The Avengers Why the Avengers will be a Game Changer

[The Guard]

This discussion has gone on in other forums. "Game changer" means something that actually changes the game, not just something impressive.

Unless studios suddenly start forking over $300 million budgets for superhero team movies, it's not going to change the game. And if WB makes JUSTICE LEAGUE, I guarantee it won't be trying to do what THE AVENGERS did, with the mix of this much humor and action.

 

[cherokeesam]

I liked Ultimatehero's very erudite post, too, but I've just gotta insert a quibble here with this overused --- and misused --- gif of Orson Welles.

Anybody who's seen Citizen Kane knows full well the context of this scene. Welles is forcefully applauding a horrible performance onstage, just for his own benefit. The people behind him are sycophants who are just sucking up to the boss, but even they realize that the performance is lousy.

So there's more than a little irony in people using this gif to show their approval of something. Unless you're deliberately *trying* to be ironic and sarcastic. In which case, well played sir.

Otherwise, you might want to start using a different gif for that. Just sayin'....some of us here are film snobs, and actually know what that scene represents.

 

[antonydavanzo]

I personally feel that it could be a game changer. I guess it depends on how you define this movie as a game changer. For me, if a game changer means it will help by bringing out more superhero/comic movies to this standard, so from this I don't think it will. Sadly studios will still bring out a load of tosh that's fun yet forgettable, the sort of standard as F4, ghost rider, Etc. I don't think that Marvel studios will look back though, I have a feeling that they have now hit their stride and will continue (fingers x'd) to produce the next phase of movies to this level.

 

[Ultimatehero]

This discussion has gone on in other forums. "Game changer" means something that actually changes the game, not just something impressive.

It is, but not something general audiences will really ever see but those inside will see. As said MARVEL or DISNEY telling Whedon "it can't be done, it's too big!" And Whedon sticking to his vision? THAT is what changed things. People who have ever come up across studio heads know there is always a looming threat of them telling you, "go smaller - take it down a full twenty notches." It happens ALL THE TIME. So no, Hollywood is not always 'bigger is better' - if it was it wouldn't be restrictive on so many of its films to go smaller and more grounded and more realistic. No, not just fan stipulation. I've seen studio heads actually say that and say in 'our' words "too fantastical, make it more grounded - audiences need that." That was a HUGE flaw of theirs before. Whedon broke that glass ceiling - NOW creative guys can finally fly through that atmosphere as well and achieve the visions they want to with rarely coming across "go smaller!" from studio heads unless it's just beyond beyond big.

Basically creative people will be given more freedom because they'll see the audience really loves what they are now able to see and what studio heads once deemed impossible to do.

Nothing other than scope and freedom will be changed. Will general audiences see this? No, it'll fly right past them, as said most think "bigger is better" is a Hollywood motto when studio heads frequently make things smaller with no need real to. Things from now on, what we can see, will have to be just as big if not bigger to stand out in an audience's eyes - and after YEARS of that glass ceiling still being in place? Yeah, as someone who has to work with these guys, that's a HUGE game changer for me as it is and will be for many others.

 

[Tony Stark]

This discussion has gone on in other forums. "Game changer" means something that actually changes the game, not just something impressive.

Unless studios suddenly start forking over $300 million budgets for superhero team movies, it's not going to change the game. And if WB makes JUSTICE LEAGUE, I guarantee it won't be trying to do what THE AVENGERS did, with the mix of this much humor and action.

It's not just impressive, and people are having revisionist history around here. People complained and moaned about the Avenger tie ins, in the other franchise movies, and some flat out said this wouldn't work and no one wanted it.

That's why it's a game changer. You really can't point to anything else like this in cinema being done to this scale. And now that's it's hugely successful, that only adds to what they were trying to accomplish in the first place, and the fact they were the first to do it.

Sorry X-men doesn't count. Fantastic Four doesn't count. Those were ensemble pictures from the get go. How much crossover fan fic is out there on the internet?

Sure there was Alien vs. Predator, and it might have been different if they got Sigourney Weaver on board, but they didn't. And it was a massive flop, even the sequel didn't help.

This most certainly is a game changer.

 

[Tony Stark]

Game-changer to us...maybe
Game-changer to the GA...hardly. The general audience doesn't have loyalties to movies. The GA won't walk out of every movie this summer angry that its not Avengers. They didn't do it for Jaws or Raiders of the Lost Ark or Star Wars or Terminator or TDK. We need to stop trying to crown the latest comic movie as the greatest in cinema. Yes this was a good movie but what game was changed? Did it introduce new technology and now every movie comic out has to have that technology? Did it introduce some new form of film making?
Oh it was a good film in which everything clicked and worked....and that never happened before?
So we will remove TDK from the mantle place and replace it with Avengers. We'll cry out at the top of our lungs that this is the gold standard....until we find the next one....maybe Amazing Spider-man or The Dark Knight Rises. For the next few months or years we'll compare Avengers to everything.
Meanwhile the General Audience will see the movie...enjoy it...continue on with their lives...and see the next series of movies the summer movie season has to offer.

