(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs549.ash1/32037_397837529050_641974050_4279691_449984_n.jpg)
Just took a quick five minutes and threw something together for those who couldn't see these guys together.
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n301/captmorgan72/Avengers.jpg)
Found this on another site, very cool don't you think?
Psh. Better.
i've seen a few other fan mock-up posters, but i have to say that the one capmorgan posted is easily the best and most realistic one yet.
also you should look for the posters with shots of sam and scarjo on them, very cool.
It seems that Edward Norton will not be returning as Bruce Banner for the Avengers movie.
As reported by Hitflix.com (http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/exclusive-marvel-confirms-they-will-hire-new-hulk-for-avengers):
Quote from: Marvel Studios President of Production Kevin Feige"We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in the Avengers. Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert, Chris H, Chris E, Sam, Scarlett, and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks."
I like Edward Norton so I'm disappointed he won't be back, but I'd rather lose him than Robert Downey Jr. or Samuel L. Jackson. It'll be interesting to see who gets the roll.
Man! I am REALLY disappointed to hear that. Norton was an unbelievably fantastic Bruce Banner. I still am really looking forward to the movie, but this certainly dampens my enthusiasm a bit.
Wow, interesting quote as to why they're not bringing back Norton - I mean, they're basically saying he doesn't play nice with others.
someone had to do this:
(http://www.crankycritic.com/archive98/posters/avengers.jpg)
Quote from: Talavar on July 11, 2010, 03:48:48 AM
Wow, interesting quote as to why they're not bringing back Norton - I mean, they're basically saying he doesn't play nice with others.
from what others have said, that maybe true, he demanded rewrites to hulk and wanted final cut of the film
Interesting. I've never known anything about Norton off screen. On screen, he's amongst my top ten. Amazing to hear that even a fantastic actor like him can be sacked based on his real character.
To be fair, "final cut" is a common request for famous actors. It basically means "i want to get sure you didn't distorted what i said with montage". I had an article about a guy who attack his filmmaker because he did his role "normally" and realise when the film got out that he had been changed into a comic relief via montage. That gotta sting.
Plus rewrites are the number one arguments between actors and authors. Nobody's ever happy with their lines.
Still, might beworth looking into, it'd be interesting if Norton is an ego-maniac off-screen, since he's used to play "modest" character. That's be a nice irony.
I don't have the quote on hand but Norton's agent obviously rejects Feige's reason. Rumor is it could be money that caused this decision.
I really dug Norton as Bruce Banner... he was spot-on perfect casting... too bad
The latest rumour is that Joaquin Phoenix will take his role... i'm not sure about that cause Joaquin is a big guy like Eric Bana... Norton.. you could tell he's a little powder keg or snapcase.
I dunno, Joaquin is the kind of actor who will adjust his physique for the role. Think about how weedy he was in Gladiator - I know it was a while back, but if he can get that same sort of awkwardness again, you're in for a pretty decent Banner.
I'd be happy with Joaquin Phoenix myself.
Quote from: Podmark on July 12, 2010, 08:39:03 AM
I don't have the quote on hand but Norton's agent obviously rejects Feige's reason. Rumor is it could be money that caused this decision.
Here's the quote from Ed Norton's agent:
QuoteThis offensive statement from Kevin Feige at Marvel is a purposefully misleading, inappropriate attempt to paint our client in a negative light. Here are the facts: two months ago, Kevin called me and said he wanted Edward to reprise the role of Bruce Banner in The Avengers. He told me it would be his fantasy to bring Edward on stage with the rest of the cast at ComiCon and make it the event of the convention. When I said that Edward was definitely open to this idea, Kevin was very excited and we agreed that Edward should meet with Joss Whedon to discuss the project. Edward and Joss had a very good meeting (confirmed by Feige to me) at which Edward said he was enthusiastic at the prospect of being a part of the ensemble cast. Marvel subsequently made him a financial offer to be in the film and both sides started negotiating in good faith. This past Wednesday, after several weeks of civil, uncontentious discussions, but before we had come to terms on a deal, a representative from Marvel called to say they had decided to go in another direction with the part. This seemed to us to be a financial decision but, whatever the case, it is completely their prerogative, and we accepted their decision with no hard feelings.
We know a lot of fans have voiced their public disappointment with this result, but this is no excuse for Feige's mean spirited, accusatory comments. Counter to what Kevin implies here, Edward was looking forward to the opportunity to work with Joss and the other actors in the Avengers cast, many of whom are personal friends of his. Feige's statement is unprofessional, disingenuous and clearly defamatory. Mr. Norton talent, tireless work ethic and professional integrity deserve more respect, and so do Marvel's fans.
I'll say this much... it looks like any bridge that might bring back Norton has been smashed, burned, and blown sky high. So folks who'd like to lobby for a reversal might as well get over it.
