least of the movie´s problems.

4) Did you just list Ang Lee's Hulk as #2 BEST anything? Instant loss of what little credibility you had...

I love when people bash Ang Lee´s Hulk, it just shows how little they get the characters outside the action and special effects (not saying it´s your case, but your reaction for me listing the movie in 2nd place doesn´t help).
Of all the people that made comic book movies, Ang Lee is the only one that really understood the character (on par with delToro on Hellboy).
Is the movie perfect? No
It lacks on the action, it fails on the Absorving-Dad, it fails on Talbot, it makes a lot of changes....but the heart and mind of the character is intact and it´s almost perfect.
Hulk is a physical manifestation of Banner´s repressed feelings, the green Hulk is Banner when he was a kid, Banner´s father is not an important part of Hulk, he is ESSENTIAL.
Banner´s father CREATED the Hulk, the gamma bomb ONLY released it.
Ang Lee got that perfectly.

 

[storyteller]

I can see where some folks are coming from. They don't want the plot of the other films to be based off the avengers. Me on the other hand. I don't see TIH, IM, IM2, Thor, CAFA......no I see the whole picture. I see all these films as the first part of the avengers movie, it just need over 10 hours to tell it.

 

[Gamma Burst]

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.

Basically this.

 

[Aztec]

I can see where some folks are coming from. They don't want the plot of the other films to be based off the avengers. Me on the other hand. I don't see TIH, IM, IM2, Thor, CAFA......no I see the whole picture. I see all these films as the first part of the avengers movie, it just need over 10 hours to tell it.

Personally I agree. It's like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. It's just a really big story told independently. Yet some refuse to accept this.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Lmao at the Black Widow in the Iron Man movie arguement again. Goes to show how much people know know very little about the Iron Man books.

Fact - she deserved to be in that movie more than War Machine*, she made her debut in Iron Man and has fought againts him and alongside him in more comics than WM since her inception. I'm begining to think most people around here just think girls are icky and don't belong in movies period.


*by this I mean Rhodey in the suit.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I really like TDK, but it alone isn't so amazing that I'd put it above ALL the Marvel Studio movies. And aside from TDK, what else does WB have? BB isn't better than Iron Man, Superman Returns was...average, so was Watchmen. And do I have to get into Green Lantern?

Nolan's Batman trilogy is ending with TDKR, while Marvel will make the Avengers and follow it up with IM3 and Thor 2. I do hope Man of Steel will be alot better than SR, but Snyder can be a hit-or-miss director.

If WB ever makes a JLA movie, and that's a huge IF, they'll probably do it only after the Avengers prove to be a success at the box office.

What Marvel Studios film is better than The Dark Knight? I don't even think there's another comic book film better than it, period.

That's kinda my point though. Dc has Batman....and what else? They've completely dropped the ball with every other character they've attemped to bring to the screen ever since, particularly Green Lantern. They're sitting there with their thumbs up their butts while Marvel leaves them in the dust.

Sure...Nolan's a talented creator. Who ELSE ya got?

Every other character? You mean Green Lantern? That's only one movie (since Marvel Studios was formed). Sure they messed up, but that happens. Marvel Studios still doesn't have a franchise that can really compete with Nolan's Batman series.

 

[Xeno]

Every other character? You mean Green Lantern? That's only one movie (since Marvel Studios was formed). Sure they messed up, but that happens. Marvel Studios still doesn't have a franchise that can really compete with Nolan's Batman series.

Don't forget Jonah Hex.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Don't forget Jonah Hex.

Too late, I already did.

 

[Robin91939]

I kinda wish Sam Jackson's Nick Fury would pop in at the end of The Amazing Spider-man...Have Sony and Marvel negotiate some sort of deal.... I mean, Spider-man entering the shared Marvel Cinematic Universe would only help both companies.

-R

 

[Robin91939]

What Marvel Studios film is better than The Dark Knight? I don't even think there's another comic book film better than it, period.

Dude, I love That Dark Knight, too. But to say that its greatness enough to excuse all of WB's misteps on their other superhero properties (Green Lantern, Jonah Hex,, no Flash film in production, no WonderWoman film in production) and mediocre films Superman Returns and Watchmen is just wrong.

Marvel has done a better job (As Marvel Studios) than WB has done, flat out. The Dark Knight, in my opinion, is the best comic book film ever made. A lot of people share this opinion. But a lot of people love Iron Man, Spider-man and X-men.... Marvel Studios is single handedly responsible for one of those....

