The Avengers Why all the cross-over hate?

[Silvermoth]

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.

Well, Iron Man using the shield to prop up his new invention for one. Increasing Howard Stark's role in CA to remind people of Iron Man is another example.

If they were little things in the background that's fine but when the story revolves on the other parts of the Marvel U, I would imagine people would get tired of it.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Well, Iron Man using the shield to prop up his new invention for one. Increasing Howard Stark's role in CA to remind people of Iron Man is another example.

If they were little things in the background that's fine but when the story revolves on the other parts of the Marvel U, I would imagine people would get tired of it.

Iron Man using Cap's SHIELD was a small nod, Coulson obviously knew what it is, but it was never directly stated.

As for Howard Stark's role in Captain America, it worked. It was a character that needed to be in the movie, sure he could have been named something other than Howard Stark, but why not name him Stark. We knew from the first Iron Man, Stark Industries was in the weapons business, only makes sense Howard would be involved in World War 2 and in a significant role creating weapons.

 

[Iron_Stark]

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.

Lol.

Anyone remember the movie 'Coming to America' where the barbers are in the barbershop discussing the greatest boxers (who happen to be black) and the one guy mentions Rocky Marciano? Prompting the barber to say something along the lines of:

"Oh here they go, here they go, every time I start to talk about boxing a white man gotta pull Rocky Marciano out they ass. That's their one, that's their one."

That's how it is around here, TDK is their one. Lmao.

 

[J.Howlett]

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.

Post of the Year!

 

[OB12]

It certainly is a matter of perspective and from my perspective the MCU is a tremendous idea that is great fun. For me, it enhances the movie experience because the world with which any particular story is taking place feels much more comprehensive, layered and rich. We know that Howard Stark worked on the Manhattan Project, why wouldn't he have worked on Project Rebirth?

Knowing that the seeds for Iron Man were sewn in Captain America is just thought-provoking and then wondering how that is going to reflect back when the two characters meet. Having the Red Skull interested and knowledgeable about Igdrasil and Norse mythology helps to cement Asgard into the framework of the universe. Again, for me these different connections seem really natural, nothing happens in a vacuum.

 

[Gamingboy]

DC's problems have always struck me as more being executive meddling by the higherups of Warner. These are the people who were behind the infamous debacle over how long it effing took Superman to have another movie. These are the people who wouldn't let Batman villains be in Justice League Unlimited because they were worried that it might confuse children (which is a insult to the intelligence of even children) because there was another Batman cartoon on (oh, and no Aquaman because they had an UNAIRED PILOT for him). The people who kept Batman and Wonder Woman from being in Smallville (although, come to think of it, that probably is for the best). Etc. Etc.

By contrast, Marvel has been fortunate enough to be generally autonomous in doing their things-even the new Disney overlords haven't really butted in. The only mistakes Marvel really made was the fact they sold off the rights to Spidey,X-men and FF. And that's only a mistake in hindsight- how the hell would they have known they'd be able to have a chance at bringing the whole damn Marvel U onto the silver screen?

What's really infuriating is that DC has SHOWN that they can do the Crossover thing excellently. The DCAU of Timm and Dini is perhaps the greatest series of comic book adaptations in history, and they had several crossovers, not to mention the two full-on Justice League series.

--


That said, I think the "hate" for crossovers is more because crossovers in Movies are generally unusual, especially in movies that aren't explicitly titled as such ("Frankenstein meets the Wolfman", "Freddy vs. Jason", "Alien vs. Predator"). Some people just aren't used to it yet.

 

[J.Howlett]

OB12,

Knowing that the seeds for Iron Man were sewn in Captain America is just thought-provoking and then wondering how that is going to reflect back when the two characters meet. Having the Red Skull interested and knowledgeable about Igdrasil and Norse mythology helps to cement Asgard into the framework of the universe. Again, for me these different connections seem really natural, nothing happens in a vacuum.

This is an interesting observation you've made because, for me, Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor are easily the best films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and it's really interesting how those three films work well together and how you can easily skip Iron Man 2 and the Incredible Hulk and still get 90% of what you need to know before walking into the Avengers.

Captain America was a big deal for me this past weekend. In my humble opinion, Marvel Studios' was batting .500 with their flicks. Iron Man and Thor worked well for me. Iron Man 2 and the Incredible Hulk, I never care to see them again.

Captain America was the final piece for my puzzle. If it worked for me, I was going to go forward with the Avengers. If it didn't, I was pretty much done with the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

As it turns out, I needed two viewings of Captain America before I got on the Avengers bandwagon and a lot of what switched my initial response to the film at the midnight screening was those subtle connections between Thor and the first Iron Man film. And, it doesn't help to have a film that solely focuses on the main character for the entire film, even if Red Skull and HYDRA were not developed well at all in the last 35 minutes and how flat the film felt because they never got a compelling narrative to match the character arc of Steve Rogers that plays completely through the film.