Of all the characters, the Hulk has to appear in CGI every minute he isn't Banner. So whoever plays Banner isn't going to get any superheroic face-time. Not knowing the storyline, there's no way to tell how much the actor was really going to be able to interact with the other leads.
I have no idea who would be the best actor for the part, besides Norton. He's got to look the part. He's got to be able to play a really smart guy who's been living on the run for a long time, and he's got to be able to make you believe that he's struggling to keep his emotions in check without coming across as distant.
As long as they don't pick Tobey McGuire, I'll probably be happy with whoever they choose. Marvel is not going to send Avengers down in flames by picking a horrible actor for the part. I wouldn't be surprised if they already had someone in mind to replace Norton.
The real issue will be who the main villain will be.
I'm thinking Kang or the Masters of Evil. It has to be a group effort for the Avengers to shine. Going against hordes of robots and Kang would do the trick. Masters of Evil would allow them to go toe to toe with a counterpart as well.
Am I the only one concerned about whether or not Marvel can pull this off? Isn't it a well documented fact that there is an inverse proportion between number of super-powered beings on camera and quality of character development, screenwriting and editing? Of the actors mentioned in connection with this film, only Robert Downey, Jr. and (if we accept the rumours), arguably, Joachin Phoenix have proven their mettle in ensemble casts. (If Ms. Johansson reprises her role as the Black Widow, I would add her to this list as well.) Say what you will, in my estimation, Samuel L. Jackson has become something of an immediate parody of himself by essentially playing the same role under different names for years, and that role always demands significant attention from the audience (not to mention the rest of the cast) that seems to run contrary to the idea of an "ensemble cast." We have yet to see Mr. Evans and Mr. Hemsworth in their respective superhero roles (at least for this go round as Capt. America for Evans), so 'twould be unfair to subject them to intense skepticism until after their upcoming films have been released.
Perhaps it is fairer to say that The Avengers will not necessarily offer a truly ensemble piece; however, changing the terms used to describe the film does not speak to the question of whether or not Whedon, Penn, et al. can strike the right balance between characterisation (which will need to be revisited, at least in part, to help the audience come to terms with the new team dynamic), pace, special effects and action sequences, and some demonstrable commitment (however weak that may be) to continuity (at least to the continuity established by the satellite films, if I may coin that phrase, in orbit about this much anticipated film, if not to the comic books themselves).
There, I said(/wrote) it. Tar and feather me for being an early skeptic. :P
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Whirled Braker
Joaquin Phoenix, for those who haven't been keeping up with him, has gone completely insane. He's supposedly quit acting a few years back to focus solely on rapping. Either way, I doubt this is true, why would anyone ever want to work with him after that?
Of course I'm concerned the movie MIGHT not be good, but I really don't have any reason to think that. People always take the smallest trends and say they're rules or something. Just because Spider-Man 3 didn't handle having three villains very well doesn't give me any reason to assume The Avengers isn't going to work with four super-heroes.
Quote from: BWPS on July 12, 2010, 07:41:58 PM
Joaquin Phoenix, for those who haven't been keeping up with him, has gone completely insane. He's supposedly quit acting a few years back to focus solely on rapping. Either way, I doubt this is true, why would anyone ever want to work with him after that?
Of course I'm concerned the movie MIGHT not be good, but I really don't have any reason to think that. People always take the smallest trends and say they're rules or something. Just because Spider-Man 3 didn't handle having three villains very well doesn't give me any reason to assume The Avengers isn't going to work with four super-heroes.
Avengers MAY work with four superheroes because their backstories will have already been dealt with in previous movies. They don't have to rush or skimp on all of that detail.
Spider-Man 3 didn't work very well with three villains for the same reason that certain other superhero movies have not worked well -- too many plot lines in too little time. The origin for Venom was especially complex and they simply could not do it justice while sharing screen time with other villains. And they didn't do it justice, did they? They had to change it and rush it and rationalize how it fit in with the others.
Most of the time movies have had to introduce characters in some detail in order to establish who the person is, how they fit into the plot, and what their motivations are. In the case of super villains, it is also usually necessary to explain how they got their abilities. By the time you've done so for two or three major supervillains, that's a lot of screen time that can't be used for something else. Screen time can be flexible, but a 3 1/2 - 4 hour Avengers movie would be a hard sell.
If anything happens to trip up Avengers, it will be the complexity of tying all of these superhero characters together while also introducing one or more villains and the plot that goes with that villain/villains.
I think part of that has already been solved, keeping in mind the end credit clip from The Incredible Hulk where Stark introduces himself to General Ross. The Hulk can theoretically provide the motivation to bring together Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor. I have a suspicion that the Avengers villain(s) will be foreshadowed in either the Captain America movie or in the Thor movie.
