There’s never quite been a movie constructed like The Avengers. No major mainstream movie (or at least none I can think of) has ever been both the sequel to and the cross over of three different franchises. Furthermore, this vision has not come from a single writer or director but rather from a studio who wants to translate their business model for comics on to the big screen. That model demands that characters and plotlines carry over between different stories and therefore the consumer must draw from multiple products in order to understand the larger narrative. However, each story contributing to the collaboration must also stand on its own.
But there’s been a cost to this ambition and that cost has been felt in the plotting of Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger. We normally feel miffed if a film provides a presumptuous cliffhanger but these three films have gone one step further by gearing elements of their plot towards a final product. Has Marvel damaged three movies in order to build the biggest superhero movie of all-time? Hit the jump for more.
[This article contains spoilers for Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger. You've been warned.]
I was slightly surprised yesterday when Paramount released part of the ending to Captain America and ten seconds of Avengers footage that plays after Captain America‘s credits. First off, I’ve never seen a studio post the ending of their movie while that movie was still in theaters (and not even in theaters for a week!). It’s not the full ending and maybe Paramount just assumed that they weren’t spoiling too much since set photos had leaked out last year. But then they attached The Avengers teaser and that’s a little odd since Disney owns that film. It’s bizarre that Paramount would help to sell their competitor’s film unless Paramount owns a stake in The Avengers.
But the release of that footage highlights the fact that Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America have never really been their own movies. They’re prequels to a film that doesn’t exist yet. You could argue that all previous movies in a planned anthology fit that description but usually the first film must stand on its own and it’s the job of the following films to build from there, not vice-versa. Even prequels in the conventional sense refer to an initial movie that audiences have seen and then the filmmaker tells an origin story to get us back to where we know we’re going.
Not knowing the final destination, or at least the details of the final destination, has resulted in some confusing and unfortunate decisions that feel forced upon The Avengers lead-up movies. For example, Iron Man 2 has to take periodic breaks in its two-pronged main story (Tony Stark dealing with his Palladium poisoning and having to deal with Justin Hammer/ Ivan Vanko) to awkwardly weave in Nick Fury, Agent Colson, and Black Widow. The movie manages to pull it off but it takes a story that’s stretched thin and then forces it to handle more elements.
But cutesy winks to the audience let us know that Jon Favreau and the screenwriters didn’t know the details of future films. It makes no sense when Tony Stark picks up Captain America’s shield in Iron Man 2 so he can prop up part of his laser-beam device thingy, but we didn’t know that last year. Last year we assumed that the shield had somehow found its way into Howard Stark’s old personal effects. But this year we learned that the shield had been frozen in ice with Captain America. There are two possible solutions here: 1) The shield Tony Stark has is a prototype shield that’s not made of Vibranium*, or 2) The plot of Captain America was still being hammered out. If it’s the former, then shouldn’t someone in either Iron Man 2 or Captain America at least note that there’s a prototype?
Thor makes S.H.I.E.L.D. a much larger element of its plot but even that feels like somewhat of a detour. Time that could have been spent developing the relationship between Thor and Jane is spent having S.H.I.E.L.D. take Jane’s stuff, puzzle over Mjolnir, Thor sneak into the base, try to get his hammer, introduce a new Avenger, and then they give Jane back her stuff when it would have made more sense simply to recruit her and provide her with more resources for her research. But since Thor is a mystical character he has to have a more “realistic” connection to the struggles of Earth and I suppose the thinking was that S.H.I.E.L.D. would help ground the Norse god.
And while fanboys got a thrill seeing Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye for the first time, what do you think if you’re not acquainted with the comics or how The Avengers is being constructed? I can’t help but wonder if the uninitiated were watching Thor and thought, “Why is Jeremy Renner up in the air with a bow and arrow?”
Captain America works the best for the majority of its runtime and yet gets saddled with the worst of The Avengers preparation. Because S.H.I.E.L.D. doesn’t exist in 1943, there’s no one to swing by and disrupt a, good, old-fashioned adventure story. The movie largely gets to exist on its own terms. There’s the Cosmic Cube that was introduced post-credits in Thor, but you don’t have to see Thor in order to understand, “This is a mystical doo-dad that can be used as a weapon.”
Where the story suffers is in the ending. Instead of allowing audiences the opportunity to see more films of Captain America fighting in the 1940s, the film has to get him to The Avengers. Someone at Marvel must have thought that audiences may be confused if there’s a gap that doesn’t show how a guy from the 1940s wakes up in 2011 and hasn’t aged a day. Personally, I think audiences could accept Steve Rogers and Peggy Carter going on a date and then the next scene has Cap’ waking up in 2011 with audiences wondering how he got there but eager for the sequel to find out.
I would like to think that a post-credits scene in the lead-up movies could have sufficed as the contribution to The Avengers. If you were to knock out all of the S.H.I.E.L.D. stuff in Iron Man 2 and Thor that doesn’t come after the credits, would you lose anything truly essential to selling an upcoming film? Do you need a vague introduction to Hawkeye or a reminder that Nick Fury is putting together a team of superheroes? The Incredible Hulk and the first Iron Man worked just fine with only an end-credits sequence and a slight wink to S.H.I.E.L.D. so why has the organization (and therefore The Avengers) keep looming larger in each movie? I’d like to think that someone at Marvel was thinking, “This is to show the growing power of S.H.I.E.L.D!” but it feels more like “The Avengers: May 2012!”