Can WB say that they have another successful superhero besides Batman and Superman?

Marvel can say they have: Spider-man, Iron Man, X-men, Thor, and to an extent Hulk.... Three of those films came out of Marvel Studios.

Every other character? You mean Green Lantern? That's only one movie (since Marvel Studios was formed). Sure they messed up, but that happens. Marvel Studios still doesn't have a franchise that can really compete with Nolan's Batman series.

Marvel HAS a franchise that can compete with Nolan's Batman series.... Iron Man. Not to mention, they have "The AVENGERS" brand. That's what it is....it's a brand, a franchise. Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger all are part of the "The Avengers" franchise.... And right now, The Avengers is tracking to do just as well, if not better at the box office next year than The Dark Knight Rises.


By the numbers:

Iron Man: Domestic: $318MM International: $266MM Total: $585MM

Iron Man 2: Domestic: $312MM International: $309MM Total: $622MM

Batman Begins: Domestic: $205MM International: $167MM Total: $372MM
The Dark Knight: Domestic: $533MM International: $468MM Total: 1 BIL

Favreau's Iron Man Franchise: $1.207 Billion World Wide
Nolan's Batman Franchise : $1.372 Billion World Wide

^That's Competing.

PLUS: If I took the box office totals of all WB comic book based films of the last 10 years, and matched them against ONLY the The Avengers brand Marvel Studios films.....It's VERY, VERY close. I BET WB wishes they had as many financial and critical success as Marvel Studios.....

Having the success of Nolan's Batman films alleviates the pressure of getting their other characters to become successes, it doesn't erase it.

Note, this is coming from someone with a DC based username, and a fanboy of both DC and Marvel (mostly Batman/Spider-man).

-R

 

[Robin91939]

More Numbers:

I'm sure that WB would like to have their Justice League characters in the films because:

The Avengers brand has ALREADY amassed:

$585MM: Iron Man
$263MM: The Incredible Hulk
$622MM: Iron Man 2
$446MM: Thor

Resulting in over 1.96 BILLION at the World Wide Box Office.

While WB/DC's characters in the last 10 years have earned...

$391MM: Superman Returns
$185MM: Watchmen
$10MM : Jonah Hex
$146MM: Green Lantern

Or, only $732MM in World Wide Ticket Sales over the last decade. Even if you add the sum from the Chris Nolan Batman franchise, you're left with a total of: 2.104 Billion in the World Wide Box Office...over 6 films (two carrying about 60% of the load and one being a world wide phenomenon), while the Marvel Studios films have almost reached that feat in four films and will reach it by the end of Thor and Captain America: The First Avengers' theatrical runs.

There is no arguing that the brand of The Avengers has helped Marvel, and there is no doubt that WB/DC wishes to replicate that success.....I only wish they could find out how.

-R

 

[Herolee10]

So how would you guys have reacted if:

They had kept the original opening for TIH; where Banner tries to commit suicide somewhere in the Arctic, only for the Hulk to Emerge and crush the mountain the he's on, and that it was due to that event that allowed people to find Steve's body in the present day.

 

[Krimasen]

So how would you guys have reacted if:

They had kept the original opening for TIH; where Banner tries to commit suicide somewhere in the Arctic, only for the Hulk to Emerge and crush the mountain the he's on, and that it was due to that event that allowed people to find Steve's body in the present day.

That would've been okay. I wouldn't have had an issue with that.

With regards to the topic, some people just don't get it. Comic book fans have been used to this kind of stuff for decades, but merging separate franchises into one massive film/franchise is brand new to Hollywood and some people just don't "get it." There's been crossovers before (Alien vs Predator, Freddy vs Jason), but NOTHING on the scale of Avengers. People may not understand Avengers right now, but believe that with Disney's marketing might behind it, EVERYONE will know what Avengers is about come next May.

 

[Godzilla2014]

So how would you guys have reacted if:

They had kept the original opening for TIH; where Banner tries to commit suicide somewhere in the Arctic, only for the Hulk to Emerge and crush the mountain the he's on, and that it was due to that event that allowed people to find Steve's body in the present day.

That might have been interesting.

Dude, I love That Dark Knight, too. But to say that its greatness enough to excuse all of WB's misteps on their other superhero properties (Green Lantern, Jonah Hex,, no Flash film in production, no WonderWoman film in production) and mediocre films Superman Returns and Watchmen is just wrong.