 

[Son of Coul]

The Howard Stark role in CA and Red Skull's affinity for Norse artifacts flowed perfectly well and naturally into the story. And it tied to the comics, so no one really cares that it ties together, that just makes it fun. I have yet to meet one person "tired of" there being a character in one movie that happened to be in another.

 

[OB12]

This is an interesting observation you've made because, for me, Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor are easily the best films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and it's really interesting how those three films work well together and how you can easily skip Iron Man 2 and the Incredible Hulk and still get 90% of what you need to know before walking into the Avengers.

I think it flows well through all of them. I love TIH and it really strengthens my appreciation for the film actually seeing the samples taken from Cap that would later be used to augment Blonsky. That's just fantastic! No the Marvel films are not perfect, but I really like the them all. Where they suffer is not from the connections but some of the decisions in story. IM2, still a fun viewing for me, but Whiplash could've been given more screen time. I mean something as simple as 5 min (2 in the middle and 3 extra minutes in the final fight) could've really improved the character.

 

[kedrell]

What Marvel Studios film is better than The Dark Knight?

All of them, IMO. Plus almost any other comic book movie ever made by anyone else(except Ang Lee).

 

[Xeno]

All of them, IMO. Plus almost any other comic book movie ever made by anyone else(except Ang Lee).

^^

 

[Aztec]

I think it flows well through all of them. I love TIH and it really strengthens my appreciation for the film actually seeing the samples taken from Cap that would later be used to augment Blonsky. That's just fantastic! No the Marvel films are not perfect, but I really like the them all. Where they suffer is not from the connections but some of the decisions in story. IM2, still a fun viewing for me, but Whiplash could've been given more screen time. I mean something as simple as 5 min (2 in the middle and 3 extra minutes in the final fight) could've really improved the character.

I agree completely. I think they all work together. Watching Captain America helped broaden my appreciation of Hulk, Thor, and Iron Man. They all fit together. It is a puzzle that is slowly being formed in front of our eyes. Perhaps it's just too much thinking for some movie goers?

As for Iron Man 2, I agree. There were two flaws (and none was Avengers related): 1) too little Whiplash and 2) the final battle was dull and far too anti-climatic (this seems to be a recurring trend in Favreau movies though).

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

All of them, IMO. Plus almost any other comic book movie ever made by anyone else(except Ang Lee).

You realize The Dark Knight is the reason we have 10 Best Picture Nominees now instead of 5?

Ever since 2008, the Academy felt too many great films were being left out of the running for Best Picture and reinstated the 10 Nominee rule from the late 30s/early 40s.

The Dark Knight was going to be on that ballot. It is a de facto Best Picture Nominee.

No other comic book movie has ever come close to that.

 

[Bubonic]

Great thread, happy someone started up this line of conversation because the amount of resistance this ambitious project has gotten from fans, critics and the directors themselves has really bothered me.

This is as exciting as it is ambitious and I feel it mostly boils down to a lot of nitpicking.

Anytime someone attempts something completely new and different there will always be people who won't like it. That's just human nature. At our cores we don't like change, we don't like different, we want things to stay the same and it takes visionaries to step out of the box and just run with it regardless of the negativity such a bold move will garner.

What disappoints me most is that certain directors resist it. They are artist, they like to be in control, they have their own vision and they rather not concern themselves with broadening their scope. If the guy in charge has a problem with the concept then of course it won't translate as well onscreen, we need directors enthusiastic about this formula and see it as an opportunity and not a set of shackles.

This is why I feel it is just as well that Favreau has moved on because he seemed to be getting selfish about the project.

I'm also concerned about Edgar Wright's attitude towards it because he seems to be fighting Marvel about it and wanting to do his own thing with Ant-Man trying to avoid the Avengers as much as possible and I just don't get it.

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?

Being so frustrated over a movie title is what is really ridiculous. As mentioned part of the reason was because of the international market, but yes, it is also directly related to Cap being the first avenger.

Why is that so wrong, how is it that this nuance could really take away from your enjoyment?

Who cares?
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...

That is almost tantamount to requesting there be no supporting characters in a movie because you just want to focus on the leading character. That is very narrow imo, each and every one of the 5 Marvel films to date have focused on the title characters, the antagonist of the title characters, and the most important supporting characters to each of the title characters.

They've also expanded upon that and little by little unobtrusively fleshed out the Marvel Universe it is set in. None of the films were perfect, but it wasn't the expansion of said universe that detracted from the quality.

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.

You're just being difficult here and opinionated, IM2 is fine unless you approach it with some elitist mindset like you have. You're completely blowing things out of proportion in order to substantiate your claims.