They should really only go with one primary villain, be that Loki or the Red Skull or Zemo or Kang or even Hulk. If that villain has a few minions they that will probably work as well. Too many full fledged villains will be tough to do justice - unless they're pulling them from the solo movies, like reusing the Red Skull.
Quote from: BWPS on July 12, 2010, 07:41:58 PM
Joaquin Phoenix, for those who haven't been keeping up with him, has gone completely insane. He's supposedly quit acting a few years back to focus solely on rapping. Either way, I doubt this is true, why would anyone ever want to work with him after that?
Of course I'm concerned the movie MIGHT not be good, but I really don't have any reason to think that. People always take the smallest trends and say they're rules or something. Just because Spider-Man 3 didn't handle having three villains very well doesn't give me any reason to assume The Avengers isn't going to work with four super-heroes.
It's pretty certain Joaquin Phoenix's craziness was staged for a mockumentary he filmed with Casey Affleck, which is currently being shopped around to distributors.
I thought they said the villain of the first Avengers movie was going to be the Hulk himself. Is that not true anymore?
Quote from: TheMarvell on July 13, 2010, 03:32:48 AM
I thought they said the villain of the first Avengers movie was going to be the Hulk himself. Is that not true anymore?
I don't think they've ever made such a definitive statement. Is the script even written yet?
I'm kinda expecting that a villain (probably Loki) will turn the team against the Hulk for most of the film.
Quote from: Podmark on July 13, 2010, 03:39:39 AM
Quote from: TheMarvell on July 13, 2010, 03:32:48 AM
I thought they said the villain of the first Avengers movie was going to be the Hulk himself. Is that not true anymore?
I don't think they've ever made such a definitive statement. Is the script even written yet?
I'm kinda expecting that a villain (probably Loki) will turn the team against the Hulk for most of the film.
That's actually what I've been thinking in vague terms. I would be perfectly happy with that, but I'd also be thrilled with Kang....or....pretty much anything from the first 20 years of the Avengers. I am mildly sad that it doesn't seem like Ant-Man is actually going to make it into the flick, but I can live with it. I do think it would be awesome to see this brought to life:
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o1/CocaC0la99/GiantManMarvelspanel.jpg
I don't know what to think about the Norton thing...I suppose I hope they just keep Hulk as Hulk for most of the movie, because it's going to be hard seeing anyone else in that role. What I REALLY hate about this is that Marvel has pretty much shot themselves in the foot in terms of ever getting him to reprise the role for Hulk sequels....I really,
REALLY wanted to see Hulk II with the Leader that they set up at the end of the first one.
I see absolutely no reason that the flick can't work. If a movie like
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen can work moderately well, then there is no reason at all that an Avengers film can't be great if they get a good director and script.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 13, 2010, 05:18:07 AM
I see absolutely no reason that the flick can't work. If a movie like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen can work moderately well, then there is no reason at all that an Avengers film can't be great if they get a good director and script.
Um wasn't that movie considered terrible? It's got a 17% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Regardless, I agree Avengers can be good. And I think that making sure it's good is a huge priority for Marvel Studios, and have they let us down yet?
Quote from: Podmark on July 13, 2010, 05:29:10 AM
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 13, 2010, 05:18:07 AM
I see absolutely no reason that the flick can't work. If a movie like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen can work moderately well, then there is no reason at all that an Avengers film can't be great if they get a good director and script.
Um wasn't that movie considered terrible? It's got a 17% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Regardless, I agree Avengers can be good. And I think that making sure it's good is a huge priority for Marvel Studios, and have they let us down yet?
*shrug* I found it a thoroughly enjoyable adventure flick, even if it was a lobotomized version of the source material. It put together an ensemble cast with little to know prefacing, and gave them an understandable group dynamic and an understandable enemy.
But yes, as I've said many times before, Marvel has earned some good faith on my part.
Ok i'm gonna be the bad guy here ^^
Since the idea of an Avenger movie was announced, i've always though "this will never work. it's too ridiculous"
The reason some superhero movie work very well is because they are movies first, and superhero flick second.
Spiderman was great because we get to see him outiside of the costume living his normal life. Ironman was brilliant because the main plot is Tony's ego and lifestyle.
Hulk only works as an action film, even though Norton did justice too Banner, 90% of the crowd (the non-comic crowd) didn't care about the human, they wanted to see him become hulk and smash thing.
My point his: Avenger might work for comic-fan (or to be more specific marvel-fan, because i consider myself a comic-fan and i already know i won't go see that movie) but the general crowd will NEVER follow. Unless you make it a general action flick, in that case you could just as well call it The A team, The Expendable or The Losers.
I'll take an other axample close to me: my girlfriend,comic-sceptic to the root. I tricked her with V for Vendetta (telling her this was a comic-book movie AFTER seeing it), i had to litterally beg for her to go see Dark Knight ("oh common! i made a costume! you have to take pictures!").