Marvel has done a better job (As Marvel Studios) than WB has done, flat out. The Dark Knight, in my opinion, is the best comic book film ever made. A lot of people share this opinion. But a lot of people love Iron Man, Spider-man and X-men.... Marvel Studios is single handedly responsible for one of those....

Can WB say that they have another successful superhero besides Batman and Superman?

Marvel can say they have: Spider-man, Iron Man, X-men, Thor, and to an extent Hulk.... Three of those films came out of Marvel Studios.

I never saw Jonah Hex, I liked WATCHMEN, and I wouldn't count films that haven't been made against DC/WB. But I would love to see more films based on my favorite DC characters.
Also, Marvel Studios doesn't have Spider-Man or X-Men.

Marvel HAS a franchise that can compete with Nolan's Batman series.... Iron Man. Not to mention, they have "The AVENGERS" brand. That's what it is....it's a brand, a franchise. Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger all are part of the "The Avengers" franchise.... And right now, The Avengers is tracking to do just as well, if not better at the box office next year than The Dark Knight Rises.


By the numbers:

Iron Man: Domestic: $318MM International: $266MM Total: $585MM

Iron Man 2: Domestic: $312MM International: $309MM Total: $622MM

Batman Begins: Domestic: $205MM International: $167MM Total: $372MM
The Dark Knight: Domestic: $533MM International: $468MM Total: 1 BIL

Favreau's Iron Man Franchise: $1.207 Billion World Wide
Nolan's Batman Franchise : $1.372 Billion World Wide

^That's Competing.

PLUS: If I took the box office totals of all WB comic book based films of the last 10 years, and matched them against ONLY the The Avengers brand Marvel Studios films.....It's VERY, VERY close. I BET WB wishes they had as many financial and critical success as Marvel Studios.....

Having the success of Nolan's Batman films alleviates the pressure of getting their other characters to become successes, it doesn't erase it.

Note, this is coming from someone with a DC based username, and a fanboy of both DC and Marvel (mostly Batman/Spider-man).

-R

I stand corrected. Though I don't think (based on my perception, so I may be wrong) that the Iron Man series has really been able to keep up with Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy or Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy in terms of critical reception.
In general, the quality of the Iron Man series is different from many other popular superhero series: The Dark Knight & Spider-Man 2 are considered to be better than Batman Begins & Spider-Man, respectively, but Iron Man 2 is considered to be worse than Iron Man. This is a flip of the paradigm of superhero sequels.
Currently, the Iron Man franchise seems to have an uncertain future with Jon Favreau's departure. Usually a change in directors doesn't bode well for a series. Then again, usually this happens when the second film is better than the first. Not saying it won't make a ton of money, but the quality of IM3 is called into question.

 

[jmc]

I probably shouldn't reply to this but I'm going to and try articulate it in a way so it doesn't result in a barrage of accusations being thrown my way (which probably will happen regardless but what the hell).

What this boils down is a gross misinterpretation of the perspective some of us are coming from. If someone has no emotion investment in a character or series before hand then their viewing experience is completely different to those who do. If you love a character you're going to overlook errors the film makers make (as we've all done) and will jump on anyone who dares to point it out, usually it's followed by a series accusations of being some whiny fan from the other side and pointless statements that fail to counter the argument. It's a perspective thing, some can see it from our point of view and debate can be healthy, others stubbornly refuse to do so which resorts in slanging matches.

The problem here is that some people are quick to label anyone who doesn't agree with their view or like the concept of the shared universe as some sort of jealous DC fan suffering from sour grapes, it's already started in this thread. This isn't a Marvel vs DC thing (well for some it is), but for most of us this is simply about wanting to watch good movies. This sort of setting things up thing isn't limited to superhero films, just last year Ridley Scott's Robin Hood had the exact same issue, it was busy setting up for future movies but completely forgot about the story it was telling and it made for a bad film, Harry Potter also suffered from this in it's later films setting up for it's finale. There's also the issue of films not trying to do more than what they can, again not limited to superheroes, The Town is a perfect example of a film that is well made but for all intense and purposes very much by the books film making that makes for a labourious experience, these aren't exactly new complaints or exclusive to one brand.

