The Avengers Why all the cross-over hate?

[Son of Coul]

It was best to keep Cap's WWII life contained into one movie because it captures that era of his life, as in the comics where he felt like primarily a propaganda character (from what I've seen at least) during the time until he was brought back by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in Avengers, where they brought more real character and the "man out of time" aspect. From then on, the flashbacks informing the current story seemed to be the best means of working that angle and has taken up the vast majority of his appearance in comics.

We didn't need another WWII film. We know how it all goes down. Having it contained with some flexibility is a great means. Now if he went on one mission and then gotten frozen, then we'd have a problem of compromising the story.

Overall, I just feel that Captain America isn't "the WWII supersoldier," but rather the legendary WWII veteran who spends his days in modern times as a superhero.

 

[Hoblin]

Crossovers are awesome. I can hardly pick up a comic without tons of guest stars and references to other heroes/villains. Iron Man is fighting a bunch of bad guys? Hey look, Luke Cage shows up to help him! Yay! Wait, why is Luke Cage here? Idk, but it's awesome.


If anything, I'd like to see MORE crossing over.

 

[Doc Samson]

I only took issue with IM2, because I feel that the Avengers stuff permeated the movie in a more obvious & blatant way than any of the others. While people have gone back and forth with me on this, I can't deny that most of Nick Fury's inclusion (and even moreso Black Widow, though she looked damn good) weren't beneficial at all to the movie as a whole. All they really needed was the end credits stuff, IMO, it would have made for a stronger movie overall.

I also do feel that it handicaps the directors to a certain extent. It's making the assumption that general fans of Iron Man are necessarily going to gravitate towards Thor, or Cap, which isn't a given. And if it's not a given, and a good majority of the general populace might miss out on one or two of these movies, then how necessary was it in the first place? Fanboys are going to see all of them regardless, so if it's just a wink and nod to us, great, that means it can be done in a subtle way, which I feel it has been for the most part. But in IM2, just for me, I felt that wasn't the case...

 

[weezerspider]

Just a few of my thoughts on this:

1. WB has one huge success(TDK), a good hit(BB) and two huge flops(Jonah Hex and Lantern) in recent years. However, they couldn't even sell the greatest comic book of all time(Watchmen, which I loved btw). Marvel Studios has been consistently good, not great, but good. Someone said quality over quantity, well I'll take consistency over anything if its consistently good, which Marvel has been(And for the record, I find TDK to be head and shoulders above any other comic film in history).

2. Its illogical to say the films in Marvel's Cinematic Universe(MCU) have suffered from the cross-overs. First of all, SHIELD is present in all of Marvel comics, so that shouldn't count as a 'cross-over'. SHIELD has been in plenty of Cap, IM, Thor and Hulk solo comics since SHIELD and the characters were introduced. Now as far as things DIRECTLY linked to the Avengers(I just made it clear that anyone who's read a comic knows SHIELD is NOT directly linked to the Avengers) we have Thor taking like 5 seconds to tell Coulston he will help them whenever he's on earth if they give Jane her research back. We have Tony telling Ross their putting a team together and we have Iron Man telling Fury he won't join his super team. Thats it. The rest are after-credit scenes(which take NOTHING away from the plot) and easter egg nods(like Cap's shield in IM2) that, again, take nothing away from the plot. SHIELD =/= Avengers. SHIELD's appearances have made sense in all of the films( SHIELD would investigate a billionaire who fought his way through terrorists and a magical 'hammer' falling from the sky in the comics).

I find it rather ridiculous to make these kind of complaints for "Captain America", "Iron Man", "The Incredible Hulk" , and "Thor" because all of them combined(not counting after credit scenes) probably have 5 minutes or less about The Avengers. "Iron Man 2" is the only one that I heard this complaint and could somewhat understand it, BUT Black Widow and SHIELD make appearances in IM comics ALL OF THE TIME. This STILL could have happened had it not been for "The Avengers". Not to mention, as others have stated, they take up like 10 minutes of screen time in a 2 hour film, so again, its not really hurting the plot. As someone said earlier, if anything Fury HELPED the plot get going somewhere with his speech about Tony's father(which lead to Tony figuring out how to make the new element).

