Would Marvel Actually Split Avengers 3 Into Two Films?

Would Marvel Actually Split Avengers 3 Into Two Films?

Let's take this with as many grains of salt as there are ways to bring dead superheroes back to life.

Read Full Article

Honestly? I think the death of Cap and Iron Man as part of a cliffhanger could be quite interesting if done right. And Marvel's done a good job with doing their movies right overall.

Granted, I'd rather see more RDJ and Chris Evans, but I'm just saying maybe it wouldn't be squandering them.

Well, I sure hope this won't be the case? There are already a ton of characters. I would expect say, Avengers 2 to cut out a few of them, like Hawkeye. Not introduce a ton more for the final crossover fight against Thanos.

My thought is that something this massive might induce a cosmic fallout that could do any number of things to the entire franchise. Maybe, just maybe, they'll introduce a revamped timeline that sees the likes of Miles Morales and Kamala Kahn (damn you Marvel and your love of pointless alliteration!) or the introduction of more fantastical elements likely starting in Dr. Strange. Basically, I doubt Thanos' defeat means things just end.

Using inhumans instead of mutants, interesting.

Why two movies? Why not 3? Have Avengers as Pt 1, Guardians as Pt 2 and Pt 3 is a 3 hour movie of both fighting Thanos.

My inner conspiracy theorist is starting to think that Marvel is going to start tying their properties to brands that are ones they have full ownership of, such as Inhumans and making Ms. Marvel part of that universe instead of the X-Men. It could mean that Marvel is trying to make the other franchises not as popular with fans because they would like to get control back or at the very least stop giving "free" advertising, but you never know what they might be planning, for I refuse to go deep into the subconscious of an executive for I might never return.

And...........I'm already getting bored of this super-franchise s**t. If Marvel doesn't conclude Avengers 3 in a satisfying way and instead leaves the storyline open on a huge cliffhanger, then I'm out.

Sanunes:
My inner conspiracy theorist is starting to think that Marvel is going to start tying their properties to brands that are ones they have full ownership of, such as Inhumans and making Ms. Marvel part of that universe instead of the X-Men. It could mean that Marvel is trying to make the other franchises not as popular with fans because they would like to get control back or at the very least stop giving "free" advertising, but you never know what they might be planning, for I refuse to go deep into the subconscious of an executive for I might never return.

I heard someone say that Marvel may perhaps entirely cancel the X-Men and Fantastic Four comic books and instead turn to the Inhumans to fill those slots in their line-up. Now, I have no idea how reasonable that thought is, or if it is a rumour that's been going around or a conspiracy theory or whatever, but actually I wouldn't put it beyond Disney/Marvel to go through with something like that.

vid87:
Miles Morales

Still a Spider-Man property, so no go.

Citizen Graves:

I heard someone say that Marvel may perhaps entirely cancel the X-Men and Fantastic Four comic books and instead turn to the Inhumans to fill those slots in their line-up. Now, I have no idea how reasonable that thought is, or if it is a rumour that's been going around or a conspiracy theory or whatever, but actually I wouldn't put it beyond Disney/Marvel to go through with something like that.

This rumour's been kicking around forever. So long that FF should have been canceled twice (at least). X-Men? We'll see how the death of Wolverine fails to harm the movies, and how it affects comic sales. If that's their intent, they're being dumb. I'm pretty sure each X-Men movie pulls in more people than the X-Men titles do combined.

Zachary Amaranth:

vid87:
Miles Morales

Still a Spider-Man property, so no go.

Citizen Graves:

I heard someone say that Marvel may perhaps entirely cancel the X-Men and Fantastic Four comic books and instead turn to the Inhumans to fill those slots in their line-up. Now, I have no idea how reasonable that thought is, or if it is a rumour that's been going around or a conspiracy theory or whatever, but actually I wouldn't put it beyond Disney/Marvel to go through with something like that.

This rumour's been kicking around forever. So long that FF should have been canceled twice (at least). X-Men? We'll see how the death of Wolverine fails to harm the movies, and how it affects comic sales. If that's their intent, they're being dumb. I'm pretty sure each X-Men movie pulls in more people than the X-Men titles do combined.