All of the lead-up films have had to sacrifice so that The Avengers can live** but then The Avengers has to pay back that sacrifice by hitting the ground running. There can’t be recaps, there can’t be lengthy reintroductions, and no awkward exposition beyond an off-handed joke that references an earlier film. But will we get that? And furthermore, how much will The Avengers be its own story before having to build into Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 which are due out the following summer? And then do those movies have to build into The Avengers 2?
Everything is working backwards and there may not be a fully-formed master plan in place. New directors get hired, writers are used interchangeably, and we can’t simply assume that Marvel is like some kind of grand deity that makes sure everything happens for a reason. It’s a balancing act that requires the acknowledgement of a future film and yet they can’t simply be a collection of hints, winks, and nods to a movie that only exists in our imaginations. Marvel also has to walk the line between obsessive nerds like me and the general audience who want to see a fun summer movie but may be left wondering why Clark Gregg keeps showing up.
I don’t think Iron Man 2, Thor, or Captain America are bad movies. I don’t think the S.H.I.E.L.D. stuff sinks those movies. But I do think that if each movie had done a better job handling their Avengers preparation, then Iron Man 2 and Thor would go from good to great***, and Captain America would go from great to excellent. I hope the sacrifice has been worth it because it’s not enough to simply get a movie filled with superheroes we’ve already met.
*Now I can’t shake the feeling that Colson tells Stark that it’s a prototype, but I don’t have a copy of Iron Man 2 to double-check so I’ll put in a correction if it turns out I’m wrong.
**Which is funny since Iron Man and Captain America both feature a father figure who sacrifices himself so that the main character can be a superhero.
***Tweaking the ending of Thor wouldn’t hurt either.
Creator Ryan Murphy Reveals Details on AMERICAN HORROR STORY Season 3; Jessica Lange, Sarah Paulson, and Evan Peters to Return
13 Images from CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS 2 Reveal Food-imals Such as the Hippotatomus, Bananostrich and Fruit Cockatiel
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Comic Prequel STAR TREK COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS Provides New Look at Klingons
First Trailer and Poster for RED 2 Starring Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren and John Malkovich
16 New Images from A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD Featuring Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney and Yuliya Snigir
So. . .I don’t read comics, but I love manga.
I don’t know much, but I’ve seen comics, movies, animated series, etc, and most of my friends read comics.
But I have a question, what or who are the Avengers avenging?
I think this article makes some good points, but let’s also acknowledge that the gate swings both ways, allowing for unexpected benefits as well. For instance, we can debate the pros and cons of tying Cap into modern-day continuity by the end of his film, but you can’t deny that it’s pretty remarkable to see a big-budget tentpole end with the hero NOT getting the girl because of a left-field time-travel twist — an ending (which I loved, by the way) that would never have happened if they weren’t trying to segue into the Avengers.
I also never put much stock in the “Well, *I* knew what was going on, but I’m worried about the rest of the audience” argument you raise about Hawkeye’s appearance in ‘Thor.’ I’ve been in a lot of edit bays in my time where that argument is employed to cut out the little touches and grace notes that help make a story more interesting, and I’m always amazed at how the argument undercuts itself – you’re admitting that it does make sense, but you still want to lose it, because *other* people might not get it? Give the audience a little credit. I’d be willing to bet more people get it than you think; we’ve seen stars make cameos in movies before. At worst, people probably walked away from it thinking “I wonder who Jeremy Renner was supposed to be. Probably someone who will be important later.” Is that such a bad thing, to tease their expectations out a bit? Giving them something to look forward to?
All that said, I hated ‘Iron Man 2′ for being a shapeless, entertainment-free mess, so I definitely see where you’re coming from.
Thanks for the thoughtful article.
Very good counter-arguements, especially the bit about the the ending of Captain America.
Great article! Now I may not always agree with what you say, or the way you say, but I think you’re spot on how much The Avengers has really hurt promising movies instead of letting them stand on their own.
I hope the film will sink in the end (nothing against Joss Wedon), and thus avoiding DC and Warner from doing their own Justice League. But I can only hope.
I never bought Thor’s relationship with Jane, I didn’t find any chemistry there, I never felt any real peril for Earth and I didn’t feel any empathy for Asgard or it’s residents. I realize that Thor needed to have the experience of being a self important brat learning to be a self sacrificing God to build his character and make him the Thor everyone loves, but it felt so rushed and forced.
Visually stunning but the biggest dud of a superhero movie for me.
Actually, it´s not three but four franchises. Captain America, Iron Man, Thor and Hulk.
This article is complete bullshit.
“Personally, I think audiences could accept Steve Rogers and Peggy Carter going on a date and then the next scene has Cap’ waking up in 2011 with audiences wondering how he got there but eager for the sequel to find out.”
I wonder if the writer watched the movie from the beginning. Because it makes sense.
I think calling this article “complete bullshit” is entirely un-called for.
Also, if you think he didn’t “understand” the movie or missed the beginning (as you mention), I think you are missing the point of his argument entirely. Obviously if the choice were made to have Captain *not* end up in the future, the opening scene would’ve been eliminated.
@ Fravit
Scapegoat’s second paragraph is a direct quote from the article. So, just as an FYI, Scapegoat didn’t miss the point, at all.
