The Avengers Why all the cross-over hate?

[redhawk23]

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.

Yes there are bumps in the road, but that doesn't mean Marvel can't be criticized for it.

TDK did not cure cancer.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe hasn't yet cured AIDS.


Comic fans and the terminally ill can all still hold out hope for 2012 though can't they?

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Yes there are bumps in the road, but that doesn't mean Marvel can't be criticized for it.

TDK did not cure cancer.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe hasn't yet cured AIDS.

Comic fans and the terminally ill can all still hold out hope for 2012 though can't they?

Exactly.

I don't have to give mediocre movies a free pass (Iron Man 2) or deem okay movies great (Captain America) just because Marvel Studios was behind them.

I'll be there first day to see The Avengers but unless its a good movie, I won't call it a good movie just because Cap, Thor, Iron Man and Hulk shared a scene together.

I really feel like Marvel keeps choosing quantity over quality with the MCU, and its really starting to bother me.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Exactly.

I don't have to give mediocre movies a free pass (Iron Man 2) or deem okay movies great (Captain America) just because Marvel Studios was behind them.

I'll be there first day to see The Avengers but unless its a good movie, I won't call it a good movie just because Cap, Thor, Iron Man and Hulk shared a scene together.

I really feel like Marvel keeps choosing quantity over quality with the MCU, and its really starting to bother me.

Lmao. And how would you go about it?

The DC approach? Make ONE really good movie every five years while every other year they're filled with bombs and constant reboots.

 

[kedrell]

Personally I think their quality standards are high. Do I think they're perfect? No. But their quality and consistancy with that quality impresses me.

Have they made certain mistakes and should they be criticised for it? Yes, I've done so myself.

What I don't understand is the antagonism toward the idea of a shared universe. Some just don't like this idea at all and want things to never change.

 

[Raiden]

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.

Marvel did it because they wanted Fury to be (1) more relevant to the plot and (2) get some legitimate scene instead of just appearing in a 3 minutes scene after the credits. It goes back to my point about without these references and cameos, those characters will only make their introduction in the Avengers movie. Do you think that would've been a wiser move instead? Because I think that'd be a terrible idea, given how many characters will be there in the crossover movie. No plan is perfect, but if we are to accept the fact that the Avengers will be made, then this is the best decision possible. Did Fury's scenes hurt IM2? I don't think so, because there were SHIELD references in Thor and Cap but those movies ended up better than IM2 because of stronger scripts.

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.

Hawkeye is a fan service, no doubt, and it was done so some moviegoers would've seen him already and so they won't ask "Who is Hawkeye?" when the Avengers came out, and instead they'd said "Oh, it's that archer guy". And Marvel (being that they're both a comic book and movie company) has no problem with providing some fan services obviously. It may annoy some fanboys, but in the reviews I read online, there weren't any criticism toward Hawkeye's cameo, and he certainly did not hurt the movie at all. So why keep bringing it up? As for calling out the less well done ones, can you provide some examples?

 

[Raiden]

Exactly.

I don't have to give mediocre movies a free pass (Iron Man 2) or deem okay movies great (Captain America) just because Marvel Studios was behind them.

I'll be there first day to see The Avengers but unless its a good movie, I won't call it a good movie just because Cap, Thor, Iron Man and Hulk shared a scene together.

I really feel like Marvel keeps choosing quantity over quality with the MCU, and its really starting to bother me.

Marvel Studios' IM1, IM2, Thor, and Capt. America all received 'fresh' rating on RT, so this accusation about Marvel choosing quantity over quality irks me. As for me, I enjoyed all of them (IM2 slightly less so), but none of them were bad films and I'd pick any of them over SR and some over BB. Sure, TDK was a good film, but considering WB's track record over the last 10 years with DC superheroes, I'll take Marvel and their MCU movies over WB's any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Lmao. And how would you go about it?

The DC approach? Make ONE really good movie every five years while every other year they're filled with bombs and constant reboots.