You're missing the point. OK was TDK really better than Spider-man 2 or Superman the Movie for that matter? No, it was different, bigger in scope perhaps and gave people what they wanted in huge amounts.

That's really all Avengers did here. It's about building on the last movie not retreating ground. I'll use IM2 as an example. I still love that movie, if only for RDJ's performance, but I think most see it as a retreat from the previous movie. And when Thor and Cap came out, and were entirely more compelling than IM2, even if in some people's mind they weren't as good as IM1, it was a step forward.

Is anyone saying, "Avengers is now the best, no need to watch TDK anymore." No of course not people will be enjoying that picture for years, as well as Avengers, IM1, Spider-man 2 and Superman the Movie.

Strictly speaking if you want to talk game changers, as changing the face of film I'd be talking about a select few movies, and really no superhero movies. I'd be talking about Avatar, Jurrasic Park, Star Wars, on the blockbuster type and movies like Gone with the Wind, Lord of the Rings, as far as epic type movies.

 

[roach]

You're missing the point. OK was TDK really better than Spider-man 2 or Superman the Movie for that matter? No, it was different, bigger in scope perhaps and gave people what they wanted in huge amounts.

That's really all Avengers did here. It's about building on the last movie not retreating ground. I'll use IM2 as an example. I still love that movie, if only for RDJ's performance, but I think most see it as a retreat from the previous movie. And when Thor and Cap came out, and were entirely more compelling than IM2, even if in some people's mind they weren't as good as IM1, it was a step forward.

Is anyone saying, "Avengers is now the best, no need to watch TDK anymore." No of course not people will be enjoying that picture for years, as well as Avengers, IM1, Spider-man 2 and Superman the Movie.

Strictly speaking if you want to talk game changers, as changing the face of film I'd be talking about a select few movies, and really no superhero movies. I'd be talking about Avatar, Jurrasic Park, Star Wars, on the blockbuster type and movies like Gone with the Wind, Lord of the Rings, as far as epic type movies.

But what is this movie changing?
Movies with big climactic endings?
Point to how this is changing anything....Avatar is a game changer. No matter what you say about the story the tech changed the way movies are made and marketed. Look at how many 3D movies are out there. That is proof positive to the game changing aspect of the movie. Something tangible that you can point to.
Right now it is way to early to call this movie a game changer because it hasn't changed the game. You can't point to anything anyone else is doing based on this movie.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Right now it is way to early to call this movie a game changer because it hasn't changed the game. You can't point to anything anyone else is doing based on this movie.

While, yes, this is true. 'Avengers' will give those trying to work things out more leeway to accomplishing their visions in the years to come. Within I really don't see how that glass ceiling can be around still. All anyone would need to do is say, "see, it worked when you guys thought it wouldn't and the audience loved it, this should and has to be the size of this thing!" Basically ammunition which I'm pretty sure a lot of creative guys are gonna love. Mind you, outside of that, will it be readily apparent? Probably not. But it would be/will inside due to that ammo. As said a lot come up across the opposition Whedon initially got and to my knowledge he's the first guy to really have the guts to stand up to them and say "I'm gonna do this." All there needed to be was a Spartacus to fight back against those studio heads saying "go smaller - ground it - audiences love that!'

 

[roach]

While, yes, this is true. 'Avengers' will give those trying to work things out more leeway to accomplishing their visions in the years to come. Within I really don't see how that glass ceiling can be around still. All anyone would need to do is say, "see, it worked when you guys thought it wouldn't and the audience loved it, this should and has to be the size of this thing!" Basically ammunition which I'm pretty sure a lot of creative guys are gonna love. Mind you, outside of that, will it be readily apparent? Probably not. But it would be/will inside due to that ammo.

sorry but I just don't see that...and it just comes across as Geek gold standard to me.

 

[weezerspider]

The reason its a game-changer is because it is the first "regular comic book film" to get these rave reviews. Even the original Iron Man was set in much more realistic world then the rest of the MCU and Favs mentioned Begins as one of his biggest influences for it. I love Nolan's Batman films, but that style CAN NOT work for every hero. A WWII era Captain America film in that style would be wonderful. A Punisher and Daredevil film in that style can work. Other than those and a few others, the other superheroes just won't work with that style. Therefore, The Avengers is a game changer because its getting critical and commercial success as strong as Nolan's Batman films, without using his "as realistic as this character can possibly be without disregarding the comics all together" formula.