My take on these movies comes from the comics. Don’t individual titles in a larger story (i.e. Avengers Disassembled, Civil War, Secret Invasion) have to stand on their own WHILE contributing to the larger story? Yes. If the writing is good enough, can you or a total stranger still pick up a single issue randomly and understand what’s going on? Sure, again, if the writing is good enough. I’ve even been told by friends who know almost nothing about the comics that they liked Iron Man 2 MORE than the first film because it got the backstory out of the way. What do the individual issues provide for the larger story? Backstory and character development. Once you’ve got those squared away (and you kind of have to) you can bring on the spectacle of the team sport.
After watching Thor, I’ve never once had anyone ask me (the resident comic geek) why there’s a guy on a crane holding a bow and arrow. The compound bow is a weapon used in combat instead of a silencer on a rifle, the explanation takes care of itself (see Punisher with Thomas Jane). It doesn’t matter who’s using it. I’m related to people in the military, they train you for it. Hawkeye will show up again in the Avengers and people will getting a fleshed out character. People don’t ask about these things because they were entertained by it.
But if you’re griping about continuity, think Captain America does the best because all the references are built into the story itself, so you don’t even HAVE to ask about them unless you weren’t paying attention. You don’t need to know that the canons and guns used by HYDRA are nods to Iron Man. They’re kickass weapons, nuff said. They don’t have to recognize the nod to Thor at the beginning, it’s just a clever plot point. The ending of the movie (I thought it was too short) is straight out of the comic, but does that matter to a random fan? Probably not. It’s a scene that makes sense. I think we (as fans) worry too much about what other people will or won’t notice and what they do or don’t think.
I agree with just about everything you said. You’re right about the ending of Captain America being a little too short. I would have loved it if they did the Ultimates scene where he hits Nick Fury and calls it B.S. that a black man is ranked a General but that would have been out of character since I feel like they are going for a more classic Captain America rather than the Ultimate version.
They definitely should have made that scene longer but what the author if the article is neglecting to mention is that including this scene just saved 10 minutes of the Avengers movie.
When the photos leaked about the scene in Times Square I was praying it was an add on to the ending of Captain America and not the first scene of the Avengers. I want the Avengers movie to hit the ground running as was already said. I don’t need Cap waking up in the first 10 minutes.
The credits to the Avengers needs to do exactly what Zak Snyder did in Watchmen. Then once the credits end it’s banner Hulking out and running while bc of Loki and then Avengers time!
Here’s a problem with the article…the happenings of Thor & Captain America are happenings of the comic. Cap was frozen in the Arctic ice, only it was a nuclear missile Red Skull fired at New York that got him there (he was disarming it in the air Dr. Strangelove style). He did wake up 70 some odd years in the future and fought alongside the Avengers in modern day.
And the relationship between Jane & Thor happened, except it was between Jane & Thor’s alter ego Dr. Donald Blake (he was “imprisoned” in him to teach Thor a lesson in humility). In the movie, they gave Thor that name as a “cover” (one of Skaarsgard’s students) but for all intents & purposes, he was banished to earth & forced to live as a mortal-he had lost his hammer & magic armor, the source of his strength/God-like powers.
And Tony & Cap’s shield..they mention that it’s made of Vibranium, the only amount they had. Vibranium, is the chief mineral of Wakanda, the African nation ruled by T’Challa or the Black Panther. So in the present day, story-wise, since there was no more Vibranium it could easily be a new design for a weapon made of adamantium (which is what Wolverine’s claws & skeletal lacing are made of) or a new weapon which will require more Vibranium, hence a tie in to the Black Panther. It would be a sin to not introduce one of the most prominent black superheroes in comic lore (and one of the few). But again, for the audience it was an obvious advertisement for Captain America & an in-joke that Stark treated the shield so shabbily.
Basically, none of those things were fudges to get to the Avengers, more to the point the movies had to wedge them into a believable, “non-comic reading” narrative that felt contrived at times & really silly at others. But they all are actual origin stories.
Matt,
Although I am balls-to-the-wall excited for the Avengers and the whole in-joke Marvel Movieverse thing that they are building, I do see your points and do not disagree with you. I think that had they simply ended each film not with a post-credits teaser, but with an actual cliffhanger that would organically lead to the beginning of the Avengers movie, it wouldn’t feel so tacked-on or shoehorned in. As you pointed out, with interchangeable writing staff, directors, etc. and with Feige being the only (at least from the public perspective) mainstay between all of these chapters, it may have not been feasible to do that, but I think it would have been the better and more elegant solution. It also certainly would have better served the overall story/stories. An actual, genuine cliffhanger for each film that ends with “AVENGERS 2012″ against a black screen. BAM. No post-credits nonsense. The films end where they end and the only way you find out what happens next is to show up. The audience is beside itself wanting to get to what happens next because there is momentum. It’s not just “I can’t wait to see all these characters together” but in addition to that it’s also “I can’t wait to see how these stories resolve for each of these characters both as individuals and as an inevitable collective entity.” What do you think?
What a long-winded article that really reads into things too much.
I don’t think any of the Avengers build-up takes away from IM2, Thor, or Cap. They’re building a world, but you don’t really have to have seen previous films to understand the presence of SHIELD, since it’s just a government, “men in black” organization.