Ah, I see. Well, even though I grew up with these comic book franchises I haven't really been following them at all for the last decade or so.

So they are really going to kill of Wolverine, eh?

I'm sure Hugh Jackman is totally fearing for his livelyhood now and FOX is sure to be freaking out, right? Right?

Didn't think so.

What's next? Marvel gonna' kill of the Spider-Man books, too?

Anyone actually know what the film-rights to the S-M franchise would be worth? Like, how much would Disney/Marvel have to shell out to SONY to get Spidey back and bring him into the MCU fold?

I would assume it should be a 11-digits number?!

Citizen Graves:

Ah, I see. Well, even though I grew up with these comic book franchises I haven't really been following them at all for the last decade or so.

So they are really going to kill of Wolverine, eh?

I'm sure Hugh Jackman is totally fearing for his livelyhood now and FOX is sure to be freaking out, right? Right?

Didn't think so.

What's next? Marvel gonna' kill of the Spider-Man books, too?

Anyone actually know what the film-rights to the S-M franchise would be worth? Like, how much would Disney/Marvel have to shell out to SONY to get Spidey back and bring him into the MCU fold?

I would assume it should be a 11-digits number?!

I know how you feel. I don't follow comics much these days, and a lot of my news comes specifically from this site. Yeah, Marvel's got a "Death of Wolverine" storyline coming up where they say the character will stay dead for realsies this time. Of course, nobody stays dead except Buck...Wait, that one doesn't work anymore. I mean, I know death is supposedly permanent in the Ultimate universe, but I don't think anyone buys that they're killing one of their most popular characters in the main continuity permanently.

But yeah, the X-Men movies do such big numbers I doubt anyone's exactly losing sleep. There's actually been a habit of the comics changing to cash in on the movies, so if this is specifically a "screw you" to Fox, I think they're not thinking very clearly.

I mean, it's comic books, so maybe it's just like other big event comics and it's just meant to motivate sales or shake things up. I'm hoping it's that, because otherwise...Well, it's probably stupid and pointless.

I doubt Marvel's willing to shell out enough to buy back its properties. Though it's also sort of a shame to me that Fox and Marvel can't just work together on a crossover. That sort of thing would print huge piles of money and the big issue is that both Marvel/Disney and Fox wouldn't want to share a huuuuuuuge pile of money. No, instead they must have ALL THE MONEYS!

Zachary Amaranth:

I doubt Marvel's willing to shell out enough to buy back its properties. Though it's also sort of a shame to me that Fox and Marvel can't just work together on a crossover. That sort of thing would print huge piles of money and the big issue is that both Marvel/Disney and Fox wouldn't want to share a huuuuuuuge pile of money. No, instead they must have ALL THE MONEYS!

I'm sort of glad they have to work around these issues. I don't think Marvel/Disney would have given their lesser known properties a chance had they owned the rights to their twin flagship franchises of the X-Men and Spider-Man. Even the Fantastic Four were more recognisable than Iron Man (never mind the Guardians) as far as the general public was concerned.

And seeing how everything the X-Men touch turns into a convoluted mess I don't mind them having their own little film continuity to play with.

Zachary Amaranth:

I doubt Marvel's willing to shell out enough to buy back its properties. Though it's also sort of a shame to me that Fox and Marvel can't just work together on a crossover. That sort of thing would print huge piles of money and the big issue is that both Marvel/Disney and Fox wouldn't want to share a huuuuuuuge pile of money. No, instead they must have ALL THE MONEYS!

A couple of things about this. First, It's not really a matter of Marvel just writing increasingly huge checks until Sony or Fox decides they like the amount. The deal Sony has for Spider-Man and Fox has for X-Men and Fantastic Four pretty much give them the ability to hold onto the film rights in perpetuity, so long as they continue to make new films within a certain amount of time. If a certain amount of time passes without any development on a film, the rights revert back to Marvel automatically. That's how Marvel got The Hulk and Daredevil back, and that's the only reason the new, shitty Amazing Spider-Man trilogy is even a thing.