EDIT: Raimi's Spiderman trilogy also used a similar formula to Nolan's, but not quite as extreme. Thus why we got Power Ranger Osborn. The Avengers is the first comic book film to say "F**k it, this is a comic book film" and have this kind of commercial and critical success.

 

[Ultimatehero]

sorry but I just don't see that...and it just comes across as Geek gold standard to me.

As said, general audiences wouldn't see it. You guys think hollywood heads think 'bigger is better.' But when it comes down to it, they really don't. "Go a little bigger, but there's this barrier you can't pass because right now it's too risky. Ground this and that because it'll put the audiences at ease." General audiences rarely think of the first, but studio heads repeatedly hold back - that is a FACT - and fans have been sadly right about the second. I've seen both come into play within actual studio meetings. So not from geek hypothesizing, but from actual first-hand knowledge at actual studio meetings. As said, this film gives others freedom. If you're not enslaved, likely not gonna really see it change.

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

If changing the game means everything in the genre getting more comiic book then I hope it isn't a game changer. I loved the Avengers (9/10) and it's sensibilities, but it worked beautifully because of Whedon. His writing and directing. His vision.

For the most part I would favor the more grounded approach a la Nolan, Singer and from what we've seen Webb. I just think it's more rewarding cinematically.

 

[Ultimatehero]

If changing the game means everything in the genre getting more comiic book then I hope it isn't a game changer. I loved the Avengers (9/10) and it's sensibilities, but it worked beautifully because of Whedon. His writing and directing. His vision.

For the most part I would favor the more grounded approach a la Nolan, Singer and from what we've seen Webb. I just think it's more rewarding cinematically.

Not that great if you're only allowed to do Nolan's approach. Whedon has, I'm hoping/I'm praying, opened it up to those with a similar approach of bigger, more scope, less grounded and more fantastical. To me that's why I still love the key 80s and 90s blockbusters more than a lot of those today. Did they get told by studios "ground this"? No. Their out-of-the-box zany nature is what stands out about them. Basically studio heads need to acknowledge both ways can draw an audience in.

 

[04nbod]

If we are going to talk CBM moments where the game changed they would be this

1978: Superman: The Movie, the first CBM blockbuster
1989: Batman, Superman had become a joke but now Batman made the CBM cool again
2000: X Men, After the Batman series decended into farce we got a stripped back and serious take on the genre. The floodgates opened and we started on a Golden Age of Superhero movies which included X2, X Men: First Class, the Spider-man franchise,a new Batman franchise, Hellboy and the Marvel Cinematic Universe, all made on the principles set down by Bryan Singer in that first X Men movie.
2012: The Avengers, its a gamechanger because its the first franchise crossover movie in the genre. From now on people will be asking why Superman can't just appear in Batman. The concept of the comic book movie in isolation is decimated. This is the Crisis on Multiple Earths of the genre in a way.

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Not that great if you're only allowed to do Nolan's approach. Whedon has, I'm hoping/I'm praying, opened it up to those with a similar approach of bigger, more scope, less grounded and more fantastical. To me that's why I still love the key 80s and 90s blockbusters more than a lot of those today. Did they get told by studios "ground this"? No. Their out-of-the-box zany nature is what stands out about them. Basically studio heads need to acknowledge both ways can draw an audience in.

I agree with you on this. I'm all for doors being opened up, the genre would suffocate itself long term without this philosophy. I love the fantastical if it's done well.

And I love the 80's blockbusters myself.

 

[Tony Stark]

If we are going to talk CBM moments where the game changed they would be this

1978: Superman: The Movie, the first CBM blockbuster
1989: Batman, Superman had become a joke but now Batman made the CBM cool again
2000: X Men, After the Batman series decended into farce we got a stripped back and serious take on the genre. The floodgates opened and we started on a Golden Age of Superhero movies which included X2, X Men: First Class, the Spider-man franchise,a new Batman franchise, Hellboy and the Marvel Cinematic Universe, all made on the principles set down by Bryan Singer in that first X Men movie.
2012: The Avengers, its a gamechanger because its the first franchise crossover movie in the genre. From now on people will be asking why Superman can't just appear in Batman. The concept of the comic book movie in isolation is decimated. This is the Crisis on Multiple Earths of the genre in a way.

^ This

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

If we are going to talk CBM moments where the game changed they would be this

1978: Superman: The Movie, the first CBM blockbuster
1989: Batman, Superman had become a joke but now Batman made the CBM cool again
2000: X Men, After the Batman series decended into farce we got a stripped back and serious take on the genre. The floodgates opened and we started on a Golden Age of Superhero movies which included X2, X Men: First Class, the Spider-man franchise,a new Batman franchise, Hellboy and the Marvel Cinematic Universe, all made on the principles set down by Bryan Singer in that first X Men movie.
2012: The Avengers, its a gamechanger because its the first franchise crossover movie in the genre. From now on people will be asking why Superman can't just appear in Batman. The concept of the comic book movie in isolation is decimated. This is the Crisis on Multiple Earths of the genre in a way.