IM2 suffered from a lack of a central plot. The villain didn’t have a central plot he was working toward and the hero had to stop. It was just sloppy in that regard. Not unwatchable. Just needed to be plotted better. The Fury/SHIELD scenes did have their place in the film. Fury was trying to give Tony a sense of a purpose again and push him into solving his problems. Nothing wrong there. BW was just another government agent essentially. The movie opens with the government trying to take away the IM technology. SHIELD is just another attempt by the government to gain a little bit of influence on Stark and his technology. It works in the story/world they establish. It’s the lack of a strong villain storyline that hurts the movie.
Thor? Again, SHIELD is a government agency that is interested in scientific research which revolves around an alien being landing on the planet. It doesn’t feel out of place to me. Again, the problem with the film revolves more around a thin story. Not with the presence of SHIELD or a cameo of a guy with a bow.
Cap? The ending gives Cap a tragic resonance. They pushed aside Cap mourning Bucky for Cap mourning a lost love which most people will find more tragic. Now, Cap will be haunted by the missed chance for love. The movie takes great strides to show Steve is willing to sacrifice his well being for others, so having the film end with the repercussions of his WW2-mission’s sacrifice seems perfectly in-line with the rest of the movie. He saves the US at the cost of love. I actually find it a bold choice and makes any future appearance of the character that much more interesting.
I’m not trying to argue here…but more discuss.
First of all…I haven’t seen Captain America yet due to some serious financial reasons…but seeing what I’ve seen of this “ending”…I don’t see what all the fuss is about & the Avengers footage (small though it may be) was fantastic.
Now, as far as Cap’s shield being used in Iron Man 2…I thought that was kinda obvious. Hell, even the wife saw/recognized it off the bat as a prototype & got a kick out of RDJ treating it so worthlessly & she’s never delved into the Marvel Universe until I started forcing her to watch the movies & ogle over artwork from the likes Michael Turner (may he R.I.P.), Chris Bachalo, & Jim Lee.
As far as Fury, SHIELD, Colson, & Black Widow in Iron Man 2…go…again…not such a problem for me due to the fact that Colson & Fury were in the first & did a bang up job. Also those people were a part of Iron Man from the beginning as far as the books go…so I saw it as kind of icing on the cake. My issue with Iron Man 2 was War Machine being replaced…I don’t know…I just dug the poop outta Terrance Howard, the first Rhodey. But it is what it is.
Loved the way that SHIELD was tied to Thor through Jane…basically loved Thor from the ground up.
That being said…I’m scared for the Avengers & even more so for Whedon. This’s gotta sell & sell big…here’s hoping it does.
I gotta point this out in IM2…. The Cap Shield is a model of the one in Cap:1st Avenger and Not the one in the Cap movie… I just had to point that out…
I thought Iron Man 2 and both Hulk movies sucked.
Captain America and Thor were ok, but i can’t say i’d go out of my way to see them.
i’m not really excited for the Avengers, but i think it will be massively successful. Obviously the plot hasn’t hurt any of the box office returns. The audience is definitely ready to cough up money.
I actually generaly agree with this-
Marvel is making reasonable popcorn entertainment with this whole concept but none of it feels entirely fresh-
Hulk/Iron Man 2 are the worse; agreed. Both endings came down to a CGI fest with no real sense of threat or anything at stake for the audience to care about-
Captain America I really generally liked despite Joe Johnston- Johnston has no idea how to create tension- which is why he shouldn’t have or shouldn’t again direct a Jurassic Park movie as they are ALL about tension.
Thor- fun but watered down feels like something that can be remade in future with a more dense story-
yeah, so while i don’t think there is anything devestating bad about the marvel films, i don’t really ever feel there is anything incredibly awesome about them either-which is why nolan and the batman films win every time- there are some terrible moments and things that don’t really make sense in the dark knight but they are easily overlooked by how dense the story is and how many other awesome things there are to love-
men.
I completely agree with this article.
Each one of these movies with the exception of IRON MAN and IM 2 have basically been two hour introductions. Thor especially feels like the first act of a movie.
So far my favorite one has been Cap A. Captain America felt like its’ own thing. But the ending felt rushed because they have to get him to the Avengers of course. I for one was bummed that we are no longer in the 1940′s with Cap. I wouldn’t have sneezed at a least one more adventure before they iced him into the modern age. They didn’t even set up a gap for themselves to do a sequel set in the 40′s. So I am assuming the sequel has to be set in modern day now.
***SPOILER***** The problem I did have with CAP A though was that he DID NOT get the girl. Dude should have hit that at least once before they f*cking froze him.
I’m glad this article brought up Clark Gregg. I just don’t buy him at all. I cringe every time he speaks. I don’t think they knew he would be a recurring character. Otherwise they would have and SHOULD have recast him. I was praying he wouldn’t show up at the end of Cap A.
Article makes some good points but I disagree that the non-comics reading audience would have been fine with the movie showing Cap on a date with Carter, then cutting to him waking up in the modern day. That’s just too big a “what the?” moment and everyone would be complaining about how _that_ felt totally tacked on for the Avengers movie.
I could be wrong, but I think some of you are misinterpreting what he said about the Captain America ending. I think he was proposing that the film not have the “wake up in the future” ending AT ALL. As in, make this movie and end it in the 40′s, and just have Avengers start with him in it. That was if they wanted to make another Captain movie in the 40′s (and also do more with the Peggy story), they could.
@Fravit
The article does not propose eliminating Cap’s jump to the future. So, people are not misinterpreting this point.