This were the big movies that convinced her that comic book movie could look like something else than X-Men or Fantastic Four.
Ironman was a great victory, since i went to see it alone first, and then drag her in be cause i knew she HAD to see this one to get her to accept comics-movies as movies in their own right.
But now Marvel crosses the line. I'll never be able to convince her to go see a green giant smashing stuff, a walking and talking Flag full of trope
Spoiler
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AmericaWinsTheWar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AmericaWinsTheWar) http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WearingAFlagOnYourHead (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WearingAFlagOnYourHead) http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CaptainGeographic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CaptainGeographic) http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CaptainPatriotic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CaptainPatriotic)
or an inexplicable actual freaking god walking among men.
It asks for too much. Thor? The real mythological Thor, god of thunder, speaking with ironman? Why don't we have Jesus teaming up with superman then? I don't see his solo movie working, putting him in a team won't change a thing. They can try to do a "clash of the titan" approach, but as soon as you want to put him in the "real" world, it won't work. It's just too weird to have a true deity walking in modern day new york.
And captain america. Captain overly-patriotic. Captain imperialism. Captain jingoist. Captain "this A doesn't stand for france". Trying to export this movie outside of the US is a really strange decision, to say the least. Unless you make him the comic relief? He could behave as a cliché from the 40s, constantly having to explain to him "how the world works now", and that would become tiresome (it would explain the casting though)
This two, i'll never be able to sell to the non-marvel fan. Don't flame me, i still read the Avenger comic book, i don't hate Thor or Captain America, but you have to realise that you can't tell a serious story with those guys.
The only salvation is the generic action flick route, and let's hope marvel don't suffer from "i haven't seen/didn't liked that guy's movie, i won't go see the team version". I hope they realise who their strong suit are...or "is", really, just show a lot of ironman in the trailer and everyone who liked the first two movies will come see the avengers as if it was a sequel.
By the way, one friend from my school worked last week on the special effect of thor (he did the 3d hammer for the cgi-stunt double). He says the environnment/decor and effects look amazing, but the costume/character still look very..."kitsch"
So in other words, you hate comic books? Because you're attacking all the typical comic book elements here.
And if you hate patriotism towards my country, you can keep it to yourself, thank you very much.
I've been doubting the Avengers movie ever since it was announced. Thor is especially hard to swallow, comic book fan or not. A regular person getting super powers, is believable in it's own way. A deity walking among men who came from another realm called Asgard is in a completely different ballpark. Combine them both and I'm guessing it's something the general audience won't quite understand. And what if Thor or Captain America ends up being terrible? How will that affect the Avengers movie?
but if there's one thing I really dislike about all the gearing up for this film, is that Marvel seems to be quickly forgetting that they're making other movies besides Avengers. A good portion of Iron Man 2 was an ad for future Marvel films (Avengers & Thor) and I have a feeling much of Cpt America and Thor will be the same. Focus on the movie you're making now, while throwing in a couple of easter eggs (like Iron Man 1).
I'm cautiously optimistic about this, since I think Marvel is taking most of the right steps. But I can't help but feel skeptical all the same.
Quote from: Trelau on July 13, 2010, 09:24:20 AM
And captain america. Captain overly-patriotic. Captain imperialism. Captain jingoist. Captain "this A doesn't stand for france". Trying to export this movie outside of the US is a really strange decision, to say the least. Unless you make him the comic relief? He could behave as a cliché from the 40s, constantly having to explain to him "how the world works now", and that would become tiresome (it would explain the casting though)
How 'bout "Captain-I'm-the-reason-the-rest-of-you-aren't-speaking-German?"
Seriously, I think you vastly overstate your case. As I've said before, at this point in time the movie going public isn't as wrapped up in "realistic" as they were before superhero movies made it big a few years ago. They accept the fact that these are comic book characters, and they've figured out that there is something cool there. As for Thor, it all comes down to his movie, and I have faith in Branagh. If anyone can make Thor work, it is him. The concept may seem silly at first blush, but it is hardly as if it is that much harder to believe than the idea that gamma radiation could turn someone into an angry green giant. Audiences loved the Hulk, and I wouldn't be surprised if people love Thor. I know I'm excited about it!
When people use generic words like "general movie goer," they really need to clarify what they're using to assume who a general movie goer is and what that person is willing to accept. That's not explaining anything. It's just a catch-all word used to try and expound on why a clump of people may or may not like something. An unspecified clump of people with different backgrounds, interests, and reasons for whether or not they favor something. In cases like this, be more specific.