Overall, its a pretty dumb argument. YES there is a chance that Marvel could let the plots in other films suffer from The Avenger's tie in, but they are 5 for 5 so far and seeing how Marvel CONFIRMED they were keeping the "cross over" stuff in solo films at a minimum after The Avengers(saving it for The Avengers 2), I see no reason to worry.

 

[Doc Samson]

Now as far as things DIRECTLY linked to the Avengers(I just made it clear that anyone who's read a comic knows SHIELD is NOT directly linked to the Avengers)

Therein lies the rub for me though, every single time these guys show up on screen its directly related to the Avengers. So in terms of these particular set of movies, there is a very direct correlation.

 

[weezerspider]

Therein lies the rub for me though, every single time these guys show up on screen its directly related to the Avengers. So in terms of these particular set of movies, there is a very direct correlation.

SHIELD didn't go to New Mexico in Thor originally to recruit a new member for The Avengers. They went to investigate whatever dropped down from the sky. Fury came to Tony in IM2 to talk about The Avengers, yes, but he also came to give him the medicine(whatever it was) and all of his father's old crap so that he could find a full time cure. Thats not all directly with The Avengers. Fury said in IM1 that Tony wasn't the only superhero and it was apparent he wasn't happy with his decision to tell the world he was Iron Man. This makes it seem that Black Widow was assigned to be with Stark to have SHIELD eyes on Tony, because Fury implied they dealt with all heros in the world in IM1. Therefore, Black Widow was not directly connected with The Avengers. SHIELD doesn't even pop up in TIH aside from the computer database to track Banner, again, no Avengers connection. SHIELD has served purposes aside from The Avengers in every film aside from CAP, which they thaw him out, which was needed in the story anyway.

 

[Doc Samson]

SHIELD didn't go to New Mexico in Thor originally to recruit a new member for The Avengers. They went to investigate whatever dropped down from the sky. Fury came to Tony in IM2 to talk about The Avengers, yes, but he also came to give him the medicine(whatever it was) and all of his father's old crap so that he could find a full time cure. Thats not all directly with The Avengers. Fury said in IM1 that Tony wasn't the only superhero and it was apparent he wasn't happy with his decision to tell the world he was Iron Man. This makes it seem that Black Widow was assigned to be with Stark to have SHIELD eyes on Tony, because Fury implied they dealt with all heros in the world in IM1. Therefore, Black Widow was not directly connected with The Avengers. SHIELD doesn't even pop up in TIH aside from the computer database to track Banner, again, no Avengers connection. SHIELD has served purposes aside from The Avengers in every film aside from CAP, which they thaw him out, which was needed in the story anyway.

I already stated that for the most part, I only really had a problem with IM2. In that regard, you mean to tell me Stark, who saved himself from captivity with a "a bunch of scraps!" couldn't figure the cure out without Nick Fury? The only interest Fury has in Tony is in relation to the Avengers, so it's absolutely related IMO, or else he wouldn't have cared if he died or not.

And besides eye candy (which I loved by the way) Black Widow served what purpose, besides being a spy for SHIELD? And if we already established that anytime SHIELD is on screen, it's really in relation to the Avengers, well...

 

[Shadowlord X]

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.

 

[Spade]

People are wary for a decent reason. Just because you like Iron Man doesn't mean you like Thor. The Avengers has all these characters interact, and you'll inevitably have some viewers that resent that. "That's not my Hulk," and so on.

That said, characters aren't ruined by crossovers. What truly ruins a crossover is bad writing. Anything can gel if the voices are strong and the meeting feels natural. I'm more hyped than scared. It has no precedent, involves characters I like, the director's competent and comes from the same magazine culture...these are exciting times.

 

[Shadowlord X]

And I agree with HOBLIN; more cross-overs.

 

[weezerspider]

I already stated that for the most part, I only really had a problem with IM2. In that regard, you mean to tell me Stark, who saved himself from captivity with a "a bunch of scraps!" couldn't figure the cure out without Nick Fury? The only interest Fury has in Tony is in relation to the Avengers, so it's absolutely related IMO, or else he wouldn't have cared if he died or not.

And besides eye candy (which I loved by the way) Black Widow served what purpose, besides being a spy for SHIELD? And if we already established that anytime SHIELD is on screen, it's really in relation to the Avengers, well...