If anything, the author of this article unintentionally highlights the fact that many audience members felt bad for Steve Rogers missing his date with Carter— which seems to have been Joe Johnston’s intention. With the fate of Bucky now having been ret-conned, I can appreciate this being one of the sacrifices Cap has to make in order for the ultimate soldier to save the day.
I’ve given some thought about how historic this crossover is and I have found an historical parallel, Universal’s horror movies. Dracula, Wolfman, and Frankenstein were all successful horror movie monsters on their own for Universal who also crossed over with one another in movies like Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, House of Frankenstein, and House of Dracula. They also had the best crossover in Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein which led off an incredibly successful series of Abbott & Costello Meet movie which included the Mummy, the Killer Boris Karloff, the Invisible Man, and Dr. Jeykll & Mr. Hyde. We can only hope that Marvel will be as successful with The Avengers as Universal was with their horror movies and Abbott & Costello movies.
All these movies (save maybe Iron Man 2) got really good reviews. And I liked them all (less so, IM2). This writer is really reaching for something to complain about. All of these movies stand on there own just fine.
You’re overthinking it way too much I feel. I’ve had no problems with any of the winks and nods to what’s to come. And let’s be realistic, there was no other way to do it, unless they felt like making an entire SHIELD movie that connected all the dots. I think Marvel has done very well. It’s true to the comics and really hasn’t weighed down the movies. I actually found the strongest aspect of Iron Man 2 to be the build up to The Avengers, and the most interesting as well. The little winks and nods are to get people interested, and once The Avengers hits, audiences will have fun rewatching those movies and discovering all the winks and nods they missed. That’s all my opinion at least.
What Marvel is doing is unprecedented, and they’ve handled it incredibly well. It’s ambitious, it’s big, and it’s fun. I’d like to see another studio handle this nearly as well as they have. Except for two actors who wouldn’t play ball, they’ve got everyone else to agree to play in their sandbox and bring this vision to life. It’s also a huge gamble, one I’m hoping that pays off, and I’m not worried that it won’t. This is a big event movie. For me, this is what it would have been like seeing Star Wars or Indiana Jones, no joke. This is a big deal for me, and for so many others too. This is something I never expected to see on screen, and Marvel is doing it. That’s huge. So what if they have winks and nods in the other movies. Come next year people won’t be complaining about them because we have The Avengers, in live action, on screen.
If there was no build up to the Avengers and they made a stand alone movie, you would complain. But now there is build up, and you’re complaining about it. There is no way to avoid things like this. People want to complain about anything they can, and they will. To take a quote from Kevin Smith and ‘Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back’:
“The Internet has given everybody in America a voice. For some reason, everybody decides to use that voice to b***h about movies.”
You’re right, SHIELD came across in IM2 and Thor as extremely annoying making minimal contribution to the overall conflict. I am beginning to hate samuel Jackson’s face
You’re kidding, right? In Iron Man 2, SHEILD layed the foundation that enabled Tony Stark’s research to save his own life— and brought the character closer to his father (the most significant journey on which this character continues to go). They also showed Stark that he could benefit from working with others.
In Thor, SHEILD’s involvement may have very well developed a means for Thor to reconnect with Jane Foster. You don’t expect them to simply sit on all the data she and her team have collected, do you?
does it even matter tho? Marvel doesnt care. they just crank out mediocre movie after mediocre movie and it takes in the cash. The Avengers comes out more cash. then once again another cycle and guess what? more mediocre movies. Their summer movies that nobody gives a **** about. Captain America could be fighting a bear and ppl would still se it. Am not a comic book fan nor a fan of these movies but i can tell you something tho. The Dark Knight Rises is going to blow away The Avengers in critical praise and in gross. you’ll see
Did I just read an article complaining about a shared universe of comic films leading to the Avengers film? Man, it’s nice to have problems.
The presence of S.H.I.E.L.D. in these films doesn’t bother me. If anything, I like they Idea that they are there, but wish the writers came up with even better reasons for them being there.
I also wish that the segments at the end of the film were before the credits instead of after, and were each at least a 10 minute scene. The 5 minute scenes are too short and don’t add much. I was running a little late, so I missed the beginning of Cap.. But from what I DID see, the ending disappointed me because I would like to have seen more of them finding and reviving him.
I would like to have seen a more definative and foreshadowed conversation between Tony Stark and the General in The Incredible Hulk. I would like to have seen a better end segment in Thor.
I don’t know how the Avengers movie is going to work out in terms off how they get together..but I almost wish they’d make an hour Television special dedicated to that, and then just get into a story for the movie.
My only real disappointment in all of the current storylines leading up to Avengers is that the final Whiplash battle in Iron Man 2 wasn’t better. I liked the rest of the film, but the fight at the end was so quickly ended, I felt like I’d watched a train derail 1000 yards from its final destination.
Yes, there was no chemistry between Thor and whatshername.. And they didn’t make him Donald Black (other than in name), neither thing really bothered me. What DID bother me is that Thor really had no purpose here other than to fight the Destroyer. I think it would have been interesting to have a brief montage showing him trying to figure out how to be human over say, a two year period before continuing with actual plot leading to his redemption. But thats just me.
I don’t think the tie-ins to Avengers interfered much with these movies. I do agree that it would have been preferred to keep as much of Avengers a post-credit assembly as possible, but I never felt drawn out of these movies by anything Avengers. Marketing is another issue, sure. However, you have to understand that Cap’s story IN THE COMICS has a tragic ending, with him losing everyone around him. I thought the film actually captured that pretty well; you could hear the gasps in the audience when Cap ran out into modern-day Times Square. In my theater, most people were applauding after the movie, and I thought Chris Evans was great as Cap. If any of these movies has a natural connection to the Avengers, it was this one.