I always feel like when comments about the "general" movie goer pop up, it tries to make a "general" person seem dumbed down or not accepting of what happens in so-and-so movie. As if they can't understand elements of fiction that are thrown their way even if it has significant build up. The reason Marvel split the Avengers up over several movies was to allow for "general" recognition and "general" allowance in suspension of belief. Beyond this point though, other sci-fi and high fantasy films certainly don't have much trouble getting accepted by the "general" audience despite what they may or may not include. Superhero fantasy already has a "general" degree of suspension baked into it just like every other fantasy film or story. It all depends on the "general" presentation. Did "Avatar" suffer because it had blue people, dragons, and a world and religion it set up? I think the "general" audience was fine with all the fantasy going on there and didn't even question the majority of the stuff presented to them. I don't believe the "general" audience expects too much realism in their comic flicks as long as it's not cheesy and full of holes.
Suffice it to say, depending on how Thor is displayed to the audience, I don't think he's a harder sell than any other hardcore sci-fi or fantasy movie that did significantly well. The same thing holds true to the Avengers movie, imo. Get a strong enough script, a villain that isn't too kooky, inane, or stuck in his or her time, and some decent acting and directing, and I think we'll be fine. I'm surprised Marvel is willing to take the risk because if it succeeds, who knows what might come afterward. If it fails, however....
Well said, Prev. To clarify, by general audience I meant non-comic fans. I agree wholeheartedly, and that is precisely the point I was trying to make. It's a movie, and it is fiction. People realize that, and it is a very different thing to walk into a film that tells you "in this world there are gamma-irradiated monsters and Norse gods," than it is to walk into one which looks just like the real world until something that doesn't fit randomly shows up. People love stories with fantastical elements, and they have been willing to "make believe" since Homer started talking about Cyclopses and Harpies. A movie doesn't have to exactly resemble the real world, it just has to create its own that is believable within the constraints of its fiction.
pretty sure when someone uses the term "general movie audience" they're basically saying those who go to movies but aren't hardcore comic readers. That being said, Thor's a harder sell because he's more fantasy than superhero, and it's more or less blending two genres, which imo, would be harder for a "general movie audience" to swallow. Avatar created its own world, but you didn't see Spider-Man swinging through the trees of Pandora, right?
When
someone says "general movie goer" it can mean a variety of things. It doesn't just apply to comic fans because it's used outside of comics and way too often to carry any real weight. As I said before, when people use that word, they should take steps to make sure the specificity of their usage is in play. I could take that term and apply it to any array of variables that I, personally, would like and could come to a completely different conclusion than the one you (generic) were trying to make.
As for blending of genres, I dunno. When I see stuff like that, then I think back to what people initially thought about "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," and similar movies of that nature that successfully blended several genre conventions and hit it big.
Quote from: TheMarvell on July 13, 2010, 04:05:14 PM
Avatar created its own world, but you didn't see Spider-Man swinging through the trees of Pandora, right?
I'm not sure of the point you're trying to get across here. The fact that
Avatar created its own world speaks more to my point that it had more "absurd" elements in it that a "general" movie goer wouldn't apparently accept. I don't see the congruence. I wouldn't expect to see Spidey because he's not part of that world, not because of his superhero fantasy nature. That juxtaposition is... weird, Marvell. :P
eh, I see what you're saying, I just think it's fairly self explanatory. "General movie goer" = someone without any knowledge of the material they're about to view.
My comparison of Spidey being on Pandora was just to point out the blending of two genres. It's easy to believe an alien world with it's own civilization. But throw in a superhero into the mix and suspension of disbelief starts to dwindle.
People who don't like any superheroes at all and who are in utter disbelief seeing them on screen are more like the minority. I don't think Marvel is particularly worried about the Nicholas Sparks movie moron-girl crowd everyone wants to use as the example. Millions of people saw the Iron Man and Hulk movies, they're DYING to see a team movie and they know Captain America and Thor are going to be in it and they know who they are now and will know more later. I honestly don't know anyone under the age of 65 who doesn't love superhero movies except my mom who I guess is a Jane Austen movie moron-lady. This General Moviegoer person you're worried about barely exists and the rest of the people have plenty of money.
Quote from: BWPS on July 13, 2010, 05:15:01 PM
People who don't like any superheroes at all and who are in utter disbelief seeing them on screen are more like the minority. I don't think Marvel is particularly worried about the Nicholas Sparks movie moron-girl crowd everyone wants to use as the example. Millions of people saw the Iron Man and Hulk movies, they're DYING to see a team movie and they know Captain America and Thor are going to be in it and they know who they are now and will know more later. I honestly don't know anyone under the age of 65 who doesn't love superhero movies except my mom who I guess is a Jane Austen movie moron-lady. This General Moviegoer person you're worried about barely exists and the rest of the people have plenty of money.