Sony was going to make Spider-Man with or without the success of X-Men. I think Spider-Man's success had more to do with the incentive to reboot Batman then X-Men did.

 

[TX85]

I think so/it should and I sure hope so!!!

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Marvel Studio's should add Whedon to the braintrust as they move forward on all projects. Assuming he would want such a role.

 

[Marvin]

Sony was going to make Spider-Man with or without the success of X-Men. I think Spider-Man's success had more to do with the incentive to reboot Batman then X-Men did.

If Xmen bombed...
nope

 

[Infinity9999x]

If we are going to talk CBM moments where the game changed they would be this

1978: Superman: The Movie, the first CBM blockbuster
1989: Batman, Superman had become a joke but now Batman made the CBM cool again
2000: X Men, After the Batman series decended into farce we got a stripped back and serious take on the genre. The floodgates opened and we started on a Golden Age of Superhero movies which included X2, X Men: First Class, the Spider-man franchise,a new Batman franchise, Hellboy and the Marvel Cinematic Universe, all made on the principles set down by Bryan Singer in that first X Men movie.
2012: The Avengers, its a gamechanger because its the first franchise crossover movie in the genre. From now on people will be asking why Superman can't just appear in Batman. The concept of the comic book movie in isolation is decimated. This is the Crisis on Multiple Earths of the genre in a way.

Agreed. This is the kind of "game changing" element Avengers has. In terms of action films in general, it didn't really do anything that was a "game changer" it just took what was done before and made it better. The only real "game changing element" was the crossover effect.

Honestly, I don't even call TDK a "game changer." We had already seen that comic films could be done in a serious tone with movies like Blade, X-men, Road to Perdition, and A History of Violence. Like the Avengers, it just did it on a bigger scale. The only possible "game changing" aspect of TDK is that it showed that Superhero films could be successful when you kill off the heroine and a major protagonist.

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

If Xmen bombed...
nope

We'll disagree on this. They bought the right's in '99 and various rumored directors (like Fincher) were mentioned leading up to the summer of 2000, when X-Men was released and Raimi was announced. I was on this site when it was Spider-Man hype back in 99/00.

I say the movie was happening whether it bombed or not. Most of the GA didn't know much about the X-Men as opposed to people knowing about Spider-Man, thus the opening weekend record. Sony wasn't dumb, they knew what they potentially had. X-Men wasn't going to derail that, good or bad.

 

[Marvin]

I'm not one to say that Sony wouldn't have moved forward with Spidey if Fox didn't make Xmen, or if it wasn't a success, like you said they already had the ball rolling. But I do think that if Xmen was a bomb/failure of epic proportions then Sony would have but the red light on Spidey(it would have actually been good business too).

In this day, when one of these films bombs(ala GL) there are plenty of examples of other films doing great to not detour a studio in the slightest, back then each film was ultra significant. I've seen studio's pull the plug no projects for less and for similar all the time.

This may not be the same, but how many Mel gibson pictures were "moving forward" before he was blacklisted. How many superhero films have studios like fox green lit then pulled back over the years. Spiderman as it was and when it came out, I believe is a result of Xmen not bombing in epic form.

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

I'm not one to say that Sony wouldn't have moved forward with Spidey if Fox didn't make Xmen, or if it wasn't a success, like you said they already had the ball rolling. But I do think that if Xmen was a bomb/failure of epic proportions then Sony would have but the red light on Spidey(it would have actually been good business too).

I guess it depends on what people were expecting from X-Men 's performance at box office at the time. I think Sony more then likely saw Spider-Man like Batman. Huge brand name with huge potential if done right. X-Men was much more of an unknown quantity. Don't forget there had been various attempts to get a Spider-Man film off the ground for twenty years prior to Sony's release. From Tobey Hooper to Joe Zito to James Cameron.

 

[Dragon]

This discussion has gone on in other forums. "Game changer" means something that actually changes the game, not just something impressive.

Unless studios suddenly start forking over $300 million budgets for superhero team movies, it's not going to change the game. And if WB makes JUSTICE LEAGUE, I guarantee it won't be trying to do what THE AVENGERS did, with the mix of this much humor and action.

Sure they will. Hollywood is about making money not good films (That is, for the Studios, a "good" film is one that made alot of money).

Nolan had a free-hand with Batman since the previous film had failed.

But as far as a team film, unless Nolan is directly involved, they'll be trying to replicate the Avengers. This is not a good thing. It's just the reality of the situation.

What needs to be done is that each of these films needs to focus on what had made these characters iconic and bring that to the screen. Spider-Man should not be like Batman. Superman should not be like Batman. The JL shouldn't be like the Avengers.