I´m not going to go about Marvel vs DC, i like comics, not companies, but....
The Dark Knight is not only better than ANY Marvel movie made so far, it is better than any comic book movie made ever.

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.

So it's a bit titillating to us that aren't opaque about it and resorting to self-righteous anger for now reason.

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".

You not caring for Captain America and Iron Man in their respective movies is your problem as it seems to be the consensus among fans and the general audience that they did care for these characters regardless of everything else happening within the films.

Besides, to have SHIELD and Black Widow all over the movie, is hardly a 1 minute line.

It isn't a one minute line, but it wasn't all that horrible either. I don't understand why you've got to be so dogmatic about these things, as if it offends you that a movie company has dared to do something different for once.

SHIELD, as mentioned by many here, is no different than having the FBI/CIA involved in a crime drama. Or the secret service agency in the James Bond films. The don't detract but instead contribute. Black Widow didn't steal the movie from Iron Man, she had her purpose within the plot of that movie, it played out fine, her escapade with Hogan at Hammer's facility was a great display of her abilities, and now that time won't need to be spent revealing her in the Avengers.

To have Agent Coulson, in Thor, all over the place is hardly a 1 minute line.

He might of been in it 5-10 minutes out of 115 minutes.

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.

You realize how lucky we are that we got a watchable movie out of something as obscure as Marvel's version of a Norse god?

It was a movie about Thor and his lesson in humility, it played out quite nicely despite a bit of forced romance, but I dare say I enjoyed Nathalie here more than I did either Katie or Maggie in either Batman movie, but like, that's my opinion man. SHIELD fit in perfectly into this movie, you're once again being quite narrow about all this, it would of been the same movie without SHIELD, just shorter.

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.

Ang's film did touch upon the tortured psyche of Banner beautifully, but it fails on basically everything else thereafter. I find that any of the Marvel Studios movies were successful on many more levels with each respective character.

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 just a question of opinion, not fact. Some like X2, Spiderman 2, IM and other comics adaptations better, and for their own reasons. TDK was a great film but it isn't as perfect as it was made out to be.

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.

True but you've got to admire their ambition and overall success compared to WB's tunnel-vision concerning characters and their subsequent massive failure as soon as they did try something else.

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

You can always hope, but he seems fine in his own universe for the time being. Spidey has never come off as a true Avenger type imo and although it be cool for Marvel Studios to have street level characters within their universe not connected to the Avengers we will get that in due time, they've got literally hundreds of characters in their stable they've yet to deploy.

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.

It would sort of fall out of continuity given the current discovery of Cap and his shield, so I'm just as happy it was excluded.

 

[Aztec]

1) Well, Iron Man using the shield to prop up his new invention for one. 2) Increasing Howard Stark's role in CA to remind people of Iron Man is another example.

1) How did that take away from the overall film? It's a brief nod and a little joke for the fans. Sheesh. Are you angry everytime Stan Lee shows up in a film? Or Peter Jackson? Talk about picky...

2) You already knew that Stark was involved in WW2. They stated that very clearly in IM & IM2. Doesn't it make sense that he would be involved in other major WW2 projects? Especially with his incredible tech he has available? Besides as someone else said, he was a necessary character for this film, why not have it be Howard Stark? Now doesn't it make sense why Tony has a Cap shield lying around his workshop? Especially that we know that Tony is very curious about his father and what he was working on? Think about it.

 

[kedrell]

You realize The Dark Knight is the reason we have 10 Best Picture Nominees now instead of 5?

Ever since 2008, the Academy felt too many great films were being left out of the running for Best Picture and reinstated the 10 Nominee rule from the late 30s/early 40s.

The Dark Knight was going to be on that ballot. It is a de facto Best Picture Nominee.

No other comic book movie has ever come close to that.

I couldn't care less. IMO, it was snubbed and rightly so. It's literally one of only 2 CBM's that are so bad that they actually generate hatred for them with me(the other one I also mentioned before). I've seen some god-aweful CBM's but they don't inspire hatred like those two do.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I'm with you on wondering why anyone was complaining about any of the movies being effected by The Avengers. Never felt it in any of the movies. IM2 certainly was not "a 2 hour ad for The Avengers". The whole movie was about Stark...including the times when Black Widow or Fury are around.

.....But then I saw Capt America.

Yep...for the first time The Avengers intruded. The Cap movie had no choice but to

Spoiler

resolve with him in modern times

. No chance whatsoever of Cap 2 being a continuation of his WWII adventures with the romance between Steve and Peggy. No chance of Bucky sticking around to develop a solid character...he had to

Spoiler

die

so the WWII stuff could end.

So we got a non-romance and a

Spoiler

death

which felt empty. And...probably the most pivotal moment in Captain America history was reduced to a couple of scenes at the very end of the movie. No time to give it the time it deserves.