Second, those deals were made back when Marvel was in serious danger of going bankrupt. Sony and Fox got those film rights for what amounts to fire sale prices. The films these studios keep making aren't cheap to produce but they have consistently been profitable, especially when you take into account how relatively little Fox and Sony had to pay for the rights. Combine that with the huge success the MCU has had and you can see why they will do everything they can to hold onto them. They all think they have potentially MCU-level hits on their hands, and in the case of Fox and X-men, they're not entirely wrong (at least in the sense of how profitable X-men movies are.)

Third, let's not forget that Studios are completely separate businesses. Having Fox and Marvel join forces on a Fantastic Four movie would be like having McDonald's and Burger King join forces to create a new hamburger, The Big Whopper. NO way would either of them go for it and risk diluting their brands. (not to mention having to split the profits in ways that would greatly reduce distributed profits.)

Fourth, there is no guarantee that a Marvel/Sony or Marvel/Fox team up would work. It isn't like Fox would just allow Marvel total creative control to fold X-Men back into the MCU. You'd have a pissing match so bitter it would defy description.

Finally, C. Cain is totally right: Marvel not having Spider-Man, X-Men or Fantastic Four turned out to be a huge blessing.

Also, I suspect the new Fantastic Four is going to flop big and maybe then, Fox will just let it die.

RossaLincoln:

Also, I suspect the new Fantastic Four is going to flop big and maybe then, Fox will just let it die.

I concur, the film does not inspire confidence. It started shooting in May and concluded in August. They didn't deign to present it at Comic-Con, or anywhere else really. Compare that to the constantly "leaked" titbits of info we get for the upcoming Bats v Supes (Dawn of Justice... really?) flick or even this article which serves the same function for the new Avengers film.

If, on the other hand, something manages to get out to the public it's immediately met with either indignation or more commonly indifference. Positive reactions are few and far between.

And lastly there's the August release date. (Yes, Guardians pulled it off. Yet GotG had lots of publicity and hype, and its eventual success still exceeded expectations by far.)

Captcha: upper hand

Aren't you the optimistic one, Captcha.

Well, I'm not convinced that they are actually in danger of losing Robert Downy Jr. or (especially) Chris Evans. It occurred to me long ago that discussing their contracts is just another way of attracting interest and discussion about the projects, and all the "maybes" that it brings up. At the end of the day Chris Evans wasn't that big a movie star to begin with and as much as he talks about walking away, I just can't see him of all people doing it. Robert Downy Jr. is a big star again, but at the same time it needs to be remembered that Marvel/Disney literally picked him up out of the gutter given the trainwreck he made out of his career and life, and put him back on track again. Not to mention it's the fans he gained by being Iron Man that allowed him to become successful in other roles. The big question one has to look at with him is what kind of honor and loyalty he has on a personal level, combined of course with the fact that someone like him is only as good and successful as his fans. I don't know the guy, but it occurred to me a while ago that it seems possible that he'll keep being Iron Man as long as people want him to keep being Iron Man. Sure, he's pushed for more money, but at the same time it should be noted that just by doing so he's generated a lot of hype and discussion, giving Robert Downy Jr. a raise was probably just as efficient as making a few commercials at the end of the day, especially since the amounts his making are broadcast everywhere.

I'll also say that as nice as it is to talk about how having Rhodey or Falcon take over the heroic mantles permanently in the movie universe, both largely worked because they are temporary "grabs" using supporting characters. Having a sidekick take over for the main hero for a while is an old comic gimmick, and to be honest neither character ever did well enough on their own to become A-listers. Part of the success of Marvel's movies is that the characters they were using were not as obscure as a lot of people thought they were, tons of people knew who Iron Man and Captain America were as long as their identities and backstories. A lot of comic nerds like to feel special by acting like how they "knew" this stuff before movies introduced it to everyone else... but I don't think that's really ever been the case. Likewise the Guardians Of The Galaxy were obscure, but at the same time got their movies on the end of a push to do more with the spacefaring parts of The Marvel Universe. The point is I don't think you'll see this, especially given all the time they put into the FX for Falcon's costume.

