The Avengers Why all the cross-over hate?

[Aztec]

To each his own, but the movie got very silly and campy as soon as Jackson appears on the screen.

"I'm going to have to ask you to exit the Donut."

"Whoa, whoa, whoa. He took it? You're Iron Man and he just took it? The little brother walked in there, kicked your ass and took your suit?"

"I got bigger problems to deal with...hit him"
"Oh, God, are you gonna steal my kidney and sell it? Could you please not do anything awful for five seconds?"

I can go on and on.. it just wasn't funny, it was silly, unnecessary & yes, kind of campy, whereas the first half of the movie felt like a totally different film.

It was comic relief that provided neither comedy nor relief. If you like it, that's fine, I respect your opinion, you can respect mine.

That sounds like typical Jon Favreau style dialogue to me. Fits in just fine with the rest of the movie. I liked that scene myself.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

The problem with IM2 wasn't SHIELD or the Avengers. It was War Machine. WM took too much screen time from Hammer and Vanko and was a whole plot arc that had to be developed instead of focusing on Starks arc.
Fury & Widow actually added to Starks arc and were a logical step after the intoduction of SHIELD in part 1.

 

[Iron_Stark]

The problem with IM2 wasn't SHIELD or the Avengers. It was War Machine. WM took too much screen time from Hammer and Vanko and was a whole plot arc that had to be developed instead of focusing on Starks arc.
Fury & Widow actually added to Starks arc and were a logical step after the intoduction of SHIELD in part 1.

Exactomundo!

The playfight at the birthday party could've been an actual fight with Vanko v.2 suit or a drone giving people an idea of what to expect in the future.

Vanko in a v.3 suit should've been the one leading the drones in an aerial fight and chase against Iron Man. Maybe then we wouldn't have gotten a lousy 30 second fight with Vanko at the end with him in some generic, forgettable suit that you can't even find on google images.

All of that was given to War Machine for fan service.

If anything the villains really got screwed over in this movie.

 

[PumpkinBombxXx]

I had no problem with War Machine i thought it made sound logic. Granted Iron Man 2 wasnt as good as the first but it still was a great super hero movie. I think Nick Fury adds alot to the movies i love his bits however the donut scene felt like something from pulp fiction. After that though Fury was back on track and i must say that the donut scene just shows he doesnt take himself to seriously. I think it added alot to his character actually
Oh but vanko as Whiplash was fine however he was forgetable as Whiplash M2 why not take the whips away and go full Crimson Dynamo

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

All of that was given to War Machine for fan service.

exactly!

 

[Iron_Stark]

I had no problem with War Machine i thought it made sound logic. Granted Iron Man 2 wasnt as good as the first but it still was a great super hero movie. I think Nick Fury adds alot to the movies i love his bits however the donut scene felt like something from pulp fiction. After that though Fury was back on track and i must say that the donut scene just shows he doesnt take himself to seriously. I think it added alot to his character actually
Oh but vanko as Whiplash was fine however he was forgetable as Whiplash M2 why not take the whips away and go full Crimson Dynamo

The only sound logic was to quiet all the fanboys who were constantly asking for him in the sequel.

And yes Vanko was forgettable, why wouldn't he be, all the good parts, action sequences, time and money that went on on building the suit at ILM and Legacy Studios went on the War Machine armor and bringing back the Mark II armor.

Crimson Dynamo would've been even better, but oh no, fanboys would've been crying and whining about Iron Man fighting another "Evil Iron Man".

Yet never complain about having a clone Iron Man fight alongside him.