Building a weapon-suit is not exactly the same thing as making/finding a new element. I doubt Tony would have found it, seeing as the key was from Howard's map and Tony didn't really think much of his father until Fury told him that Howard really cared for Tony. So in the retrospect, I stand by my previous statement.

I've given you plenty of reasons why SHIELD has had appearances un-related to the Avengers, so I stand by my point on Black Widow.


That said, I know that plenty of people on this board have said ill-will things to each other and I sensed perhaps you felt I was attacking you with my last post. I want to make it clear I was and am just debating and giving my opinion on the subject. I meant no disrespect towards you.

 

[cherokeesam]

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.

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.

 

[Doc Samson]

That said, I know that plenty of people on this board have said ill-will things to each other and I sensed perhaps you felt I was attacking you with my last post. I want to make it clear I was and am just debating and giving my opinion on the subject. I meant no disrespect towards you.

Never thought that for one second, just a friendly debate. We can humbly agree to disagree, I certainly respect your stance

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.

From the looks of it, it sounds like your the one with the DC/TDK hate going on. I have no allegiance, or otherwise, I wouldn't be Marvel's own Doc Samson

That being said, I doubt many people (I'm sure there are exceptions) will say IM2 was better than the first, and I think that's almost exclusively because of the middle section of the film, which just so happens to include a plot element featuring Nick Fury that simply wasn't necessary.

I can only speak for myself, but the minute he appears on screen, the whole tone of the movie changed, and got sillier and campier.

 

[weezerspider]

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'm a Marvel guy, but its posts like these that make Bat-fans so arrogant because posts like these show proof that It DOES make some of you guys mad that TDK is so highly thought of by critics and fans alike. Also, There are Batmobiles and Batarangs in Nolan's films. Why can't people just drop the whole DC vs Marvel thing and enjoy all good comic films.

 

[Aztec]

That being said, I doubt many people (I'm sure there are exceptions) will say IM2 was better than the first, and I think that's almost exclusively because of the middle section of the film, which just so happens to include a plot element featuring Nick Fury that simply wasn't necessary.

I can only speak for myself, but the minute he appears on screen, the whole tone of the movie changed, and got sillier and campier.

While I do agree that the first IM was the better film, that doesn't lend any credence to the notion that IM2 was a "2 hour advertisement for The Avengers". As I've said before IM2 suffered (and I still liked it a lot) from 2 main problems:

1) Whiplash needed more screen time. Rourke was magnetic in every scene he was in, and unfortunately there weren't enough of them.
2) Final battle was very short and weak. It felt rushed and frankly half-assed.

I would like to point out for the umpteenth time that neither of these two flaws in any way involved "too many Avenger nods". SHIELD played a very important role and plot device IN TONY STARK'S CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. How is this a problem in a film...ABOUT TONY STARK?

SHIELD, and Black Widow in particular, have been apart of Iron Man's lore for decades in the comics. Why is it okay to have War Machine and Pepper Potts; but "silly and campy" to have Nick Fury or Black Widow? They all have contributed to Iron Man's history since his inception.

I'd like to reiterate that IM2 was a SEQUEL. Tony's origin was already given. Were you not expecting his character to be furthered? Were you not expecting plot points from the first film (SHIELD comes to mind) to be further developed? Wouldn't it be really poor continuity if they simply chose to ignore those plot points from the first film?

Another thing I'd like to highlight in this thread that although it has been clearly demonstrated by reasonable posters here that Avengers references have been minimal throughout the film series...why do these references have to be minimized? Why can't they simply be enjoyed? I really don't get it.

I think Kedrell and Bubonic win this thread by simply stating that people simply fear change. New and innovative=scary and threatening.

 

[Iron_Stark]

I only took issue with IM2, because I feel that the Avengers stuff permeated the movie in a more obvious & blatant way than any of the others. While people have gone back and forth with me on this, I can't deny that most of Nick Fury's inclusion (and even moreso Black Widow, though she looked damn good) weren't beneficial at all to the movie as a whole. All they really needed was the end credits stuff, IMO, it would have made for a stronger movie overall.