I don't even like DC t:

Marvel Studios' IM1, IM2, Thor, and Capt. America all received 'fresh' rating on RT, so this accusation about Marvel choosing quality over quantity irks me. As for me, I enjoyed all of them (IM2 slightly less so), but none of them were bad films and I'd pick any of them over SR and some over BB. Sure, TDK was a good film, but considering WB's track record over the last 10 years with DC superheroes, I'll take Marvel and their MCU movies over WB's any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Marvel Studios began with a quality movie. I give more credit to Favreau than I do the studio, but nevertheless, they made a great first movie.

Then came TIH, which I also consider a great movie, but the studio's popcorn approach began to compromise the quality - resulting in a shorter cut of the film and to add insult to injury, they moved the after the credits scene with Tony to before the credits *at the press screening where I saw TIH, the movie ended with Norton smiling (as it should have ended).

Marvel's popcorn approach culminated in Iron Man 2 with a movie that was more a trailer to the [potential] Avengers movie than anything else. It was a huge step down from the first film.

Then we got Thor and Captain America, both which could have been amazing films but ended up being okay movies with a safe and very emphasized popcorn approach.

Again, I liked all these movies because I'm a fan of the books. But they are by no means great movies.

*RT has Iron Man at 94% (where it belongs) and every Marvel Studios follow-up after it sits in the mid 70s. That pretty much sums up the decline in quality.

 

[Raiden]

I don't even like DC t:



Marvel Studios began with a quality movie. I give more credit to Favreau than I do the studio, but nevertheless, they made a great first movie.

Then came TIH, which I also consider a great movie, but the studio's popcorn approach began to compromise the quality - resulting in a shorter cut of the film and to add insult to injury, they moved the after the credits scene with Tony to before the credits *at the press screening where I saw TIH, the movie ended with Norton smiling (as it should have ended).

Marvel's popcorn approach culminated in Iron Man 2 with a movie that was more a trailer to the [potential] Avengers movie than anything else. It was a huge step down from the first film.

Then we got Thor and Captain America, both which could have been amazing films but ended up being okay movies with a safe and very emphasized popcorn approach.

Again, I liked all these movies because I'm a fan of the books. But they are by no means great movies.

*RT has Iron Man at 94% and every Marvel Studios follow-up sits in the mid 70s. That pretty much sums up the decline in quality.

What's wrong with 70s rating? Sure, it's nice to get 94%, but that doesn't happen most of the time, esp. with superhero movies. I don't need nor want to only enjoy movies that received 90% or so on RT, and I'd give Capt. America considerably higher rating than the 75% it received on the Tomatometer. And just because you don't consider them "great" doesn't mean they aren't; it's just not your cup of tea.

 

[weezerspider]

There's been Best Picture Nominees in the 70's....As many have said, the tomatometer is a flawed representation of the general consensus of a film. A film at 94% doesn't mean the average review is a 94/100, it means 94% of critics liked it. All of those critics could have given it a 6/10 and it would still have a 94%. Don't put so much on RT. In Fact, just a quick search of the last few years Best Picture Nominees and these all have ratings in the 70's or worse:


Munich- 78%
The Blind Side- 66%
The Reader-62%
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button- 72%
Babel- 69%
Crash-76%(WON BEST PICTURE)

Thats just from the last 6 years and before you say it, only one of those films(Blindside) was nominated in the 10 film format. Therefore your argument about the RT meter is flawed and stupid. According strictly to the RT meter, IM2, which is getting a lot of heat in this topic, is one point below a Best Picture WINNER(Crash). Come up with a better argument, please!

EDIT: Also this makes Cap's 75% and certified fresh look pretty damn impressive! God I loved that film!
EDIT 2: This post is directed at Alexia....Raiden knows what's up.

 

[ElMariachi]

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.