In my opinion if they DO decide to have the sidekicks take over, it will be part of a premeditated plan, both making a show of the actors leaving off screen to "sell" it, and then promoting the movies like with a comic saying "this is how it is" with it already decided the original actors will come back to the roles. The idea people will think the sidekick version was cool, but be happy to see the originals back in action... just like with comics.

It should also be noted that Iron Man as a character isn't someone who takes his armor off when doing the hero thing. He's incredibly easy to do without showing the man inside the suit. With what they can do now with emulation, I don't find it unlikely that they could simply make the character sound a bit like Robery Downy Jr. (being the same character without the actor) especially given that the voice can be distorted however they want based on new armor. Honestly, one of the big criticisms of Iron Man's movies has been that they contrive to show too much Robert, and not enough Iron Man, probably because they are paying him so much.

With Captain America there is also a lot of potential here to do a "blind" making people wonder who is actually assuming the mantle. They could work in some version of Burnside or USAgent off of this if they have Chris Evans come back, or perhaps even just say that Chris Evans was never really Captain America.... and portray the first movie as being the result of how people remembered it due to the way he was sold in the present. It would be particularly interesting to see what happens when the movies decide to retcon something. Given the concepts involved he could be
a decoy, duplicate, or clone more easily than most characters.

That said if Chris Evans walks away for real (which I doubt) I expect it will last just long enough for him to miss the fame... and piles of incoming money (even though already rich, it's nothing like having more coming in all the time letting you spend it like water).

Aslong as its good I wouldn't care. Could be Guardians Of The Galaxy 2 or World War/Planet Hulk for all we know. They haven't let us down yet with the Universe they're making why should we doubt them?

Would you rather sit through one 3-4hour movie which will be ridiculed for its length or 2 seperate 1 1/2 - 2 1/2hour movies of which you can take a break from so your not spending damn near half your day watching One movie.

Citizen Graves:

Zachary Amaranth:

vid87:
Miles Morales

Still a Spider-Man property, so no go.

Citizen Graves:

I heard someone say that Marvel may perhaps entirely cancel the X-Men and Fantastic Four comic books and instead turn to the Inhumans to fill those slots in their line-up. Now, I have no idea how reasonable that thought is, or if it is a rumour that's been going around or a conspiracy theory or whatever, but actually I wouldn't put it beyond Disney/Marvel to go through with something like that.

This rumour's been kicking around forever. So long that FF should have been canceled twice (at least). X-Men? We'll see how the death of Wolverine fails to harm the movies, and how it affects comic sales. If that's their intent, they're being dumb. I'm pretty sure each X-Men movie pulls in more people than the X-Men titles do combined.

Ah, I see. Well, even though I grew up with these comic book franchises I haven't really been following them at all for the last decade or so.

So they are really going to kill of Wolverine, eh?

I'm sure Hugh Jackman is totally fearing for his livelyhood now and FOX is sure to be freaking out, right? Right?

Didn't think so.

What's next? Marvel gonna' kill of the Spider-Man books, too?

Anyone actually know what the film-rights to the S-M franchise would be worth? Like, how much would Disney/Marvel have to shell out to SONY to get Spidey back and bring him into the MCU fold?

I would assume it should be a 11-digits number?!

Sony agreed to renegotiate the deal with Marvel a few years ago. Marvel and Sony have actually been playing nice nice lately. That's why we came real close to an Avengers / Spiderman crossover. The big point is Marvel now has all merchandising rights to Spiderman fully under their control and in their pocket. Fox refused to renegotiate which has resulted in a fued between Marvels CEO and Fox studios. Add to this the rumor that when Dardevil Punisher and Ghost Rider were coming up on when their contracts reverting to Marvel and it was obvious Fox would not make the deadline for Daredevil that they had in production, Marvel offered to extend the contracts rather generously. What they wanted in return was some of the cosmic characters from the Fantastic Four. Particularly the Silver Surfer, Galactus, Anihilus and Blastar. It's obvioud now to see why they wanted them. Those characters are integral to the Marvel Cosmic universe in which Guardians of the Galaxy play and were major elements of the Anihilation story arcs. The Fox CEO's response to the fairly reasonable offer was about as unprofessional as you can get. He unleashed a solid torrent of obscenities at the Marvel CEO for reasons that no one really understood. I mean he could have politely turned it down, but chose instead to go all Quentin Tarrantino, and hence the Marvel Fox feud was born.

