The Avengers Why all the cross-over hate?

[DrCosmic]

The plain fact is, by serving the cinematic universe, you are not always serving the character that the movie is about. Some people don't like that, and its not unreasonable to feel that way.

In IM2, they were relevant to the plot, but, honestly, they kinda came in and solved several notable problems. That takes tension out of the story and instead of Tony or, Rhodey being more heroic, we set up SHIELD as a crucial part of Tony's life and legacy instead. I simply didn't enjoy that.

The interesting twist is that, when Avengers does come out, I'll enjoy it that much more because it has been served by these other five films. So it's a tradeoff, one that is made for us, and thus, some people won't like.

That reminds me... TIH didn't really have ANY SHIELD in it... which is odd...

 

[Raiden]

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.

Why should they explain why they don't call up other superheroes for their own problem? It's not like they all live in the same city under the same roof, and they all have their own lives to live in. Even in the comics, do we see Daredevil calling up Iron Man to deal against Owl, Stilt-Man, or other street-level criminals? Did Spider-man have Thor in his speed dial whenever Doc Octopus shows up? I remember in one of the Batman movies (Batman Forever or B&R), Batman made a comment about how this is why Superman works alone, so it means that they share in the same universe as Superman. We didn't see Superman shows up, did we?

Sure, the Avengers are connected inside this MCU, and will come together when there's a threat bigger than any of them, but once the threat goes away they will go back and do what they always do, whether in the movies or in the comics. Would GA wonder about this? Probably not. Does the Avengers' existence mean every Avenger must make a cameo in everybody's movie? Definitely not.

 

[DrCosmic]

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.

Not on this topic they aren't. Movies do this one line trick to explain why the government agent can't call backup before the end of the climax all the time. Communications get cut off, heroes get physically isolated, the agent/hero is on the outs with their uber organization, the individuals they want are busy/out of communication/physically isolated, there's no time to get help, etc. Often the hero will be the only one equipped to deal with the problem anyway.

An Iron Man sequel, of all of these, is especially prime for putting Thor off world, Cap in Afghanistan and Tony on the outs with Fury. Mandarin's more than capable of making that happen if he wants, even. Mandarin might harness his stuff through tech making even Thor useless anyway. It's really very easy. It is true, that you do have to take 2-5 minutes of screen time to show how the hero is cut off from the rest of the team by various (or one big) means, but it's not actually hard, and it's been done in almost every action movie I can think of from Die Hard to The Matrix to Alice in Wonderland.

 

[Raiden]

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.

In the first movie, Stark works out his problems by himself, and it already proves his ingenuity. I don't see why the fact that he needed help in IM2 would take any of that away. In IM2, Stark shows his vulnerable side, from being self-destructive, to getting (almost) killed by Varko at Moronco and was saved by Pepper & Hogan (with the suitcase armor), and later Fury helped him with the antidote and Rhodey helped him against the drones with WM. And yet you only pointed out Fury as the sole problem. Stark during that time was weak, not just physically but almost emotionally, having lost his Mark II to the military and destroyed his reputation at his own b-day party. Fury showed up and offered his help, and contributed to the plot. I don't see anything wrong with this arrangement.

I know that you wish for nothing more than to get rid of Fury & BW from IM2, but I'd rather have them participate in the plot than a 3-minute scene after the credits finished.

 

[seifergt]

I mean yea, to create this cinematic universe each individual movie has to give up a little bit to contribute to world they are creating, but it's for the greater good. If you don't have tie-ins between all of these properties then the tie in movie isn't as good. If they had produced all of these movies and then decided to do a team up movie, I don't think the ending product would be as good. Granted that is a subjective statement, but I think when you plan out a grand scheme instead of on the fly the final product tends to be better. Either way, I enjoyed IM2 and the avenger's add in's only made it better for me personally.

 

[J.Howlett]

Actually Black Widow was fine. I just would've had her reveal at the end of the film with the scene between Fury and Tony where she delivers her evaluation.