Why does this still bother some of you people on here? The medicine that Fury gave Tony clearly was explained to not be a cure. Tony cured himself by cracking his fathers code and using his modern technology to create the element Howard couldn't. This was one of the best parts of the film but it seems many people on here have forgotten about it. Tony was saved in the first movie too. Anybody remember that it was Pepper who pretty much finished off Obadiah as Tony was dangling above the arc reactor?

I also am curious why the perfect BB/TDK never get flak for pretty much doing the same thing. You think Nick Fury was deus ex machina? Try the other black guy in comic movies. Lucius Fox was responsible for all of Batman's tech, created the antidote for the fear toxin (saving Batman, Rachael, and all of Gotham City), and pretty much defeated the Joker by inventing the cell phone sonar device (that somehow were implented in a few days) that gave Batman godlike omnipresence. Not that I had a problem with this but if you are going to criticize Iron Man 2, you must do the same with Nolan's Batman films.

 

[weezerspider]

Why does this still bother some of you people on here? The medicine that Fury gave Tony clearly was explained to not be a cure. Tony cured himself by cracking his fathers code and using his modern technology to create the element Howard couldn't. This was one of the best parts of the film but it seems many people on here have forgotten about it. Tony was saved in the first movie too. Anybody remember that it was Pepper who pretty much finished off Obadiah as Tony was dangling above the arc reactor?

I also am curious why the perfect BB/TDK never get flak for pretty much doing the same thing. You think Nick Fury was deus ex machina? Try the other black guy in comic movies. Lucius Fox was responsible for all of Batman's tech, created the antidote for the fear toxin (saving Batman, Rachael, and all of Gotham City), and pretty much defeated the Joker by inventing the cell phone sonar device (that somehow were implented in a few days) that gave Batman godlike omnipresence. Not that I had a problem with this but if you are going to criticize Iron Man 2, you must do the same with Nolan's Batman films.

Good point. I love Nolan's films and that never bothered me, but hey, I also think Iron Man 2 is extremely underrated while the original Iron Man is overrated to some degree. IM1 is still the better flick, but its not nearly as clear cut as some seem to suggest. A lot of IM2's problem's are present in IM1....but hey maybe I like 2 hour commercials for the Avengers.....even if 1 hour and 50 minutes of it has nothing to do with The Avengers.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Lmao at some of these posts! Now there's complaints about the Hawkeye cameo??

Yep people are afraid of change.

So now Thor would've been better if some random government agency would've shown up to investigate the hammer with some random agent with with a rifle getting ready to shoot Thor.

 

[Aztec]

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.

How is it "annoying"? If anything a fan would be like "Oh cool it's Hawkeye!" The casual fan doesn't need to know who he is, but when Avengers comes out they'll likely be like..."Hey wait wasn't he in Thor for a bit?" How is any of that annoying?

 

[Aztec]

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.

Did you ever watch "Married with Children"? Well in it the lead character Al Bundy (Ed O'Neil of Modern Family fame) is a rundown loser who works in a woman's shoe store. His only claim to fame, which he continually talks about, is how in high school he scored 4 touchdowns in one game.

When I hear WB/DC fanboys/apologists talk about how amazing The Dark Knight was, I can't help but thinking about poor sad Al Bundy bragging about his 4 touchdowns in one game. It was one great day in what has been an otherwise sad and lame existence, lol.

But DC vs. Marvel is not the point of this thread by any stretch of the imagination... Back on topic.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

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.

I really don't buy this, look at the Nick Fury scenes;

Iron Man - Post scene after the credits to tell Iron Man/Stark and the audience he is part of a larger world/universe. Fury had no reason to reveal himself until the very end, but he felt now that Iron Man is out in the open he should work with Stark.

Iron Man 2 - Stark and Fury have met and had discussions about the Avengers Initiative, it's a professional relationship. The first appearance is when Stark is completely stumped on curing himself, so Fury gives him a push in the right direction, who should've given Stark that push? Some random person? It was in service of the story.