Yeah, even my wife, very much NOT a superhero fan, loves these Marvel movies, and my Mom, who is usually only interested in the sappiest of the sappy really loves them as well. I can't stress just how much that latter example says about the significance that last one has in terms of "general" appeal. ;)
If the movie is good I could easily see Captain America being a huge hit. He's already a decent comic icon, probably bigger than Iron Man was prior to his first movie.
Thor will be a tougher sell. As a comic character he's probably one of the least known characters to appear in a comic movie. And he is a bit of a genre blend depending on how much they use Asgard. I fully expect that it will have the lowest profit of the Avengers movies, but that's not too important. What is important is that the movie be good and that it fits well with the other Avengers movies.
Marvel Studios has done great so far and I think they're serious about putting out successful movies especially with a potential mega-blockbuster in Avengers hanging in the balance.
Quote from: BWPS on July 13, 2010, 05:15:01 PM
People who don't like any superheroes at all and who are in utter disbelief seeing them on screen are more like the minority. I don't think Marvel is particularly worried about the Nicholas Sparks movie moron-girl crowd everyone wants to use as the example. Millions of people saw the Iron Man and Hulk movies, they're DYING to see a team movie and they know Captain America and Thor are going to be in it and they know who they are now and will know more later. I honestly don't know anyone under the age of 65 who doesn't love superhero movies except my mom who I guess is a Jane Austen movie moron-lady. This General Moviegoer person you're worried about barely exists and the rest of the people have plenty of money.
Lot's of people love superhero movies, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that Thor is a harder concept to swallow, especially to those who aren't familiar with superheroes beyond the movies. Just about every other hero is rooted in our reality; some regular guy affected by science somehow (taking a serum, bitten by a radioactive spider, bombarded by gamma rays etc). Thor is the god of thunder who is sent here from Asgard. He's completely different in this way, and I have my doubts that a "general movie audience" will have an easy time suspending their disbelief. Not saying it isn't possible, just rather difficult to pull off.
But you left out the various Superman and Superwoman/girl movies! And what about the cult classic... the Toxic Avenger?! Hellboy. The Crow. All those have elements that immediately challenge the average viewer to suspend their beliefs and to accept what's being presented to them. They've all succeeded in various forms. In fact, there's a bunch of "comic" movies out that people love and don't even tie into the typical comic conventions, so, again, I say it all comes down to presentation and NOT an issue with suspending belief. There's some weird, wacky movies out there that far outrank Thor in genre mixing, the suspension of belief, and the majority of those movies did well (pinpointing an audience, making it mainstream acceptable, and not dumbing down the plot and its elements helped a lot with that). I guess I'd have a harder time taking Godzilla seriously (if it was created today... by anyone outside of Japan) than I would Thor and his mythological heroisms. In fact, Thor should have a slightly easier time since "Clash of the Titans" came out and the fact that early Thor isn't immensely tied into all the various mythological stories that the later stories are.
I guess I don't get this stigma that "superhero stories" are instantly much harder to sell and promote than any other just because of the ideas and elements that make them up. Outside of superhuman people and some cheesy/wild ideas, it's not that much different than any other genre that have similar, if not the same, principles.
I am not a Thor fan and have my own personal/religious reasons for being uncomfortable with the character. But if people are trying to use Thor or Captain America as a convenient excuse for why Avengers can't work as a movie, they are simply putting out a straw man.
Does Thor not work in the comic-book version of The Mighty Avengers? He seemed to do pretty darn well for many years. And they're putting him back in there. Doesn't sound to me like the character doesn't work.
Ditto for Captain America. Sure the globalization elitists and the USA-haters won't like it, but that doesn't mean that most people can't appreciate what the character stands for. A lot of us in the US wish our country still appreciated that ideal. But to argue that the character is not relevant and he's going to drive out movie-goers?
On the contrary. The superhero movies that did not work were the ones that thought they had to change the characters to make them relevant, or understandable, or to fit the story the screenwriter WANTED to tell instead of telling a story that was actually about the character.
So if this is going to be an Avengers movie, let it be about the Avengers. If the movie respects the characters and tells a story that fits, it will work.
Quote from: Podmark on July 13, 2010, 05:29:10 AM
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 13, 2010, 05:18:07 AM
I see absolutely no reason that the flick can't work. If a movie like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen can work moderately well, then there is no reason at all that an Avengers film can't be great if they get a good director and script.
Um wasn't that movie considered terrible? It's got a 17% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Regardless, I agree Avengers can be good. And I think that making sure it's good is a huge priority for Marvel Studios, and have they let us down yet?
I thought it was quite good. I enjoyed it quite a lot myself. I thought they did a good job of quickly summarizing the characters and I enjoyed their interactions. The action was good. I admit it would have been better if the suits hadn't decided it somehow evoked 911 and made a rewrite happen but it was still lots of fun.