And yeah, that means dropping her action sequence.

 

[J.Howlett]

Actually, if they would've just stuck with the end credits sequences as the connection between the films and not in the narratives of the individual films themselves, I think that would've worked much, much better.

That would've easily explained to the audience why they come together in the Avengers.

 

[sgaana]

Someone commented somewhere above that there is no reason for Nick Fury to show up in IM2 -- to give Tony a medical stop-gap measure or anything else -- without the Avengers connection... but I don't think that's true.

Let's go back for a moment to the idea that "in the Marvel universe, SHIELD = a gov't group like the FBI or CIA or ATF or Secret Service, but one specifically dealing with super-powered beings and weird crap". I assume this is a basically fair summation of what SHIELD is supposed to be.

If this is true, then nevermind about The Avengers Initiative. Forget about it for a moment.

Tony Stark, in IM, made himself into a super-powered being (albeit mechanically). The moment he did that, he became someone SHIELD would need to monitor and know about. They are the government. They at least want to keep an eye on all the vigilantes and individual operators.

That's why Fury shows up at the end of IM -- he says it specifically ("think you're the only super hero in the world?"). Tony has just outed himself as a super-hero. SHIELD's eye is now going to be on him.

The Avengers Initiative is an additional function of SHIELD, and it's apparent in the conversation in IM2 that SHIELD is evaluating Tony to see whether he can or should be included in The Avengers. Because Tony is that much of a person of interest to SHIELD, that's why SHIELD is already prepared to help Tony with his medical problem. (Of course, in the end they decide "no", they don't want him as more than a consultant in their project, as he's too much of a loose cannon). But, even if Iron Man never becomes an Avenger... SHIELD will still be keeping an eye on him. Because that's what they do. Just like it's the FBI's job to keep an eye on who the big players are in the organized crime world.

It is no stranger, within the world of the Marvel universe, to have the head of SHIELD talking to a super-hero, than it is in a movie about the Mob to have an FBI agent talking to a mob boss.

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.

Right. It's also like saying that you're annoyed that you can't watch Harry Potter 7, because you didn't see 5 and 6.

And I guess I can see why some folks are annoyed at that idea, if they didn't think they were signing up for a connected movie series when they first sat down to watch Iron Man.

What I still don't really understand is the view I've heard some express here, which is something along the lines of, "If I'm just a fan of Iron Man or Hulk, then I don't want allusions to other heroes or entities in the MCU to intrude upon their stories".

The reason I don't understand this I suppose is that even as a comics reader, as a follower of certain characters... I've never been the type of reader who, say, only wanted to read Aquaman's solo books, but wanted to ignore his presence in JLA books if he was on the team at the time. If I'm a fan of the character, I want both. More to the point, if I'm a fan of the character, then I recognize that both things are important to the overall make-up of the character.

So I can sort of understand if you are a fan of Iron Man, but you aren't particularly a fan of Thor or Hulk. But I don't get how you can be a fan of Iron Man and not fold into your understanding/appreciation of the character the idea that he is an Avenger. Maybe you never pick up a Thor or Hulk solo book, but do you really ignore all of Iron Man's presence in Avengers stories? Do you really never want to read The Avengers at all, even when he's on the team?

If so... okay. But it's not something I'll ever understand about someone else's reading habits. And at the same time, I don't understand how someone could not realize that for many comics readers, there is intense enjoyment to reading all of a favorite character's appearance in various titles; or to seeing reference in the character's own title to the fact that he exists within a connected world.

I mean, I've said before -- I'm not a fan of the Hulk. Therefore, I didn't go to see either of the Hulk films in the theater. But I don't get the idea of being pissed off that I had to go out and rent the Hulk (for $1 from my library) so I could watch it and feel like I wasn't missing anything in preparation for The Avengers. It wasn't a terrible movie (actually I thought it was quite good), and it didn't feel like a chore.