Iron Man 2 suffered from stuffing too much into one movie, a common affliction to sequels. Tony Stark had to deal with Whiplash, Justin Hammer, the US Government, SHIELD, palladium poisoning and somehow tie-in to the Avengers? They threw everything and the kitchen sink at poor RDJ in this movie, and this resulted in a grand spectacle of a film, but one without focus, which is why the film suffers in comparison to the original Iron Man. Fans wanted the Mandarin, fans wanted the classic comic storyline “Demon in a Bottle,” but instead lost ground in Tony’s relationships with Rhodey & Pepper. Some would say that was due to pushing towards Avengers, but I would argue that Nick Fury & SHIELD actually help move the story along in setting up a relationship with Tony that will payoff in Avengers. I mean, do you really believe that Tony Stark would just “join” the Avengers in the big movie out of nowhere? No, he would have to have his fingerprints all over it, he would have to have had a relationship with SHIELD already established.
Now with Thor, I can see your point more. Natalie Portman is a bad chick, but I wasn’t feelin’ the relationship with Thor. Chemistry with Chris Hemsworth? Sure, but maybe not enough in the story? SHIELD’s presence throughout the movie was more than a little intrusive, a couple of times stopping the movie cold. I would have appreciated a little less SHIELD and lot more Asgard, more Chris and Natalie, so that the relationship between Thor and Jane would not seem forced or rushed.
Of the three, I would say Captain America: The First Avenger is the least affected by the Marvel Marketing Machine and, interestingly enough, the best film. Iron Man 2 and its juggling act is second (RDJ at the end of the day is irresistable), with Thor bringing up the rear. Too much Agent Coulson (sorry Agent Coulson). The point made in the editorial is valid, but the situation is not nearly that dire, and I think that overall, Marvel’s doing a great job with these movies. Don’t worry, they will eventually get it that less is more, these movies can stand on their own.
PS.: To the cat that says Dark Knight Rises “is going to blow away The Avengers in critical praise and in gross” doesn’t seem to understand that Nolan’s vision of Batman is completely separate from the DC Universe and is really a deconstruction of the superhero genre rather than a part of it. That, along with Heath Ledger’s Joker made the Dark Knight a phenomenon, and it wouldn’t be fair to expect the same from The Dark Knight Rises to be the same. It will excel because of Nolan’s singular vision of Batman, not DC or even Batman himself. For there to be a Justice League film eventually, DC will have to reimagine Batman…
After this one, It starts over. But I think Avengers will do good, cause it would be great to see all the heroes on screen. People dont understand tragedy surrounded The Dark Knight, with Ledger dying. So the movie did great. I just dont care for Josh Wenis.
And why was Cap better than Iron Man?
I loved Captain America and saw it four times to this point. I think it’s telling that family and friends who don’t live and breathe comic book films loved it while my pals who do live and breathe comic book films thought it was “just OK” or were underwhelmed, perhaps because they wanted Iron Man’s pyrokinetics or TDK’s violence and angst or just more clanging giant robots and a lingerie model in a halter top.
I love those movies too (well, not Transformers films) but I loved Cap’s characters. I’m tired of summer movies that give you no reason to care for the characters at all — even $300M of CGI FX can’t make me waste more money on films with shallow, often dimwitted, if not repellent characters.
I’d suggested to my brother that if they moved Cap’s front “bookend” (shield in the ice) to the movie’s end, and then the ending bookend beyond the closing credits (or even just removed that bookend altogether), then they could’ve ended Cap with a sense of “possibility” — much like Star Trek II’s ending (supposedly tacked on over director Nicholas Myers’ protests) w/ Spock’s casket on the Genesis planet. My bro said “nah, it’s fine as is.”
Okay, can we just take a step back here and look at the big picture for a moment? A major media company and a group of studios are devoting several years and hundreds of millions of dollars to make a series of interlocking movies….about comic books. Maybe people too young to remember a time before Burton’s Batman (or at least Donner’s Superman) don’t know what a remarkable statement that is. This has been an unbelievable gamble and the fact that they’ve pulled it off as well as they have is astonishing.
Could the films have been better? Maybe. But this ain’t Shakespeare we’re talking about. Most of the nits this article picks come from a fan who worries that other people won’t understand the Easter eggs that Marvel has thrown in. Who’s that with the bow? Who cares? He’s some government sniper guy. Half the audience probably didn’t recognize him as Jeremy Renner and the other half probably didn’t think it was odd he was in the movie. To me, almost none of the stuff detracted in any significant way from the stand alone stories.
The one place I would agree is with Captain America, but that’s only because the movie came out so well. I would love to see future WWII stories with all those characters. But remember, Marvel and Paramount had no way of knowing whether there would ever be more stories, or whether people would want to see more WWII stuff. They had to go for the brass ring right off the bat.
Hindsight being 20/20, I would have wrapped up Captain America with a big raid on a Hydra base. Skull gets away, Cap gets the girl, and the door is open for more period films. Then, in the Avengers, you could tell the flying wing/cosmic cube story in a quick flashback- “Wait, I’ve seen that thing before.”