The second appearance was an epilouge to the movie and let you know where the character was going next, in my mind it was no different than Gordon showing Batman the Joker card at the end of Batman Begins. It didn't affect the story of this movie, it did show that Stark's actions in this movie had some consequences though, as SHIELD doesn't want his alter ego.

Captain America - Someone had to tell Steve what was up, again this could've been anyone, but why not have it be someone with significance to the larger picture.

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.

Why is Hawkeye an example of doing crossovers wrong, he didn't interfere in the story, it's a brief cameo. Again a perfect example of anyone being able to be in that role, so why not make it someone who will matter down the line. Why did the weapons in Hulk have to be from Stark Industries?

 

[ElMariachi]

Marvel's popcorn approach culminated in Iron Man 2 with a movie that was more a trailer to the [potential] Avengers movie than anything else. It was a huge step down from the first film.

Then we got Thor and Captain America, both which could have been amazing films but ended up being okay movies with a safe and very emphasized popcorn approach.

Again, I liked all these movies because I'm a fan of the books. But they are by no means great movies.

*RT has Iron Man at 94% (where it belongs) and every Marvel Studios follow-up after it sits in the mid 70s. That pretty much sums up the decline in quality.

There was nothing safe about Thor or Captain America. Both movies had bizarre subject matter and were big gambles for Marvel. These gambles paid off.

So what if they are 'popcorn movies'? Would you rather have had Marvel suck out all the fun, humour, and character out of these movies and instead tried to make a bastardized Saving Private Ryan and Lord of the Rings?

As for the scores of these movies, they are high comparing to other similar films. For the record--Sherlock Holmes got a 70%, Avatar an 83%, Gladiator a 78%, Inception an 86%, Master and Commander a 85%, Watchmen a 64%, and Super 8 an 80%. These two movies fit right in there as a good movie in my opinion.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Lmao at some of these posts! Now there's complaints about the Hawkeye cameo??

Yep people are afraid of change.

So now Thor would've been better if some random government agency would've shown up to investigate the hammer with some random agent with with a rifle getting ready to shoot Thor.

Yes, it would've been a whole lot better because if SHIELD is mentioned then it invalidates the core plot of the movie and it automatically becomes an Avengers trailer. As soon as SHIELD was mentioned, I forgot all about what was going on in Asgard, I thought, crap this is just a ploy to get us to see Avengers next year. Why couldn't it just shove it's head in the sand and ignore everything else going on with the "shared" universe. Movies are supposed to be totally insular with no crossover what so ever, unless it's after the credits or on the DVD, that's the only time it's okay.

 

[Aztec]

Edit: Nevermind.

 

[Raiden]

Yes, it would've been a whole lot better because if SHIELD is mentioned then it invalidates the core plot of the movie and it automatically becomes an Avengers trailer. As soon as SHIELD was mentioned, I forgot all about what was going on in Asgard, I thought, crap this is just a ploy to get us to see Avengers next year. Why couldn't it just shove it's head in the sand and ignore everything else going on with the "shared" universe. Movies are supposed to be totally insular with no crossover what so ever, unless it's after the credits or on the DVD, that's the only time it's okay.

t:

 

[Iron_Stark]

Did you ever watch "Married with Children"? Well in it the lead character Al Bundy (Ed O'Neil of Modern Family fame) is a rundown loser who works in a woman's shoe store. His only claim to fame, which he continually talks about, is how in high school he scored 4 touchdowns in one game.

When I hear WB/DC fanboys/apologists talk about how amazing The Dark Knight was, I can't help but thinking about poor sad Al Bundy bragging about his 4 touchdowns in one game. It was one great day in what has been an otherwise sad and lame existence, lol.

But DC vs. Marvel is not the point of this thread by any stretch of the imagination... Back on topic.

Lmao, did you read my 'Coming to America' analogy a few pages back?

I like the Al Bundy better.