Is that what it sometimes comes down to, though? Are people annoyed because they feel like this connected series of movies is "forcing" them to be conversant in the other entries in the series?

 

[Flemm]

While I don't think IM2 was a bad movie, it did demonstrate some potential problems with the universe building approach, mainly that the individual films can have a tendency to become jumbled and unfocused.

That is actually a good thing, though, as I'm confident that the studio has learned a lesson from that experience. The solo films following The Avengers, such as IM3 and Thor 2, will be more tightly focused than IM2. There will be some winks and nods, but the crossover elements will be kept to a minimum. Partly for quality assurance, and partly because that is just the natural evolution of the movie universe: once the set-up is over, and Avengers has happened, each character can go back to existing in his own world until the next "issue" of Avengers, i.e. the crossover sequel.

 

[Raiden]

I just want to ask those who hated to see any references or tie-ins from the movies of IM, Thor, Cap, and Hulk, to see if they would rather see them all introduced in the Avengers all at the same time. Would it be better if we get to see Nick Fury, Maria Hill, Agent Coulson, and SHIELD for the very first time in the Avengers, as well as BW and Hawkeye? This is on top of other characters like Iron Man, Thor, and Capt. America and Loki and Cosmic Cube coming in from their own movies. Do you not think the GA & even fans get overwhelmed by the sheer number of characters if they weren't introduced to them earlier in other movies? This is why Marvel made the decision to have references sprinkled throughout the Marvel Studios movies, because it will definitely be information overload for the audience and the action scenes will have to be reduced for even more introductions.

 

[J.Howlett]

Captain America was tightly focused...and it comes before the Avengers.

 

[Lord]

While i prefer this aproach an adaptation of The Ultimates could have also worked

 

[Iron_Stark]

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...

Who's trying to argue, you ignorantly stated Black Widow (while looking good or whatever bs you wrote) served no purpose in the movie. Same as Nick Fury.

Now you're trying to backtrack and act as though ya'll were talking about the Ultimates as well.

But you're right SHIELD never appeared in every single Avengers book, just like they haven't appeared in every single movie that has been released.

The only time they had a major presence in the movies was IM2 and Thor, which it served the story. IM1 it was just Coulson, Cap, just Fury in a cameo and Hulk, just their logo.

 

[Iron_Stark]

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

Thinking like this was the reason Rourke got screwed over in the movie and the reason Iron Man's top villains like Crimson Dynamo, Titanium Man and Mandarin haven't been in any of the movies.

 

[Pinky021]

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.

,yep!!

 

[PumpkinBombxXx]

Thinking like this was the reason Rourke got screwed over in the movie and the reason Iron Man's top villains like Crimson Dynamo, Titanium Man and Mandarin haven't been in any of the movies.

I dont think Rourke got screwed over. His character wasnt that deep to begin with. While i enjoyed his character and im not trashing it or him in any way, his plot was kinda simple. Im just saying that the universe is bigger then who the new villain is in each movie.
Mandarin hasnt been seen because they intentionaly saved his biggest villain for last. His presence has been in both IM movies.

 

[Raiden]

I dont think Rourke got screwed over. His character wasnt that deep to begin with. While i enjoyed his character and im not trashing it or him in any way, his plot was kinda simple. Im just saying that the universe is bigger then who the new villain is in each movie.
Mandarin hasnt been seen because they intentionaly saved his biggest villain for last. His presence has been in both IM movies.

Where's the Mandarin's presence in IM2 except for that ring on Hammer's finger?