As far as Vin Diesel, It would make perfect sense to have him as Black Bolt. He plays himself as a character that effectively cannot speak. (well he can but...) and he voices the giant tree. It sounds like a wacky enough combination for Vin.

Therumancer:
Well, I'm not convinced that they are actually in danger of losing Robert Downy Jr. or (especially) Chris Evans. It occurred to me long ago that discussing their contracts is just another way of attracting interest and discussion about the projects, and all the "maybes" that it brings up. At the end of the day Chris Evans wasn't that big a movie star to begin with and as much as he talks about walking away, I just can't see him of all people doing it. Robert Downy Jr. is a big star again, but at the same time it needs to be remembered that Marvel/Disney literally picked him up out of the gutter given the trainwreck he made out of his career and life, and put him back on track again. Not to mention it's the fans he gained by being Iron Man that allowed him to become successful in other roles. The big question one has to look at with him is what kind of honor and loyalty he has on a personal level, combined of course with the fact that someone like him is only as good and successful as his fans. I don't know the guy, but it occurred to me a while ago that it seems possible that he'll keep being Iron Man as long as people want him to keep being Iron Man. Sure, he's pushed for more money, but at the same time it should be noted that just by doing so he's generated a lot of hype and discussion, giving Robert Downy Jr. a raise was probably just as efficient as making a few commercials at the end of the day, especially since the amounts his making are broadcast everywhere.

Good point. And Heck Evans and Downy Jr are easy for Marvel to get to suit up again. Marvel doesn't even have to just pour money at them. Simply offer them the directors chair for a few projects. Support their pet projects and they will remain the license to print money they have been. For the price of making a few art house films and maybe getting a stab at one of the B list properties Marvel could easily get either to suit up again.

C. Cain:

RossaLincoln:

Also, I suspect the new Fantastic Four is going to flop big and maybe then, Fox will just let it die.

I concur, the film does not inspire confidence. It started shooting in May and concluded in August. They didn't deign to present it at Comic-Con, or anywhere else really. Compare that to the constantly "leaked" titbits of info we get for the upcoming Bats v Supes (Dawn of Justice... really?) flick or even this article which serves the same function for the new Avengers film.

If, on the other hand, something manages to get out to the public it's immediately met with either indignation or more commonly indifference. Positive reactions are few and far between.

And lastly there's the August release date. (Yes, Guardians pulled it off. Yet GotG had lots of publicity and hype, and its eventual success still exceeded expectations by far.)

Captcha: upper hand

Aren't you the optimistic one, Captcha.

Fox has never understood how they could have made FF work. Stop rebooting. Stop retelling the same bloody origin story. Just take who they are as a given and jump headfirst into the full blown over the top cosmic awesome that FF is capable of. The FF are explorers. Yet we have never seen them as such on screen. It's not like their powers and origin need a lot to tell. The old Marvel books used to do it in two or three sentences at the top of every page 1. Toss them straight into the cosmic crazy against Anihilus or into the Microverse.

RossaLincoln:

A couple of things about this. First, It's not really a matter of Marvel just writing increasingly huge checks until Sony or Fox decides they like the amount.

Yes, but didn't the article you just write explain what I was getting at in my previous statement about Marvel likely not being willing to? You described them at tight-fisted, something I've seen them described as repeatedly. My issue with this then is the belief that they would continue to offer up increasing sums. Those movie franchises are likely to be bank, but enough to get them to start tossing large chunks around?

That's how Marvel got The Hulk and Daredevil back, and that's the only reason the new, shitty Amazing Spider-Man trilogy is even a thing.