 

[Lord]

I liked Whiplash/ crimson Dinamo but he didn't have enough screen time, i liked how Justin Hammer was even if it was just comic relief but before he was sent to jail the way he talked to Peper was menacing because of the way he changed his mood.
I hope they continue with the idea of Justin Hammer returning in Iron Man 3 and the madarin as the main villain, i also hope they use fing fan foom as mandarin's pet or something like that, if he is as metalic as he seemed in viva las vegas he could be an ancient creation of the mandarin or a monster from one of the world mentioned in Thor

 

[PumpkinBombxXx]

I disagree but to each his own. I think War Machine made perfect sense as the whole thought behind the movie was now that Iron Man outed himself he has to deal with the consequences and having the gov make the War Machine armor is one of those consequences. Tony said something in the first 1 about if i give this over to the military we will be fighting them in a year. Thats what happened. War Machine made more sense then Vanko did. Vankos reason for trying to kill tony was childish. It was his own fathers fault not Howards and not Tonys

 

[Lord]

Tony is kinda cold with his enemies in iron man 1 he didn't have a problem with killing a man he lived with since his childhood, and in iron man 2 he has no problem killing a guy that lived in poberty his entire life and was also a genius and was like that because of his fathers death (shouldn't Tony understand that?)

 

[PumpkinBombxXx]

Tony is kinda cold with his enemies in iron man 1 he didn't have a problem with killing a man he lived with since his childhood, and in iron man 2 he has no problem killing a guy that lived in poberty his entire life and was also a genius and was like that because of his fathers death (shouldn't Tony understand that?)

Tony didnt kill either villain in the movies. Vanko if he is dead blew himself up and Obidiah dies from falling. In the deleted scenes tony tries to save him

 

[redhawk23]

While all complaints about it in CA I think are bunk, with Thor and Iron Man 2 its definitely a valid point. They had to really try to tie in subplots with SHIELD and it bogged both of those films down.

SHIELD in these movies hasn't fit in organically. They've often been a distraction at best and deus ex machina at worst. In IM2 theres a conflict with Tony being sick. Suddenly Fury shows up, injects him and he's fine. Any catharsis Tony had with his fathers memory had to be served to him by Fury.

Hawkeye in Thor was one of the most preposterously shoe-horned in things I've seen in a movie. He served absolutely no purpose.

 

[redhawk23]

OK, kudos to the guy who created this thread because this needs to get out into the open.

There are several reasons why there in the crossover hate manifested by various individuals. It will vary from person to person. These include:

1: Fear from rival organisations in Hollywood. Make no mistake this project from MARVEL studios is a major THREAT. An upstart rival company has come up with an innovative concept that has the potential to become an incredibly huge financial powerhouse. This shared cinematic universe has the potential to develope a tremendous consistent dedicated moviegoing fanbase that could put other franchises in the shadow. It's obvious the potential is enormous, which is one of the reasons why DISNEY purchased MARVEL. And the project came gangbusters right out the gate with a mega-blockbuster in IRON MAN. Rival companies fear this and will have representatives out there trying to shoot it down through bad press. Make no mistake many movie reviewers are not objective but have hidden ties to studios and will try to serve their ends.

2: DC fanboy jealousy. Flat out there are many, many, many DC fanboys who are very jealous of MARVEL's success. Some wish DC/WB had come up with this idea first and since they haven't they try to shoot it down. For some other DC fanboys it's simply trying to bring down MARVEL's success in some way or the other. They can't say that the movies are crap. They can't say that the GA hated them. They can't say that critics destroyed the movies. They can't say that the movies bombed at the box-office. So what do they have left. Really, nothing, but they try and make up some crap. So they criticise the MCU concept, and they yammer on about how MARVEL movies only 'play it safe'. It always fails but they keep trying.

3: Resistance to change, like Kedrell said. This is a new and innovative cinematic concept. There will always be people who resist new, outrageous ideas and concepts.

4: The Dark Knight effect. TDK has made a tremedous impact on the minds of many people. I'm baffled as to why because it's truly the most overrated crap movie of all time. However Nolan did a superhero movie a certain way. It's the only thing DC fanboys have to hold onto so they put it on a pedestal and criticise anything different. Understand this: Nolan does not give a damn about the DC comic universe. Batman was a career stepping stone for him, nothing more. His TDK franchise has sucked all the fantasy and mythos out of Batman. He took already the most GA relatable and (2nd most) iconic comicbook character and took all the 'comicbookyness' (no batmobile, batarang, etc., etc.) out of it, giving the world a crime drama that even more of the GA can relate too. MARVEL studios is different. They LOVE their comicbook universe and respects their fanbase that also loves that universe. Thus they want to put that universe up on the screen for their fans and hopefully to develope more fans in the GA. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. So Nolan-worhippers see something different from Nolan fantasy-less stuff and abhor it.

