The Avengers Why all the cross-over hate?

[EML420]

If Shield is really that distracting to you in these movies you dont have to watch them. People seem to love the idea of a shared movie U but when it happens omg its being done to much. Hawkeye in the Thor I dont even get the out rage over that I really dont.

 

[Doc Samson]

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.

Actually, it probably could have been, and it wouldn't have made any difference either way, which I think, was redhawk's point.

I had no issue with it, because it was subtle, more of a nod and a wink to the fans, which I think most of these cameos should be, as opposed to Fury being a part of IM2's plot. But nobody in the general populace knows who the hell Hawkeye is as it stands right now anyway. I doubt those people will be eating popcorn, watching the Avengers saying "Hey! that was the arrow guy from Thor who did.....nothing"

 

[Krimasen]

I think at this point that understanding the significance of a shared movie universe is kinda like understanding that prowrestling is fake: If you get it, no explanation is ever needed; if you don't, no explanation will ever be enough. Some people get it, some don't, both are fine.

I do wonder why it's annoying to some to have several different movies with shared elements when there have been numerous serialized movies before that have had a shared universe (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, James Bond, Star Wars, etc). A poster mentioned in here earlier that every movie should be insular and able to be enjoyed on its own and I agree with that sentiment. However, I do not agree that having a shared universe in anyway detracts from any of the pre-Avengers films standing on their own.

 

[Iron_Stark]

People don't like 'name' characters to show up anywhere.

They want to settle for Eskimos or whatever to find and thaw out like in the '90s movie Cap rather than SHIELD. They want names agencies to check out the hammer in Thor.

That's why they settle for cheap imitations of Bullock and Montoya in TDK rather than the real thing.

 

[Son of Coul]

The greatest irony is that the only people who seem annoyed at this and are complaining it will turn off the GA are among the biggest fans. People I know that can certainly be considered the GA either dig it or haven't even known about it.

 

[cherokeesam]

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.

Well-said, sir.
It amazes me that this is even an issue....it's clearly an issue with people who don't read the comic books. Yeah, Cap and Thor and IM are members of a prominent super-team; but yeah, they also have their own personal battles to fight and their own personal lives to live and their own bailiwicks to guard. And each of them would be embarrassed (at the very least) to call in their buds in the big, bad Avengers to put down a smaller fight that they *should* be able to handle all by their lonesome.

It's simple: The Avengers handle the *big* (read: earth-threatening) fights; the solo heroes handle the smaller one-on-one battles against assorted supercrooks and megalomaniacs.

And if people think that crossovers like this reek of crass commercialism, guess what? It *is* crass commercialism. But has always been *necessary* for the comic book industry. In the old days (and in modern times as well), comic book companies like Marvel and DC were trying to sell as many different franchises as they could. The *best* way to do this involved crossovers. If you have a new character starting up, and nobody's buying his monthly, how do you get the word out? Easy enough --- team him up in a one-shot with an established star like Spidey or the Hulk or Cap. If that still doesn't work, just fold him in with the Avengers or some other team.

And no, that's never been done before in film history, so the "Avengers Film Initiative" is still groundbreaking and still in its infancy. But the reason Marvel is going ahead with it is because *this* is the universe that the fans have grown up with --- a superhero universe populated by not just ONE hero or super-team, but BUNCHES. So it makes sense to be authentic to the genre and present the stories the way they've always been presented --- including crossovers and team-ups.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

Don't the individual movies (save for Cap's) more or less happen at around the same time? Kinda hard to help out in your teammate's crisis if you have own to deal with.

 

[redhawk23]

I don't mind SHIELD being in the movies, I just think the way the have been used hasn't been all that fantastically well done.

And rather than a nameless sniper, howabout no sniper at all. Those cut aways did nothing, not even to build tension in the scene. And yes Hawkeyes appearance serves to in some way set up his later larger role, but that is all it does. It serves no purpose the film or story at hand which was Thor. That's largely the point of those who dislike the crossovers.

Fox is a little more integrated into the story but what does this have to do with TDK? None of the criticism for the marvel movies cannot also be pointed at TDK. All that means is that they have similar problems. Doesn't change the fact that its a problem.