As it is, I think they’ve done a great job with what they’ve had, unprecedented in motion picture history. Think of it, with Downey, Ruffalo, Renner and Jackson, you’ve got FOUR FREAKIN’ OSCAR NOMINEES PLAYING COMIC BOOK CHARACTERS! If that alone is not enough to tell you we live in blessed fanboy times, I don’t know what to say.
My biggest concern with this movie is that they won’t use the content of the previous films to their advantage. Each film had an entire cast of interesting characters, so to not use them in the Avengers, to somehow make it feel seperate, is also going to make it feel hollow. I want more Thor and Jane, more Stark and Pepper, more Banner and Betty. I want scenes of Cap reflecting on his lost love. If they did all this connective tissue, and only use the SHIELD related stuff, the movie won’t work. Or maybe it will work as a super heroes kicking ass movie, but we’re beyong that now.
@ Matt Goldberg
You’ve made an interesting set of observations but, at best, this article is incomplete. While some things may have been “lost” in the development of the Avengers movie, most of the parties involved looked to have gained far more than they’ve conceded. As a result, each of the talents have stars that are rising even higher as a result of their capturing the zeitgeist of the day. Interestingly enough, the things lost were likely anticipated, while the things gained may very well exceed expectations.
Interesting article and, amazingly, some intelligent and well-considered comments. It’s staggering to find such in-depth responses – what happened to the internet we all know? (I had to disable comments on my own site due to a relentless spam attack).
My own view is that the Avengers links became a bit obvious in Iron Man 2 and in Thor. At the time I saw Thor, I thought it was excellent but I guess it was just tickling my inner fanboy because I never went to see it again and it now seems bland and forgettable.
Marvel sometimes seems too hampered by its own source material, frightened to take a risk. But it’s the risks that lead to good films, like The Dark Knight and the better X-Men films. I hope Joss Whedon isn’t too restricted in his vision on Avengers.
TLC said>>Okay, can we just take a step back here and look at the big picture for a moment? …[The recent Marvel universe films have] been an unbelievable gamble and the fact that they’ve pulled it off as well as they have is astonishing.>>>
Couldn’t have said it better. This fundamental observation totally eclipses any nit-picks. It’s nothing short of amazing that these films have come out as good as they have.
So then the official Collider review for Captain America is (paraphrasing): Was great could have been excellent? Seems fair. Just a hypothetical question: Do you think the Red Skull will re-appear at the end of The Avengers or at The End of Thor2? It kind of looked to me like he took a rough ride on the rainbow bridge at the end of C.A.
What’s to stop any Cap sequels from returning to the past ala Man out of time…or at least some flashback scenes that might tie into current storylines? The past(or lack of ) in the marvel universe is always what makes Captain America one of the most tragic of their characters. Hopefully, C.A. sequels get to deal with the 1950′s Cap. as well as the real first Captain America. I’m actually looking forward to the stand alone sequels more than the Avengers at this point.
Save for time travel, it seems to me that they’ve squandered the opportunity for more pre-present C.A. films. Flashback scenes, maybe, but it strikes me that part 1 supposedly covers everything. All that would be leave is what amounts to “deleted scenes” from Cap’s apparently limited WWII adventures. I’m really not too interested in that.
I don’t want to poo-poo “Cap in the 2010′s” too much before I’ve actually seen it. So far, Marvel is batting about 0.750, so I wouldn’t put it past them to figure out a good way to make “Cap in the 2010′s” work.
Still, it just seems to me that this character works well in a nostalgia-throwback-pre-cyncial-greatest-generation context. Cap is cool in WWII, because we view that as a just war and a truly heroic time for the United States–a time about which we can all be un-ironically patriotic. And it presents a unique context in which it’s okay for Cap and his outfit to be somewhat dorky. We like that. It’s fun, the same way Marty McFly with Biff at the malt shop is fun.
It will take some doing to make Cap as fun or interesting in our era. They’ll only be able to get so much mileage out of the fish-out-of-water in the 2010′s business. If this were the first Marvel film, I’d be very skeptical of 2010′s CA. But they made Thor work and made Iron Man much cooler than I’d have guessed, so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
While I’m a bigger fan of the DC Universe, I think what Marvel/Disney is doing with the Avengers is great…it’s really how an ensemble superhero movie should be done. We’ve got the individual movies with brief tie-ins that tease and peak your interest in both the other individual character movies and ultimately the Avengers next year.
DC should really take note as their films have failed to link to the Justice League. In fact, many of the producers and directors of those films, like Chris Nolan, and more recently, Zack Snyder, have refused to mention DC’s other superheroes. So, if there is ever a Justice League movie, all new actors will have to play them, which will be odd and confusing as as an audience we’re invested not only in the comic book character but the big-screen actor behind the character as well.
Just change Who play GL. Timothy Olyphant or Josh Dumahael.
I agree with a lot of what the article said but not all. I think these guys have a loose idea of what they want and are moving forward anyway. That’s why the writing in these movies is suffering. I really do feel that way to much time is spent setting up the Avengers instead of focusing on making the character relationships/motivations more meaningful. They should be more subtle with the set up and make these movies fully stand on their own. I also think that everyone is over-hyping how much better Captain America was then the rest. Thor, Iron Man 2, & Captain America were all of equal quality. The only difference is peoples opinions on which comic character they like the best.
My 23 yr daughter and I went to see both Capt America and Thor. I’ve been reading Marvel comics since 1976 and she has never read one (although I tried desperately to get her too).