And there you have it. A couple other quick points:
- TDK did not get nominated for best film because it WAS NOT WORTHY of being nominated, nothing else. Geez, Nolan-worshippers, please over yourselves and off this guys d!ck.

I have to literally laugh out loud when I see posts like this claiming DC fans are biased.

Also why bring up TDK here? And Nolans batman films do have a batmobile, and batarangs, and villians missing half of their faces, and laser weapons...


People are anoyed by many of the cross over elements because they distract from the plot, are jarringly useless (Hawkeye in Thor), dont really lead anywhere, take screen time away from more awesome things. Its not as a rule that people oppose them and when they can fit organically as part of the story they are welcomed. I don't think you will find anyone who will complain about Howard Stark being in Captain America, or the super solider serum in the Hulk but there are many who are anoyed by Coulson and shield in Thor. Crossovers aren't necessarily bad, but they can be badly done.

 

[Lord]

Tony didnt kill either villain in the movies. Vanko if he is dead blew himself up and Obidiah dies from falling. In the deleted scenes tony tries to save him

He didn't seem very concerned after their deaths and obadiah didn't die for falling, he dies after tony asks peper to turn on that machine, electrifying him to death, and when vanko was going to jail (if i remember there was talk of the death penalty) he didn't care and joked about it.

 

[J.Howlett]

The thing about Coulson and SHIELD in Thor is this; it technically makes sense for some type of authority presence in the film because of the Hammer. A town of people can't lift the thing so of course, authorities were going to show up. It's a troubling phenomenon. A since this is the Marvel Universe, SHIELD's a much better fit instead of local authorities or the FBI.

At the same time, this specific storyline leads absolutely no where except to get Thor to say the line of how he'll be on Earth's side as long as Coulson gives back Jane her materials. That's the sole reason SHIELD's in the film.

Now, look at it from this perspective; say an audience member who has no knowledge of Thor's comic roots, doesn't care about Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, or the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe, but leaves the theatre loving Thor and wants to see more sequels of the character...Coulson and SHIELD will be completely jarring when the time comes for Thor 2 and 3...because they lead nowhere.

I like Thor an awful lot but SHIELD's not organically placed within the narrative. They were in Iron Man and they're practically non-existent in Captain America.

And this is why Marvel's crossover experiment has it's benefits and drawbacks. If you're into this whole thing, SHIELD works fine.

If you're only into one specific character, it's not all that fine because it's just clutter.

 

[Rock Sexton]

The thing about Coulson and SHIELD in Thor is this; it technically makes sense for some type of authority presence in the film because of the Hammer. A town of people can't lift the thing so of course, authorities were going to show up. It's a troubling phenomenon. A since this is the Marvel Universe, SHIELD's a much better fit instead of local authorities or the FBI.

At the same time, this specific storyline leads absolutely no where except to get Thor to say the line of how he'll be on Earth's side as long as Coulson gives back Jane her materials. That's the sole reason SHIELD's in the film.

Now, look at it from this perspective; say an audience member who has no knowledge of Thor's comic roots, doesn't care about Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, or the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe, but leaves the theatre loving Thor and wants to see more sequels of the character...Coulson and SHIELD will be completely jarring when the time comes for Thor 2 and 3...because they lead nowhere.

I like Thor an awful lot but SHIELD's not organically placed within the narrative. They were in Iron Man and they're practically non-existent in Captain America.

And this is why Marvel's crossover experiment has it's benefits and drawbacks. If you're into this whole thing, SHIELD works fine.

If you're only into one specific character, it's not all that fine because it's just clutter.

Serious? I thought SHIELD and Coulson were organically placed well in Thor as compared to all the others, with the exception of the ending. But then again that was a fun moment with Coulson trying to debrief a God.

 

[Pinky021]

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.

Totally right! !

 

[J.Howlett]

Well, that's particular true and not. If Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, and the Incredible Hulk were all lead ins to the Avengers Trilogy, I'd completely agree.

But with sequels to each of these characters getting made and not having any of it related to the Avengers, the whole thing gets murky, if not done absolutely right.