 

[Nightrunner]

I dont undestand the hate either. Each movie stands on its own with some threads like Shield connecting everything into a larger universe. I wasnt distracted by Shield, Black Widow or Hawkeye because they served a purpose in the films they appeared, they werent there just to set up the Avengers. Besides, if you re gonna have a spy in your movie, why use a nobody and not Black Widow?

DC isnt gunning for a JL movie and that's probably why this didnt cause an outrage, but wasnt Amanda Waller in GL? Obviously her organization, Checkmate didnt do much, but she doesnt belong in the GL mythos, but the DC universe in general.

 

[redhawk23]

I just have to ask, what purpose did Hawkeye serve again?

Black Widow is another matter, she was actually a character and part of the story. She is even different than Nic Cage or Coulson in this way as they just kind of pop in and out whenever needed to push the plot along.

 

[sgaana]

I just have to ask, what purpose did Hawkeye serve again?

The sniper served the purpose of demonstrating in the scene that while Thor was doing a great job plowing through guys in hand-to-hand, the agent in charge of the base was actually in control of the situation via his deployment of a sniper. He could have had Thor taken down at any point after the sniper got into position. So the sniper was there to show us that the agent in charge was not out of resources, or "helpless" in the face of Thor's infiltration of the base. It showed us that the agent was making a decision about how far to allow Thor to get.

I took this as a way to defuse the idea that it was unrealistic for a mortal Thor to be able to get into a guarded base like that. The way he went through guys on the ground made it look "too easy". Showing that the base had a sniper on him helped to make the agency look less like bumbling idiots. If they had NOT had a sniper in place, it would have been a big logic hole.

The purpose of allowing the agent to refrain from using that resource was to demonstrate that the agency weren't "bad guys", but that they had curiosity and could react to a situation with nuance and restraint. (It is easy to imagine a different kind of authority figure reacting to Thor's rampage as a personal insult/challenge and reflexively taking him down.)

Notice in all of this that I'm using generic nouns: "the sniper" and "the agent in charge" and "the agency". Hell, the agency could have been the FBI, the agent could have been Fox Mulder, and the sniper could have been Random Other Agent. Their actions would have still served the same purpose described above.

If you don't like the way the scene was written to include the element of the sniper -- or how Thor's infiltration of the base and the way he got to the point where he could try to lift Mjolnir, overall -- that's one thing.

But plugging Coulson, SHIELD, and Agent Barton in as the sniper, wasn't purposeless.

 

[Aztec]

The sniper served the purpose of demonstrating in the scene that while Thor was doing a great job plowing through guys in hand-to-hand, the agent in charge of the base was actually in control of the situation via his deployment of a sniper. He could have had Thor taken down at any point after the sniper got into position. So the sniper was there to show us that the agent in charge was not out of resources, or "helpless" in the face of Thor's infiltration of the base. It showed us that the agent was making a decision about how far to allow Thor to get.

I took this as a way to defuse the idea that it was unrealistic for a mortal Thor to be able to get into a guarded base like that. The way he went through guys on the ground made it look "too easy". Showing that the base had a sniper on him helped to make the agency look less like bumbling idiots. If they had NOT had a sniper in place, it would have been a big logic hole.

The purpose of allowing the agent to refrain from using that resource was to demonstrate that the agency weren't "bad guys", but that they had curiosity and could react to a situation with nuance and restraint. (It is easy to imagine a different kind of authority figure reacting to Thor's rampage as a personal insult/challenge and reflexively taking him down.)

Notice in all of this that I'm using generic nouns: "the sniper" and "the agent in charge" and "the agency". Hell, the agency could have been the FBI, the agent could have been Fox Mulder, and the sniper could have been Random Other Agent. Their actions would have still served the same purpose described above.

If you don't like the way the scene was written to include the element of the sniper -- or how Thor's infiltration of the base and the way he got to the point where he could try to lift Mjolnir, overall -- that's one thing.

But plugging Coulson, SHIELD, and Agent Barton in as the sniper, wasn't purposeless.

Well said all around. I completely agree. One thing I would add is that Coulson was CURIOUS about this artifact and this incredible warrior. He wanted to know who this guy was and see if he really was something more powerful. That is why SHIELD is called into any situation in the first place: to find exceptional people. The scene makes perfect sense, and it makes even more sense to use identifiable characters to further develop them for later on screen performances.