Indeed, but we're kind of down to the money franchises. Even the ASM movies aren't exactly failing.

They got Punisher back too, right? Or am I remembering wrong?

Combine that with the huge success the MCU has had and you can see why they will do everything they can to hold onto them.

Well, yes, but in this instance I was talking about a crossover and how the largest point wouldn't be ownership of the franchises but who would get the largest heap of gold for their dragon to nest on. The most this would mean for Marvel is that they might give the guys with a death grip on their movie licenses some promotion, but at this point I'm not sure that would really hurt with either X-Men or Spider-Man. It might hurt with FF, admittedly.

I understand this is needlessly idealistic. I mean, it took something like fifteen years to get something like Freddy Vs Jason, and that was only two properties. But I used to think an Avengers movie with huge crossovers and established characters was, too, so I'll continue to hope against hope.

NO way would either of them go for it and risk diluting their brands. (not to mention having to split the profits in ways that would greatly reduce distributed profits.)

I doubt it would come down to brand dilution. I think it'd more likely come down to the control issue you mentioned. Fox/Sony would want more input than Marvel would be willing, or would be good for the overall effort. Well, as far as I'm concerned. I don't really even like the X-Men movies.

And, I mean, Marvel and DC worked together, as I believe both companies did with Image at various points. I'm not sure any brand was diluted by that. Now, there are other logistical issues that come up in movies, but you did compare the idea of a crossover to hamburgers, so I think we've probably left the realm of strictly movies.

Fourth, there is no guarantee that a Marvel/Sony or Marvel/Fox team up would work.

There's no guarantee any of these movies are going to work. There was no guarantee Avengers or Iron Man would work. I still wanted to see them. Had they sucked, it wouldn't make me un-want to see them. Well, okay, maybe if they threw in midichlorians.

...Okay, definitely if they threw in midichlorians.

Finally, C. Cain is totally right: Marvel not having Spider-Man, X-Men or Fantastic Four turned out to be a huge blessing.

I'm not convinced that Marvel would have ignored the rest of their roster for the bigger names. I'm also not particularly sure that they couldn't do both, then or now.

Also, I suspect the new Fantastic Four is going to flop big and maybe then, Fox will just let it die.

One can only hope. Even if Marvel did nothing with it, it'd probably be better than the movies Fox has put out. Unless they threw in midichlorians.

I mean, ideally, I would like Marvel to just get the rights backk. But barring that, this is mostly idle fan musing, with a bit of a rant about finance.

Zachary Amaranth:

I'm not convinced that Marvel would have ignored the rest of their roster for the bigger names. I'm also not particularly sure that they couldn't do both, then or now.

I don't think they are ignoring parts of their roster on purpose. Or in other words if they could make ALL the movies and get away with it, they'd probably do just that. As it stands, however, they are either incapable of making more films at the same time (i.e. they simply lack the capacity), or they came to the conclusion that they cannot sell more of them without veering off into diminishing returns territory (e.g. a strategy of releasing two $150 million superhero films per year with each making $300 million at the box office is more profitable than producing three $150 million superhero films per year with each making $200 million at the b.o.).

They'd have to prioritise at some point, just as they are prioritising now, and there's no denying that the X-Men and Spider-Man are (or were) Marvel's greatest assets. Does that mean we wouldn't see Iron Man or the Avengers? No, not necessarily. But chances are they would have been incorporated into the MCU like the Guardians: A single movie introducing us to the characters.

faefrost:

Fox has never understood how they could have made FF work. Stop rebooting. Stop retelling the same bloody origin story. Just take who they are as a given and jump headfirst into the full blown over the top cosmic awesome that FF is capable of. The FF are explorers. Yet we have never seen them as such on screen. It's not like their powers and origin need a lot to tell. The old Marvel books used to do it in two or three sentences at the top of every page 1. Toss them straight into the cosmic crazy against Anihilus or into the Microverse.

It's understandable that they tried to play it safe at first. They played it safe with the X-Men and that was a success, right? No one knew that the cosmic/fantastic stuff could draw mainstream audiences, so why gamble? Turns out they were wrong. Tough, but it seems they learned all the wrong lessons if the comments of the director and cast of the FF reboot are any indication. After the success of Thor and GotG there's just no excuse for making the FF even more mundane and "grim 'n gritty".