I also do feel that it handicaps the directors to a certain extent. It's making the assumption that general fans of Iron Man are necessarily going to gravitate towards Thor, or Cap, which isn't a given. And if it's not a given, and a good majority of the general populace might miss out on one or two of these movies, then how necessary was it in the first place? Fanboys are going to see all of them regardless, so if it's just a wink and nod to us, great, that means it can be done in a subtle way, which I feel it has been for the most part. But in IM2, just for me, I felt that wasn't the case...

You don't read much Iron Man books, do you?

 

[Bubonic]

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.

Thanks for reading my post.

 

[Hoblin]

It boggle my mind how anyone, anyone, ANYONE can be bothered by directly-Avengers-related things in an Iron Man movie...

HE'S AN AVENGER!

 

[Doc Samson]

While I do agree that the first IM was the better film, that doesn't lend any credence to the notion that IM2 was a "2 hour advertisement for The Avengers". As I've said before IM2 suffered (and I still liked it a lot) from 2 main problems:

1) Whiplash needed more screen time. Rourke was magnetic in every scene he was in, and unfortunately there weren't enough of them.
2) Final battle was very short and weak. It felt rushed and frankly half-assed.

I would like to point out for the umpteenth time that neither of these two flaws in any way involved "too many Avenger nods". SHIELD played a very important role and plot device IN TONY STARK'S CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. How is this a problem in a film...ABOUT TONY STARK?

SHIELD, and Black Widow in particular, have been apart of Iron Man's lore for decades in the comics. Why is it okay to have War Machine and Pepper Potts; but "silly and campy" to have Nick Fury or Black Widow? They all have contributed to Iron Man's history since his inception.

I'd like to reiterate that IM2 was a SEQUEL. Tony's origin was already given. Were you not expecting his character to be furthered? Were you not expecting plot points from the first film (SHIELD comes to mind) to be further developed? Wouldn't it be really poor continuity if they simply chose to ignore those plot points from the first film?

Another thing I'd like to highlight in this thread that although it has been clearly demonstrated by reasonable posters here that Avengers references have been minimal throughout the film series...why do these references have to be minimized? Why can't they simply be enjoyed? I really don't get it.

I think Kedrell and Bubonic win this thread by simply stating that people simply fear change. New and innovative=scary and threatening.

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.

You don't read much Iron Man books, do you?

Certainly have, and in those books, SHIELD isn't directly related to the Avengers. In these movies, in this cinematic universe, they are. Don't read previous posts much, do you?

 

[J.Howlett]

Iron Man 2 doesn't work, not because of the SHIELD/Avengers intrusion (which complete takes away from the self-growth of Tony's arc). Iron Man 2 doesn't work because it's not the natural extension of the first Iron Man film.

Iron Man 2 is essentially a comedy with zero logic behind some of the action (Monaco sequence) and no logic behind the growth of Tony Stark that was shown towards the last half of Iron Man.

Tell me, if you're company is done with the weapons manufacturing business and are on to new and better things to help this world, why the hell would you allow a weapons demonstration at your very own Expo?

That's how dumb Iron Man 2 is....

I think Kedrell and Bubonic win this thread by simply stating that people simply fear change. New and innovative=scary and threatening.

And I seriously doubt that's what's going on here. People are scared of a studio doing crossover films? Get out of here with that nonsense....

 

[Bubonic]

Herp derp much Howlett?
I think so.

It isn't so much about fear as it is the natural inclination to reject and resist what is different and new. Just a gut reaction a lot of people have with untested things, automatically expected the worse and not "getting" the point of not sticking to formula.

 

[J.Howlett]

It's still a nonsense comment that has no bearing on this discussion.

 

[Bubonic]

Thanks Captain Conversation, without you I'd know not what to do... It really is great to have someone directing what is and isn't to be discussed, I think you should consider putting your name up to be a mod, you'd really take it to the next level Cap.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

Tell me, if you're company is done with the weapons manufacturing business and are on to new and better things to help this world, why the hell would you allow a weapons demonstration at your very own Expo?

Just because Stark is done with the weapons business doesn't mean everyone else is. Isn't the expo a free venue for showcasing the latest cutting edge tech? Plus the only weapons demonstration was from Hammer and the US military, who were pretty much "crashing" the event and could get away with it because of Stark's increasingly erratic behavior and bad PR.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Certainly have, and in those books, SHIELD isn't directly related to the Avengers. In these movies, in this cinematic universe, they are. Don't read previous posts much, do you?

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.