Yes, it would've been a whole lot better because if SHIELD is mentioned then it invalidates the core plot of the movie and it automatically becomes an Avengers trailer. As soon as SHIELD was mentioned, I forgot all about what was going on in Asgard, I thought, crap this is just a ploy to get us to see Avengers next year. Why couldn't it just shove it's head in the sand and ignore everything else going on with the "shared" universe. Movies are supposed to be totally insular with no crossover what so ever, unless it's after the credits or on the DVD, that's the only time it's okay.

Gold!

If people are going to complain, this is how to do it.

 

[Doc Samson]

Did you ever watch "Married with Children"? Well in it the lead character Al Bundy (Ed O'Neil of Modern Family fame) is a rundown loser who works in a woman's shoe store. His only claim to fame, which he continually talks about, is how in high school he scored 4 touchdowns in one game.

When I hear WB/DC fanboys/apologists talk about how amazing The Dark Knight was, I can't help but thinking about poor sad Al Bundy bragging about his 4 touchdowns in one game. It was one great day in what has been an otherwise sad and lame existence, lol.

But DC vs. Marvel is not the point of this thread by any stretch of the imagination... Back on topic.

That's the problem though, anytime you disagree with something, your labeled as some type of "WB/DC fanboy/apologist" as you would say. As if you can't be an Iron Man fan and possibly dislike certain parts of IM2, it's ridiculous.

Believe me, there's those of us who don't care who make the better movies, but also don't love each and every aspect of them either.

 

[redhawk23]

Hawkeye was badly done because it was a very obvious insert shot that did nothing.

Theres a fight going on with main character but it cuts away to a man in black clothes running, grabbing a weapon, going up to the top a little hanging crane elevator and...nothing.

And whatever Marvel's intentions for fury, it doesn't stop him from serving as a deus ex machina. He could have been established in another manner.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Hawkeye was badly done because it was a very obvious insert shot that did nothing.

Theres a fight going on with main character but it cuts away to a man in black clothes running, grabbing a weapon, going up to the top a little hanging crane elevator and...nothing.

And whatever Marvel's intentions for fury, it doesn't stop him from serving as a deus ex machina. He could have been established in another manner.

So you're saying it would've been better if Hawkeye was just some nameless sniper that worked for Homeland Security because having SHIELD as the agency in charge of investigating the hammer is too distracting. Actually why say Homeland Secutiry, it should just be nameless, like the sniper. John Doe working for ABC Government Agency, yeah, that seems much less distracting, now I remember that this is about Thor, not The Avengers.

 

[Iron_Stark]

So you're saying it would've been better if Hawkeye was just some nameless sniper that worked for Homeland Security because having SHIELD as the agency in charge of investigating the hammer is too distracting. Actually why say Homeland Secutiry, it should just be nameless, like the sniper. John Doe working for ABC Government Agency, yeah, that seems much less distracting, now I remember that this is about Thor, not The Avengers.

No, it shouldn't have even been a Government agency because people would've confused it with Men in Black and been to distracting, it should've been the local Sheriff department, Andy Griffin and Barney Fife types.

 

[Raiden]

Hawkeye was badly done because it was a very obvious insert shot that did nothing.

Theres a fight going on with main character but it cuts away to a man in black clothes running, grabbing a weapon, going up to the top a little hanging crane elevator and...nothing.

And whatever Marvel's intentions for fury, it doesn't stop him from serving as a deus ex machina. He could have been established in another manner.

Hawkeye's cameo was to set up his bigger role to come in the Avengers, so it's not "nothing". It'd be "nothing" if it's (like AmazingFantasy15 said) if it was just a nameless, faceless sniper who has nothing except for that brief scene. And as I said before, it lasted probably less than a minute, so I'm perplexed why you would keep bringing it up as if it tanks the movie for you.

As for Fury, so what if he's a deus ex machina like Fox is for BB & TDK? He was still relevant to Stark's search for the cure, and he helped Stark to get to know his father a little bit more. Do you want Fury to get even more involved in the plot? Because some people were already complaining about how much SHIELD "interfere" with the movie. Or do you want Fury to contribute even less to the movie like he did in IM1?