I don't read comics but someone's going to have to come up with a pretty awesome reason why Stark doesn't call on Thor and Hulk when he faces off against the Mandarian in Iron Man 3, if he's getting his ass handed to him....

Movies are just didn't from comic books.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Well, that's particular true and not. If Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, and the Incredible Hulk were all lead ins to the Avengers Trilogy, I'd completely agree.

But with sequels to each of these characters getting made and not having any of it related to the Avengers, the whole thing gets murky, if not done absolutely right.

I don't read comics but someone's going to have to come up with a pretty awesome reason why Stark doesn't call on Thor and Hulk when he faces off against the Mandarian in Iron Man 3, if he's getting his ass handed to him....

Movies are just didn't from comic books.

The reason being is they will be occupied with their own agendas ... and as the screenwriters of Cap said, those agendas will be very personal so they won't have time to go bother with someone else's issues. Even though the movies will be made at separate times, they're still going to be happening relatively close to each other in MCU time.

 

[Flemm]

I don't read comics but someone's going to have to come up with a pretty awesome reason why Stark doesn't call on Thor and Hulk when he faces off against the Mandarian in Iron Man 3, if he's getting his ass handed to him....

Movies are just didn't from comic books.

We'll have to see how it plays, but I actually don't think it will be an issue. There are things that audiences just intuitively understand, and one of them is that the hero has to deal with whatever he has to deal with alone because he is the hero.

Thor and Cap won't be showing up in IM3 because it's an IM movie, it's as simple as that.

However, I will say this: building a universe like this in the movies is a new thing. That's what makes it exciting. So, we won't really know how it all works out until we see it on screen.

That said, I think ShadowlordX's post is actually pretty accurate in a lot of respects. There's jealousy, and there's unease with something that is new and different. On the other hand, I also understand the reservations some people have with the whole concept: the crossover elements do not always work.

Overall, I think it's fun and innovative. Kudos to Marvel studios for trying a new approach.

 

[weezerspider]

The thing about Coulson and SHIELD in Thor is this; it technically makes sense for some type of authority presence in the film because of the Hammer. A town of people can't lift the thing so of course, authorities were going to show up. It's a troubling phenomenon. A since this is the Marvel Universe, SHIELD's a much better fit instead of local authorities or the FBI.

At the same time, this specific storyline leads absolutely no where except to get Thor to say the line of how he'll be on Earth's side as long as Coulson gives back Jane her materials. That's the sole reason SHIELD's in the film.

Now, look at it from this perspective; say an audience member who has no knowledge of Thor's comic roots, doesn't care about Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, or the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe, but leaves the theatre loving Thor and wants to see more sequels of the character...Coulson and SHIELD will be completely jarring when the time comes for Thor 2 and 3...because they lead nowhere.

I like Thor an awful lot but SHIELD's not organically placed within the narrative. They were in Iron Man and they're practically non-existent in Captain America.

And this is why Marvel's crossover experiment has it's benefits and drawbacks. If you're into this whole thing, SHIELD works fine.

If you're only into one specific character, it's not all that fine because it's just clutter.

This alone is enough reason to put them in there. Anyone who sees Thor and Thor 2 without the Avengers won't think anything of SHIELD not being there(if they don't have a part), because they served the purpose you described perfectly for the film. Also they could take his line to Coulson about always being here to help as a reason why Thor keeps coming back to earth and doesn't have face the authorities or anyone. Its hardly an issue in Thor, if not one at all.

Next thing you know people are going to say Thor fans who don't see the Avengers are screwed because Thor will find his way back and forth from Earth and Asgard in The Avengers.......This is like saying "so and so won't understand The Return Of The King because he never saw The Two Towers"...tough luck. Marvel even added the "_____ will return in The Avengers" lines at the end of the last few films. Avengers is basically a sequel to each film. If someone misses a part of a film series, its their responsibility to catch up,not the script writer's to baby step them into anything. Plus I don't know a single person who didn't like at least two of the Avengers properties, unless they liked zero of them.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I don't read comics but someone's going to have to come up with a pretty awesome reason why Stark doesn't call on Thor and Hulk when he faces off against the Mandarian in Iron Man 3, if he's getting his ass handed to him....