 

[Surfer]

I don't get it, Comic Fans from both the Marvel and DC camp should be delighted to see tie ins as it has been a large part of Comic Book History practically since it's inception. For me as long as the tie ins are relevant to either the current story or where the story is heading it is all good. Now it is true that Iron Man 2 had more tie ins then any of the other Marvel Movies, and while it was criticized by many I really never felt the tie ins were to blame. I felt it had more to do with things like, Justin Hammer (while well acted) not being a villian that people feared, and Whiplash turning into yet another version of Iron Man technology. I think when I saw whiplash at the end I was kind of like can't they think up something new for a villian other then something mechanized. Now don't get me wrong I like whiplash in the comics, but I wish they went with more his original look and adapted it for the screen much like they did for Captain America. Also, in my opinion Don Cheedle's Rhodey was not as good (with or without the War Machine Armor) as Terrence Howard's. So, all in all those were my biggest criticizems of the Iron Man 2 movie and it had nothing to do with the tie ins. It is also important to consider without these tie ins the Avengers movie could need to spend a good amount of its running time explaining how these characters stories all come together. This is time that should be spent setting up the story at hand, character interaction's and battles. So, in other words its better they dedicate the 3 minutes now (in each of the solo movies) towards bringing the characters together, instead of 12 minutes later (during the Avengers movie). With all of these characters in one movie, they are going to have a lot going on and many things that need to be covered. So I can easily see them needing that extra 12 minutes for other things.

On a related note, I feel that DC has not dismissed what Marvel is doing, but instead had more of a wait and see attitude and I believe if Marvel is successful DC will eventually follow their lead moving towards a Justice League movie.

Surfer

 

[redhawk23]

I just want to ask those who hated to see any references or tie-ins from the movies of IM, Thor, Cap, and Hulk, to see if they would rather see them all introduced in the Avengers all at the same time. Would it be better if we get to see Nick Fury, Maria Hill, Agent Coulson, and SHIELD for the very first time in the Avengers, as well as BW and Hawkeye? This is on top of other characters like Iron Man, Thor, and Capt. America and Loki and Cosmic Cube coming in from their own movies. Do you not think the GA & even fans get overwhelmed by the sheer number of characters if they weren't introduced to them earlier in other movies? This is why Marvel made the decision to have references sprinkled throughout the Marvel Studios movies, because it will definitely be information overload for the audience and the action scenes will have to be reduced for even more introductions.

Its ok to show them before the avengers movie but when its something like Hawkeye in Thor, a very obvious pickups insert that serves no purpose, its quite anoying.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I like that they're doing a team up movie. I don't like the way it's being pulled off. Most of the Nick Fury scenes have been throwaway scenes that could easily have been saved for after the credits (like in IM) or for special material/a director's cut on the DVD. Any time I see Samuel L. Jackson on screen in one of these movies, it's almost like he stops short of saying, "...And come see our ensemble cast in 2012! *smiles at camera, tooth sparkles*" I think that Iron Man was a stronger movie for having saved the Fury cameo until after the credits, and that Cap was a weaker film for having included him in the actual ending. These movies should be their own films, not just overly long commercials for The Avengers. Give the Fury character his time to shine in THAT movie.

 

[Doc Samson]

Who's trying to argue, you ignorantly stated Black Widow (while looking good or whatever bs you wrote) served no purpose in the movie. Same as Nick Fury.

How is it ignorant if it's my opinion? People like you are the reason why these boards become what they are. IMO, she didn't serve any real purpose, and Nick Fury wasn't necessary. I feel it messed with the tone of the movie and took time away from other things that would have made it better. If you don't feel that way, that's fantastic.

Now you're trying to backtrack and act as though ya'll were talking about the Ultimates as well.

Once again, what are you talking about? The person I was going back and forth with, was talking about IM comic books individually. He said SHIELD has always had a presence in those books, and I agreed. But, SHIELD didn't always have a direct correlation to the Avengers in those books either, which they do in these movies.

Nobody's confused about The Ultimates influence on the movie version of the Avengers. Point being, in the Ultimates, they are much closer related to SHIELD naturally because they were created by SHIELD while the original Avengers weren't.

But you're right SHIELD never appeared in every single Avengers book, just like they haven't appeared in every single movie that has been released.