C. Cain:

faefrost:

Fox has never understood how they could have made FF work. Stop rebooting. Stop retelling the same bloody origin story. Just take who they are as a given and jump headfirst into the full blown over the top cosmic awesome that FF is capable of. The FF are explorers. Yet we have never seen them as such on screen. It's not like their powers and origin need a lot to tell. The old Marvel books used to do it in two or three sentences at the top of every page 1. Toss them straight into the cosmic crazy against Anihilus or into the Microverse.

It's understandable that they tried to play it safe at first. They played it safe with the X-Men and that was a success, right? No one knew that the cosmic/fantastic stuff could draw mainstream audiences, so why gamble? Turns out they were wrong. Tough, but it seems they learned all the wrong lessons if the comments of the director and cast of the FF reboot are any indication. After the success of Thor and GotG there's just no excuse for making the FF even more mundane and "grim 'n gritty".

Actually Fox got it right with the first X-Men movie. They didn't try and give an "origin" or "bring the team together" story. Instead they gave the audience a pair of POV characters and them threw them into the existing world and team. And it worked great. Marvel did a similar thing with their version of the Incredible Hulk. They tossed the Ang Lee one, but rather than redo it all, they simply took the Hulks origin as a given, let the viewer decide or debate if it was the Ang Lee movie or the old Bill Bixby TV show and just told a Hulk story. They assumed their audience was fairly intelligent and had absorbed some pop culture over the years. And it worked. (well that part of the movie worked.)

Granted this only works on characters that are pretty well known in the cultural zeitgeist. Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Captain America, Hulk, are probably the main ones. Maybe FF although they have slipped a bit in pop culture awareness. They had a total lost decade of drek in the 90's.

I think part of what made Guardians work so well, besides it was a Star Wars meets Firefly space action-er, was that the heroes and team were so relatively unknown to most that their coming together for once did not feel like an unnecessary retreaded origin story. And what origins they gave us they masked well inside the hit the ground running and never stop action.

I mean think about it, would any of us ever need to see another "with great power..." death of Uncle Ben Parker story ever again? Or a Ms and Pa Kent raising baby Superman? We surely know how Batman begins, we have no further need of retuning any such scenes. so start with an actual story from here on out. Man of Steel did not need all the crap that was in there. Heck you could have skipped Krypton entirely. Have Lois trying to track down the "samaritan" and find out his story. Spend the first half of the movie with that. And only then give a short synopsis before the aliens show up.

faefrost:
Actually Fox got it right with the first X-Men movie. They didn't try and give an "origin" or "bring the team together" story.

Indeed, they did. They still learned the wrong lessons for their rendition of the FF, though.

faefrost:
I mean think about it, would any of us ever need to see another "with great power..." death of Uncle Ben Parker story ever again? Or a Ms and Pa Kent raising baby Superman?

Well, MoS gave us the double whammy of having Pa Kent pull an Uncle Ben. He even upped the ante by being a terrible father figure whose death was entirely pointless and whose equivalent to the "with great power..." message was muddied, confused, and generally awful. Good thing we had sentient hologram actual dad Russell Crowe to make Pa Kent even more useless. The movie that needed an origin stroy the least also screwed it up the most. Way to go, MoS.

faefrost:
(...) Man of Steel did not need all the crap that was in there. Heck you could have skipped Krypton entirely. Have Lois trying to track down the "samaritan" and find out his story. Spend the first half of the movie with that. And only then give a short synopsis before the aliens show up.

You're right. Most of the movie was superfluous. On the whole it was a dissonant disaster.

As long as the first part is great and not just full of padding for the sake of splitting it, then im fine. Maybe the Avengers fail in beating Thanos and Hulk goes on a rampage and things look bad......and the Guardians appear at the end.

Maybe in Avengers 3 they could fit new heros in as cameos and maybe make a movie of them if fans like them?

 

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.