So the haters do have one example. The rest is just nit-picking.

 

[Aztec]

I'm with you on wondering why anyone was complaining about any of the movies being effected by The Avengers. Never felt it in any of the movies. IM2 certainly was not "a 2 hour ad for The Avengers". The whole movie was about Stark...including the times when Black Widow or Fury are around.

.....But then I saw Capt America.

Yep...for the first time The Avengers intruded. The Cap movie had no choice but to

Spoiler

resolve with him in modern times

. No chance whatsoever of Cap 2 being a continuation of his WWII adventures with the romance between Steve and Peggy. No chance of Bucky sticking around to develop a solid character...he had to

Spoiler

die

so the WWII stuff could end.

So we got a non-romance and a

Spoiler

death

which felt empty. And...probably the most pivotal moment in Captain America history was reduced to a couple of scenes at the very end of the movie. No time to give it the time it deserves.

So the haters do have one example. The rest is just nit-picking.

Have you read the comics? You do know that this is essentially what happens in the comics right? The Bucky and Peggy aspects are part of the tragedy that is Cap's life. He finally gets what he wants (a body fit to serve his country) but this causes him to lose everything he wants (Bucky's friendship and Peggy). He's now stuck in the present day, out of sorts, and with no friends. You can bet your behind that will be one of the key storylines in The Avengers.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

You realize The Dark Knight is the reason we have 10 Best Picture Nominees now instead of 5?

Ever since 2008, the Academy felt too many great films were being left out of the running for Best Picture and reinstated the 10 Nominee rule from the late 30s/early 40s.

The Dark Knight was going to be on that ballot. It is a de facto Best Picture Nominee.

No other comic book movie has ever come close to that.

Also, TDK cured cancer, ended the Great Depression, turned water into wine, and invented the remote control.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Have you read the comics? You do know that this is essentially what happens in the comics right? The Bucky and Peggy aspects are part of the tragedy that is Cap's life. He finally gets what he wants (a body fit to serve his country) but this causes him to lose everything he wants (Bucky's friendship and Peggy). He's now stuck in the present day, out of sorts, and with no friends. You can bet your behind that will be one of the key storylines in The Avengers.

Agreed....

But because of The Avengers, it had to happen RIGHT NOW.....as in "by the time this movie ends...all Cap's WWII history must be done".

 

[kedrell]

They've clearly said that they left plenty of gaps so that they can go back and tell more WWII stories.

 

[Raiden]

Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the characters and hints peppered throughout the MCU movies, because they don't really take away any attention away from the movies and since they will surfaced again in the Avengers, won't it be better to be introduced to them earlier than later? People who didn't like the presence of SHIELD in movies like IM1, IM2, Thor...would it have been better if they were some nameless governmental agency or the FBI instead of SHIELD? That Capt. America shield that Stark used to support the machinery; would it be better if it was just a generic metallic material? Howard Stark being involved in Project: Birth; isn't it great to see where Tony Stark's genius came from, and learned a little about the father that he tries to live up to? And so on and so forth.

 

[kedrell]

I think fear of change is driving much of this. This is the most significant change in this genre of film since Superman 1 started it all 33 years ago. People are just used to a certain way of things being and it takes time to adjust. That's my theory, at any rate.

 

[Raiden]

I think fear of change is driving much of this. This is the most significant change in this genre of film since Superman 1 started it all 33 years ago. People are just used to a certain way of things being and it takes time to adjust. That's my theory, at any rate.

Yeah, it does seemed like some people are angry about their placement but can't really provide a really good reason why they don't like it. Even in IM2, where Fury & BW shown up, they did advance the plot a bit and not just standing around doing nothing. Isn't it great that we have seen alot of Agent Coulson because he'll be appearing in the Avengers? I know that I prefer this instead of being introduced to him for the very first time in the big crossover movie. Both BW and Hawkeye have already made some appearances in their respective movies, so the GA may be more curious & wanted to know them better when the movie comes out.

People always ask for more character development, so Marvel does that by inserting them in the MCU movies before the Avengers, and those people still complain. If Maria Hill is not the only new major character that shows up in the Avengers, but we have to be introduced to Fury, Coulson, the SHIELD, BW, and Hawkeye as well as Loki and the Cosmic Cube, I think the movie would've had a major problem.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Agreed....

But because of The Avengers, it had to happen RIGHT NOW.....as in "by the time this movie ends...all Cap's WWII history must be done".

Yeah, but if you kept Cap in WW2, Cap 2 would have felt like Iron Man 2, more of the same. This movie was the origin of Cap, that origin ends with him being unfrozen in modern day. If you leave him in the past for another movie, the sequel is just another origin movie.