Truth is Marvel isn't perfect and it's fine to point out when they make an error, hell us DC guys do it to WB all the time and maybe that's the issue. Marvel hasn't for the most part done anything monumentally wrong yet and so a false sense of security has been created within the fan base, but in time by shear law of averages they will screw something up big time and perhaps then attitudes will change. And those who don't think it will need only look to this year to see the almighty Pixar take a monumental fall to see that failure is inevitable.

If you're engaged in the concept before hand of course you're going to overlook certain errors because of that emotional investment you have, but that doesn't make issues others bring up wrong. Look at it this way, say your watching a film that you know nothing of before hand, you're enjoying it when suddenly it starts talking about something that's got nothing to do with the film you're watching, or you're watching a film that's ok but you know could have been a hell of a lot better had they tried to do more, or you're watching a film where some character just doesn't have any really point in being there. Think about that and maybe you'll be able to see where some of us are coming from.

 

[UnkillableMick]

The Dark Knight alone is better than any of Marvel Studios' films, and they're playing catch-up, shared universe or not.

I don't mean to offend here, but could you come across as more of a rabid Batfan? No one even mentioned The Dark Knight, yet that's always what people come to when criticising Marvel. They're completely different in tone, style and presentation. Besides, I personally find The Dark Knight horribly overhyped, but that's neither here nor there.

Aztec, I agree with everything you said in your original post. What I say to the naysayers is this - if you removed every reference to other Marvel movies, or even SHIELD's presence entirely, how detrimental would it be to the quality of the movies?

Iron Man 2 would suffer the worst, but even then, it would still stand as a film on its own.

 

[sgaana]

If someone has no emotion investment in a character or series before hand then their viewing experience is completely different to those who do.

... If you're engaged in the concept before hand of course you're going to overlook certain errors because of that emotional investment you have, but that doesn't make issues others bring up wrong. Look at it this way, say your watching a film that you know nothing of before hand, you're enjoying it when suddenly it starts talking about something that's got nothing to do with the film you're watching, or you're watching a film that's ok but you know could have been a hell of a lot better had they tried to do more, or you're watching a film where some character just doesn't have any really point in being there. Think about that and maybe you'll be able to see where some of us are coming from.

Just saying -- I had ZERO emotional investment in The Avengers or any of its solo characters prior to seeing Iron Man in 2008. Even after loving that movie, I did not pick up any Iron Man comics (given what was going on in the comics at that time), nor any Avengers comics. My Marvel experience was limited to X-Men (my DC experience is JLA/Aquaman oriented). After IM, I had to have friends explain to me what the deal was with SHIELD and Nick Fury (and why he looked like SLJ, because I knew of Fury's old visual design), and so on.

So I went into IM2 with no emotional investment in anything except RDJ's Tony Stark... and I still enjoyed the hell out of it, and appreciated the way the film expanded on SHIELD's involvement in IM and hinted at a larger MCU. I still didn't "care" about The Avengers as such, as I had never read a single comic or seen anything with the team in it. I didn't know whether Black Widow had a "reason" to be there or not, for example. That didn't impinge my enjoyment of the film overall, the Tony Stark story it contained, or my introduction to Black Widow as a character.

To be honest -- and I know this marks me as a real newbie -- I didn't really develop a connection to The Avengers until this past year. Some friends starting bringing episodes of TA:EMH to our weekly tv gatherings, and those of us who weren't familiar with them really grooved on them. But the real tipping point for me was watching Thor. That was the moment, when I saw the second of the team's big heroes live on screen, where I said, "yeah, this is going to be FANTASTIC". It's what got me excited about the team-up movie that Marvel's been working towards. (It wasn't just seeing Thor brought to life, but yes, it was also the little Renner cameo as Hawkeye, giving me a taste of what he would be like in live-action.)

(I did not watch TIH in the theaters. Hulk has never particularly interested me and none of the previews caught my attention. I rented it within weeks of seeing Thor, and really enjoyed it.)

I know that, really, what it all boils down to is that everyone's experience is unique. But, my point is that it doesn't work to say, in a blanket way, that it's only people with pre-existing emotional attachment to the concept of The Avengers who are "giving a pass" to all of the individual pieces of what Marvel Studios is trying to do. This IS building excitement amongst some viewers who prior to Iron Man had no connection to any of this at all, and they aren't hurt by the "intrusions" into the solo hero's story of characters and details that pertain to a wider cinematic universe.

 

[Silvermoth]

I think if in the future Marvel wants to avoid "crossover hate" they should use a little bit more of a deft touch

 

[Aztec]

I think if in the future Marvel wants to avoid "crossover hate" they should use a little bit more of a deft touch

How have they not thus far? Elaborate.