The only time they had a major presence in the movies was IM2 and Thor, which it served the story. IM1 it was just Coulson, Cap, just Fury in a cameo and Hulk, just their logo.

TIH is the only one that didn't feature a member of SHIELD blatantly, even though Stark appears on their behalf.

Furthermore, if you had read my original statement, I said when they were handled subtle, as in end credits, or little nods to the hardcore fans, I had no issue with it. IM2 was the film that I felt got a little sidetracked by it because they were implemented into part of the story for no good reason other than to have them in the biggest Marvel property for more than a mere cameo, when a mere cameo would have served the same purpose.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

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.

Horse****. You're delusional.

TDK has NOTHING to do with the Academy switching to 10 noms instead of 5; they just did it as a way to generate more interest and more competition.

Tell me: if you really think the Academy was all bent out of shape by TDK and Nolan and Bale not getting their proper recognition in '08, then why THE hell didn't they go ahead and kick films like Milk, Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon and The Reader to the side? True, the Best Pic winner Slumdog Millionaire was a force to be reckoned with, but none of those others was even remotely close to being considered artistically significant.

And more to the point, why didn't they at least give all the technical awards to TDK? Good god, TDK even lost out costuming, art direction, editing, sound and fx noms to inferior work on Benjamin Button and Slumdog.

The Academy didn't give two sh**s about TDK, other than the inevitable posthumous nod to Ledger. Their decision to go to 10 film nominations came *months* after the books were already closed on 2008.

For starters, to suggest that Slumdog was the only Nominee deserving of a Best Picture Nomination is enough for me to know that you're concept of "artistically significant" is way off.

Second, to say that the Academy didn't care about a film it nominated for 8 Awards, 2 of which it won, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense

As for the decision to amplify the amount of Best Picture Nominees, I won't go as far to post 50 articles here on how TDK's Oscar snub for Best Pic influenced the decision, but I'll rather say this instead: do you think you'll make it any less true by refusing to accept the fact that it most certainly is? Because denying the impact of TDK, specially on a message board that focuses on comic book movies, doesn't reduce it in the least bit. Its like going to an NBA forum and saying Michael Jordan was a terrible basketball player.

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

Why is it that some people think that by bashing something great they'll make something not so great seem better?

Calling TDK unworthy of Oscar recognition, saying its a complete misrepresentation of what comic book movies should be, it all just baffles me.

Marvel Studios is yet to make a movie as good as TDK. That's not TDK's fault. Its not Christopher Nolan's fault. Its Marvel's fault.

They started strong with Iron Man and slowly lost their way as they continued to push their Avengers cross-over. The cross-over's focus took away from what could have been great individual films for the characters. As much as I've enjoyed all of them, they're "B" movies at best - and no, I don't find that acceptable just because they're comic book movies.

I wanted an amazing Captain America movie. I didn't get it.

Badmouthing TDK won't fix that.

 

[redhawk23]

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.

Exactly SHIELD being used to push the plot along in Iron Man 2 is exactly the problem, its kind of crappy writing. The crossover is what drives the film, rather than the film simply having crossovers. Its a legitimate criticism and I'm not the only one to ever point it out. I enjoy Iron Man 2, but I'm just pointing thing out like this because some seem quite incredulous that anyone could have a problem with what these movies are doing.

No Hawkeye doesn't ruin Thor for me, none of the crossovers due, but it is an example of a few things that have been badly done. Why not have Hawkeye actually DO domething? Otherwise why have him at all? It's badly done fan service.

Crossovers and referneces are fine, but they are not always well done. I don't know why people get so ticked off when some of the less well done ones get called out.

 

[kedrell]

There was always going to be some bumps along the way as they mesh this all together and I for one can accept that just so long as it doesn't end up with them turning out a bad movie(so far so good). They really don't have any predecessor to copy here. They are the test pilot of this idea.

 

[kedrell]

Marvel Studios is yet to make a movie as good as TDK.

Many disagree.