We each enjoyed both movies immensely. After watching Thor, she came home and watched both Iron Man movies to understand who shield was and where this plot was going.
That being said, I believe Marvel obviously has a plan leading to the Avengers Movie, but I don’t think it is interfering with the movies that are presently coming out.
I seriously don’t get this article, would you rather Cap went on his date at the end or there was some sort of sense of love loss we felt when Cap moved to present day. It made me wonder about how Cap must have felt, having left what he knew behind, they did a good job of showing how things had changes in the 70 yrs with the times square scene, I thought it was great.
There is also a simple third explanation as to why the shield was with iron man. We don’t know the timeline exactly, the Captain America film could be before the iron Man film, like when Thor must have been a similar time to Iron man 2, because the SHIELD dude goes to see the hammer half way through the Iron Man 2 film, both these films are set at the same time, even though Thor was released after Iron Man 2. So why can’t Captain America be at a time before Iron Man. To be honest though I’m not too bothered if they don’t expand on this or why the shield was there (the shield in iron man seemed smaller also, but hey). Also if we go from the film release time, SHEILD have taken frigin years not to put a team together for something so urgent, so it would make sense that all this is going on at the same time or something.
The flimsy shield in IM2 was obviously a prototype. Even less than that, it seemed like just a mock-up that Howard Stark was tinkering with while working up options. Agent Coulson showed such surprise, not because he thought he was holding the real shield but because it’s a surprise to be holding anything related to Captain America from Howard Stark’s personal stash.
Regarding no more Cap movies set in the 40′s… there was obviously a large gap of time in the movie during the montage of his adventures, and we catch up with him near the end of the war. The screenwriters and Marvel have said that they left room for going back to WWII in potential Cap sequels.
I agree with the big picture… what these movies have accomplished together is extraordinary, and worth more than the few things they lost. Also, per Marvel, Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 are being written as stand-alone movies, so everyone should be happy.
@ Quasar
Yes, the shield in Iron Man 2 was a prototype– for the changes Rogers and Stark would later make to the unpainted original and the overall costume (as referenced in the Captain America movie).
For at least a couple of reasons, that scene was quite ironic.
After seeing the Cap film, I figured that the IM2 shield was either the prototype for or remnant of the Commie Smasher Cap’s shield. It’s clearly not related to the proper Cap shield, which is a solid piece of metal.
Something I find interesting is that virtually everyone who claims the pre-Avengers movies were too invested in (and, therefore, connected to) the Avengers was already conscious of Marvel’s larger plans. I’ve yet to see these projects criticized, as not being their own stories, by someone unaware of their role in Feige and company’s big picture.
With that, I wonder if the fact that some genre fans were actively looking for MCU connections in Iron Man 2 and Thor led to their later judgement being clouded. I supose we’ll never know, though.
I agree on the Iron Man 2 and Thor points (although the Cap shield reference in IM2 didn’t bother me). After what felt like a carefully planned out and very intelligently executed first Iron Man, the sequel just couldn’t deliver BECAUSE it was written with the Avengers in mind. I have my own issues with IM2, mostly from the fact that he creates his own element to help the chest piece function properly as well as spending a little too much SHIELD time (although maybe in the comics he did create an element… I was never a follower of Iron Man so my geekdom is very low for that title).
At least Tony got a chance to have an origin story told in the first movie so it wasn’t like Iron Man is getting the “setting up Avengers” treatment until the after credits sequence. Poor Thor got half his movie taken from him to play with SHIELD, something I felt was a huge disservice to the movie. With so much going on in Thor’s mythology as well as a cast of characters that barely got enough screentime for the audience to care and a love interest that seemed more of a high school crush than genuine head over heels love, Thor got the short end of the stick so much that it’s probably my second least favorite Marvel movie, neck and neck with IM2.
Cap’s ending didn’t bother me in the least, though. The beginning of the movie gave you a clear hint that some sort of military or government operation would be behind Cap getting retrieved and reintegrated into 2011. Since they’ve been all over the other Marvel movies, it makes sense that SHIELD would be those government guys. Even if I didn’t read comics, I’d put money on that. To me, Cap was the best of the Marvel movies so far, probably because of it’s removed from present day timeline so it was allowed to tell it’s story without Sam Jackson showing up for extended periods of time to interrupt the overall story that the movie was trying to tell. It also didn’t hurt that it’s he most optimistic and old fashioned fun movie I’ve seen in years, probably since I was a kid watching Indiana Jones. And I do hope they have flashbacks in future Cap installments so they can go back and show missions that couldn’t be covered in the first movie. The more WWII the better!
Overall, I’d say the way Marvel handled Iron Man, Incredible Hulk and Captain America were good ways of tipping their hat toward Avengers. But, man, Thor and IM2 just felt like lip service to Avengers with little care of making a strong individual movie. As much as I can see these movies being like tie-ins for a big event like in comics, there are still comics within tie-in events that can tell a good story without needing to reference the bigger picture quite so heavily. Still, I never thought I’d get to see a legit Iron Man, Thor and Captain America movie for most of my life. There’s something to be said for that, too.
Is it really fair to include Iron Man 2 with Thor and Captain America? While I did get the sense that Jon Favreau was a little annoyed that they wanted his film to lead into the Avengers a little bit, I really don’t think that it affected the film in the way that Thor and Captain America were affected.