Every Marvel film has been about the character it was supposed to be about. A few winks, nods, and references doesn't change that.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

Just saying -- I had ZERO emotional investment in The Avengers or any of its solo characters prior to seeing Iron Man in 2008. Even after loving that movie, I did not pick up any Iron Man comics (given what was going on in the comics at that time), nor any Avengers comics. My Marvel experience was limited to X-Men (my DC experience is JLA/Aquaman oriented). After IM, I had to have friends explain to me what the deal was with SHIELD and Nick Fury (and why he looked like SLJ, because I knew of Fury's old visual design), and so on.

So I went into IM2 with no emotional investment in anything except RDJ's Tony Stark... and I still enjoyed the hell out of it, and appreciated the way the film expanded on SHIELD's involvement in IM and hinted at a larger MCU. I still didn't "care" about The Avengers as such, as I had never read a single comic or seen anything with the team in it. I didn't know whether Black Widow had a "reason" to be there or not, for example. That didn't impinge my enjoyment of the film overall, the Tony Stark story it contained, or my introduction to Black Widow as a character.

To be honest -- and I know this marks me as a real newbie -- I didn't really develop a connection to The Avengers until this past year. Some friends starting bringing episodes of TA:EMH to our weekly tv gatherings, and those of us who weren't familiar with them really grooved on them. But the real tipping point for me was watching Thor. That was the moment, when I saw the second of the team's big heroes live on screen, where I said, "yeah, this is going to be FANTASTIC". It's what got me excited about the team-up movie that Marvel's been working towards. (It wasn't just seeing Thor brought to life, but yes, it was also the little Renner cameo as Hawkeye, giving me a taste of what he would be like in live-action.)

(I did not watch TIH in the theaters. Hulk has never particularly interested me and none of the previews caught my attention. I rented it within weeks of seeing Thor, and really enjoyed it.)

I know that, really, what it all boils down to is that everyone's experience is unique. But, my point is that it doesn't work to say, in a blanket way, that it's only people with pre-existing emotional attachment to the concept of The Avengers who are "giving a pass" to all of the individual pieces of what Marvel Studios is trying to do. This IS building excitement amongst some viewers who prior to Iron Man had no connection to any of this at all, and they aren't hurt by the "intrusions" into the solo hero's story of characters and details that pertain to a wider cinematic universe.

Your experience (especially in bold) is very much similar to mine. I've never really cared about The Avengers aspect and I've enjoyed each movie (Iron Man, IM2, The Incredible Hulk) simply because I consider them good, entertaining movies. I haven't seen Thor yet because I've never had interest in the character but I'll catch it on bluray. Captain America wasn't really a must-see for me either but I'll be seeing it tomorrow based on strong word of mouth I've seen from the various forums I visit. I haven't seen one ounce of footage from CA (not even the trailer) so I'm looking forward to going into it completely fresh with no expectations. Same goes for Thor.

 

[Rock Sexton]

All I know is when Fury came on at the end of Cap, everyone in my theater went bat ***** crazy.

The movie-verse and crossover is working IMO.

 

[Weadazoid]

How exactly did this thread wind up on the subject of TDK.

Look Nolans Batman exists in it's own little world, no possibility of even trying to cross over into other DC properties Nolan himself made that clear when everyone thought his involvementment in Superman meant a cross over.


Bale is done after this as is Nolan. I love TDK I put it right up there with some of my favorites, but face it to compare Nolans Bat to anything Marvel is doing right now is pointless..... it makes more sense to compare it to say Sin City, or a History of Violence..... or even if done right a Wolverine movie that takes place in Japan...

why because it seems to me these are stories, that are stories unto themselves they are singular in nature and don't worry about any kind of...... continuity. They are dark graphic novel style tales.


Sorry but I don't think of any of the Avengers in a graphic novel light, I consider them at there best when they take the best aspects of established cannon new school or old school and blend some very cool characters togeather. Thats exactly what these movies have done.



The Avengers may be every bit as big as the next Batman movie, but the tones and story telling will be 100% different. The Avengers will be bright and filled with color and eye candy effects and the best array of one liners ever....due to witty banter.



face it when Bane fights Batman it will be brutality, it will make us all uncomfortable. When Thor throws down with the Hulk it will be 'fun' action packed that creates ohsss and ahhss...