Movies are just didn't from comic books.

Self Reliance. The hero wants to take care of the job himself, finding a solution to getting his ass handed to him. He knows he may be able to call on the heroes sometimes, but other times he won't be able to, as they are busy with their own missions. So he best learn to become a more accomplished superhero and deal with his villan problems himself.

 

[Raiden]

While all complaints about it in CA I think are bunk, with Thor and Iron Man 2 its definitely a valid point. They had to really try to tie in subplots with SHIELD and it bogged both of those films down.

SHIELD in these movies hasn't fit in organically. They've often been a distraction at best and deus ex machina at worst. In IM2 theres a conflict with Tony being sick. Suddenly Fury shows up, injects him and he's fine. Any catharsis Tony had with his fathers memory had to be served to him by Fury.

Hawkeye in Thor was one of the most preposterously shoe-horned in things I've seen in a movie. He served absolutely no purpose.

I disagree with you re: SHIELD. As you said, Fury gave Stark a temporary antidote to his health problem, and helped him find a secret that his father kept that eventually led to the new arc reactor & a new armor. How is that NOT relevant to the plot? Was it a bit deus ex machina? Maybe, but the way I see it is that, instead of having the genius Stark figure it out all by himself, it just shows that sometimes he does need an ally to help him, just like he needed WM later on.

As for Hawkeye, yes it was a very blatant cameo for the Avengers movie, but it only lasted for a minute, and didn't really distract the movie at all (unless one minute in a movie would ruin the entire movie for you). And fans like me are excited to finally see Hawkeye on the big screen, which is something that Marvel would understand. I can count more minutes in X3 that has no tie-ins that I'd rather leave out than in Thor, which does. Therefore, it really had nothing to do with any crossovers or references (which Marvel Studios do keep it at a minimum), but rather the quality of the movie itself.

 

[kedrell]

I think there's also a certain apprehension since there's really no other experiment like this to point to and say "See, that worked. Don't worry". This is truly trail-blazing stuff. Personally I think if they get it right, this is the future. Trilogies have become a dime a dozen, it seems. This is the next evolution in cinematic storytelling, IMO.

 

[J.Howlett]

Raiden,

It's not relevant to Iron Man 2 because we've seen Tony work out his problems in the previous film. Iron Man 2 would've been a whole lot better if Tony would've figured this out, had this self-discovery about himself, without any help.

That's what makes the first film so nice. We actually see Tony's genius at play. It would've been nice to see that again, because we saw the struggle he was going through.

If Tony figures out his medical problem all by himself, he comes out a stronger man. That's not the only issue with Iron Man 2 but it might be the biggest.

 

[Doc Samson]

Don't read much Ultimate Universe do you? If you had you'd know SHIELD and Avengers(Ultimates) are directly related, which is obviously what they're going for, hence Sam Jackson.

These movies are a blend of 616 and the Ultimate U.

Tony Stark was Director of SHIELD around the time the movie came out, how the hell is that not directly related.

Tony Stark, Stark Industries and Howard Stark(retconned now) have a long history building weapons, flying cars, LMDs and Hellicarriers for SHIELD.

Tony Stark and Nick Fury have a long history together.

Black Widow started off in an Iron Man book, why isn't it appropriate for her to make her cinematic debut in an Iron Man movie?

In fact it was more appropriate for them to be in this movie than War Machine.

Reading a couple of Iron Man comics doesn't make you and Iron Man expert.

And obviously posting on a SHH thread doesn't make you one either. The original poster I was responding to wasn't talking about the Ultimates in particular, he was talking in absolutes, stating that SHIELD has been a part of IM books for "decades."

I was simply referring to the fact that, during those decades, long before the Ultimates was ever thought of, SHIELD had no direct correlation to the Avengers every single time they made an appearance. And in the Ultimates, which obviously these movies are drawing just as much, if not more from, they do.

So basically, in your own ignorant way, your helping making my point while trying to argue, which is to say this cinematic version of SHIELD is directly related to the Avengers just about every time they appear. Wouldn't be the first...