Quote from: steamteck on July 13, 2010, 09:09:41 PM
I thought it was quite good. I enjoyed it quite a lot myself. I thought they did a good job of quickly summarizing the characters and I enjoyed their interactions. The action was good. I admit it would have been better if the suits hadn't decided it somehow evoked 911 and made a rewrite happen but it was still lots of fun.
Yeah I saw it once years ago I remember thinking it was ok. My comment was more about how it was received in general and that because of that it wasn't the best target for Avengers to follow.
Oi... I wish the 3d craze would stop. Both Thor and Captain America will have 3d releases. Get those glasses ready!
Quote from: http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/07/14/new-thor-image-captain-america-thor-3d-release/Back in May, Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige revealed that "The First Avenger: Captain America" was under consideration to be filmed in 3-D. Earlier today, Marvel not only confirmed the 3-D release of "Captain America," but also a 3-D version of "Thor" as well.
"We came to feel that in our case 3-D could be the very good friend of story and character for a different kind of experience," said "Thor" director Kenneth Branagh during an interview with The Los Angeles Times. "It's another draft of the story that can reveal itself in a different way."
Also... new Thor pic:
(http://splashpage.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/thor.jpg)
To which I say, meh. A very cold, but loud, MEH!
Wait, does this mean we will be forced to watch in 3D, or will these be released in 2D as well?
(btw, I agree that Thor pic does not fill me with enthusiasm...)
LOL! Is Odin daydreaming? And what's up with that tinfoil eye-patch?
I'm sure they'll be released in 2D as well; everything else has been.
I want to like this movie, but those costumes look so plasticky....
Quote from: Previsionary on July 13, 2010, 06:29:51 PM
But you left out the various Superman and Superwoman/girl movies! And what about the cult classic... the Toxic Avenger?! Hellboy. The Crow. All those have elements that immediately challenge the average viewer to suspend their beliefs and to accept what's being presented to them. They've all succeeded in various forms. In fact, there's a bunch of "comic" movies out that people love and don't even tie into the typical comic conventions, so, again, I say it all comes down to presentation and NOT an issue with suspending belief. There's some weird, wacky movies out there that far outrank Thor in genre mixing, the suspension of belief, and the majority of those movies did well (pinpointing an audience, making it mainstream acceptable, and not dumbing down the plot and its elements helped a lot with that). I guess I'd have a harder time taking Godzilla seriously (if it was created today... by anyone outside of Japan) than I would Thor and his mythological heroisms. In fact, Thor should have a slightly easier time since "Clash of the Titans" came out and the fact that early Thor isn't immensely tied into all the various mythological stories that the later stories are.
I guess I don't get this stigma that "superhero stories" are instantly much harder to sell and promote than any other just because of the ideas and elements that make them up. Outside of superhuman people and some cheesy/wild ideas, it's not that much different than any other genre that have similar, if not the same, principles.
I don't know if this will make my thoughts on the subject any clearer, but what I'm seeing here in your post (and others similar) is that since superheroes are fantasy by default and have been well accepted, then logic states that anything fantastical in said superhero fantasy should and will also be accepted. This reminds me of a conversation I had with my wife about the Indiana Jones movies, specifically the original trilogy vs Crystal Skulls.
Spoilers for Indiana Jones:
Spoiler
From my point of view, Indiana Jones discovering aliens, surviving nukes via fridge, and swinging on vines with a legion of monkeys faster than cars going full speed, are simply just too ridiculous and don't belong in Indiana Jones. The previous movies set up certain rules that blend our own reality with that of fantasy in an acceptable manner, but that doesn't mean anything fantasy-related belongs. Now, from her point of view, since Indiana Jones was never realistic, anything goes. Sure, aliens, nuking the fridge, and the monkey swarm scene are all unrealistic, but so is getting your face melted off by spirits, getting your heart ripped out by a shaman, and finding the holy grail knight still magically alive and kicking. But it isn't about realism. It's about the rules and groundwork already established by the fantasy world that's been created.
To further illustrate my point, I pointed out to her that a flying saucer and harry potter are both fantasy as well, but that doesn't mean they belong together. Quite the contrary. This is also why I originally pointed out that Spider-Man doesn't belong on Pandora. It's silly, even though it's all fantasy.
Connecting all of this to Thor? Well, Thor is perfectly acceptable in his own movie and universe. It's when you merge the two types of fantasies together that can get tricky. And that's all I'm saying. You might not agree with it, but I hope you at least understand what I'm saying.
and that picture...a meh from me as well. It's that eyepatch. Can't they just give him a regular one with the string attached? Maaaaybe this is pre-special effects and they'll make it some glowing eye or something. Maybe...
I understood your point. You're pushing my point into an extreme though. Superheroes are a branch of fantasy. That's how they're classified if you ever feel the need to explore how it's categorized when it comes to books and movies. Superhero fantasy... official term.