 

[irapogi]

i remember when the early xmen films came out, everyone was creaming over gambit's name on the monitor, or a reference to beast.
haha

 

[GhostPoet]

I just have to ask, what purpose did Hawkeye serve again?

Black Widow is another matter, she was actually a character and part of the story. She is even different than Nic Cage or Coulson in this way as they just kind of pop in and out whenever needed to push the plot along.

To show the universe is bigger than one film. It's not like Thor is the only hero in town. If Shield is involved, then seeing other heroes isn't too uncommon as we progress from movie to movie.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

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.

Spot-on

 

[Son of Coul]

I just have to ask, what purpose did Hawkeye serve again?

Black Widow is another matter, she was actually a character and part of the story. She is even different than Nic Cage or Coulson in this way as they just kind of pop in and out whenever needed to push the plot along.

I'd like to talk to you about the Avenger Initiative...
/

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Maybe he confused him with that other bald black Marvel character Luke Cage.

 

[Son of Coul]

Fun Fact: Nic Cage actually got his pseudonym of "Cage" from Luke Cage, being the comic geek he is.

 

[ElMariachi]

I'd like to talk to you about the Avenger Initiative...
/

I'd like to talk to you about the cocaine initiative

 

[cherokeesam]

I'd like to talk to you about the Avenger Initiative...

/

Our first confirmation that Ghost Rider will be joining the Avengers, eh?

 

[Nightrunner]

I just have to ask, what purpose did Hawkeye serve again?

The purpose of being too awesome to need a real reason.

To show the universe is bigger than one film. It's not like Thor is the only hero in town. If Shield is involved, then seeing other heroes isn't too uncommon as we progress from movie to movie.

True.

Fun Fact: Nic Cage actually got his pseudonym of "Cage" from Luke Cage, being the comic geek he is.

That is awesome!

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I really don't understand the 'hate' as well. Marvel did a nice job -- it tooks years and a reboot, but they didn't rush the characters into forming The Avengers film. They also took huge risks by doing this, yet they succeed even when they failed on a few movies. If anything, these guys deserve a standing ovation.

DC and WB won't be establishing a JLA film anytime soon -- especially after the debacle of the Green Lantern. That movie alone was a tremendous setback (along with Superman Returns). Shame considering a new Superman flick is on it's way with Snyder, Goyer and Nolan attached. If they would have taken the Green Lantern seriously (and assuming Man of Steel is a hit in 2013), a JLA film would have been a possiblity in 3-4 years.

Sure WB is going to rake in a cool billion from TDKR, but what about after the franchise ends? They have a Superman movie in the works and a reboot of Batman following behind that -- but that's about it.

 

[Aztec]

Spot-on

That's absurd. I, nor anyone else here, every said anything even remotely resembling this nonsense. Nice try to make us appear unreasonable though. I have stated repeatedly that I don't believe that WB/DC jealousy is at the base of the majority of the hate.

 

[Herolee10]

Well said all around. I completely agree. One thing I would add is that Coulson was CURIOUS about this artifact and this incredible warrior. He wanted to know who this guy was and see if he really was something more powerful. That is why SHIELD is called into any situation in the first place: to find exceptional people. The scene makes perfect sense, and it makes even more sense to use identifiable characters to further develop them for later on screen performances.

Agreed; plus, I'm pretty sure that he would have caught wind of the fact that during Thor's rampage into the base, that Thor didn't kill or severely wound any of the guards. If it were like a terrorist or enemy that had barged in there instead, then I'm sure that there would have been a few casualties, but Thor was just going in, unarmed as well...so I'm thinking those qualities also helped piqued Coulson's interest.

 

[Godzilla2014]

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.



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.

Exactly. When Marvel Studios can produce a film that people seriously talk about being an Oscar contender in non-special effects categories, we'll talk about how great Marvel Studios makes comic book films. Right now, everything is going to be compared to The Dark Knight, and for most, nothing Marvel Studios has produced stacks up. The Dark Knight challenged everyone's preconceptions of not only what a superhero movie could be, but what they should be. I do love Marvel Studios' films, but, even as a Marvel/Disney shareholder, I cannot honestly say that any of the Marvel Studios films did that.