I didn't, however, state that all fantastical things are accepted just because of their nature. I did state that it's all in presentation (which you just proved :P). I don't think complaining about Thor and Capt at this stage is a good idea when we don't know how they're blending it all together or what they may trim down or lessen in the actual Avengers movie. It's very possible, just like in the comics, they'll find a middle ground for all these characters and NOT focus on their individual and "worldly" quirks.
Right, the Thor movie will bring him to Earth, and we'll probably see the process of merging him with the other Marvel settings begin then. Honestly, with good writing, acting, and directing, there is no reason that they won't manage to merge these guys together well.
Also, while I'm not crazy about that image of Odin, I don't find it that terrible. That's actually how his eye-patch is often portrayed in the comics (in terms of lacking strings and stuff, not in terms of being "metal"). While I don't find the armor a look that I really love (I really don't know why a more Kirby-ish design couldn't have worked as well as that), it DOES have some Kirby-ish elements in the intricacy of the pattern on the chest piece. I will say that Loki skulking in the background there just looks perfect for the part. I miss the recognizable costume, but he just LOOKS like Loki in face and demeanor. However, this is yet another picture that has Thor bareheaded. I had assumed the first one just had him without the helmet...but I'm beginning to wonder. As a matter of fact, none of them are wearing customary head-gear. Why is this movie afraid of hats?
Captain America works just fine in the Avengers I think - he's the quintessential superhero, and even if strong American patriotism doesn't sell particularly well overseas* the character has a strong following, is generally well-known by non-comic readers, and works in the same paradigm as Iron Man and the Hulk (ie. super powers through advanced super science). That science may not be very realistic, but it's a common thread.
The issue with Thor is that he's magic. If Thor were to show up in Hellboy or Harry Potter, where the whole setting is based on magic/the supernatural, he works more easily. A pagan god can jump right in next to a wizard or demon and not feel out of place. Putting him in a line-up with three other guys all based on super-science is a much harder sell - not impossible, mind you, but harder. The Ultimate version of Thor toyed with this idea - was he a crazy guy with more high technology or actually a Norse god? (The resolution to this idea stole much of my enjoyment of Ultimates 2 - I liked that tension), but I'm quite certain they're not going that route.
*For this reason, the Captain America film is rumoured to have a strong international presence in the Invaders, and I'm certain he'll be more mainstream Marvel Cap patriotic than Ultimate Cap patriotic - polite, well-spoken, and somewhat bland.
Quote from: Talavar on July 15, 2010, 01:32:28 AM
For this reason, the Captain America film is rumoured to have a strong international presence in the Invaders
Where have you gotten that info from?
It would be interesting if Namor made an appearance. And delightfully ironic if the original Human Torch was included. Seems unlikely, but intriguing. I don't see how the composition of that team really constitutes an 'international' presence, though, unless they change it from the comics version.
(Adding British members to the team doesn't add much of an international flavor and aside from Namor coming from Atlantis I'm not sure how many of the other characters were not American. Still, if it makes the movie 'acceptable' internationally, who am I to naysay it?)
As to Thor, my last word on the subject is that I believe he will be accepted. They don't have to play up the 'Thunder-God' aspect too much in the Avengers movie and I figure a large part of the Thor movie will be making him more 'human'. In a day and age where movie-goers are used to seeing supernatural themes, it's not going to be a huge stretch. When all is said and done, Thor will be simply another superhero in a strange costume. That's certainly how I'm going to look at it.
they'll accept him, they'll just think he's crazy. they'll acknowledge his power but when he says he's a god they'll just look at each other and say "so your THE thor huh? riiiight! whatever you say dude!" tony wont believe in magic.
BB, the presence of the Invaders has been confirmed by....the director, I think. There was an article on Superherohype, I believe, that had some quotes indicating that the second half of the film will have the Invaders running around being awesome. I have to say, that is quite alright with me.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 15, 2010, 05:04:32 PM
There was an article on Superherohype, I believe, that had some quotes indicating that the second half of the film will have the Invaders running around being awesome.
See this site (http://chud.com/articles/articles/22433/1/CAPTAIN-AMERICA039S-INTERNATIONAL-CO-STARS-THE-INVADERS/Page1.html).
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Whirled Braker
Do you think that Marvel is doing too much too fast? It seems like they want to throw a lot of Heroes & Villains at us, but don't a decent story to tell.
there's now a rumor that Mark Ruffalo will replace Ed Norton as the Hulk.
Quote from: TheMarvell on July 15, 2010, 10:19:41 PM
there's now a rumor that Mark Ruffalo will replace Ed Norton as the Hulk.
I can't really see him as Banner. Oh well.
Who are The Invaders going to be? The movie seems very much cast but where are they? I wish they confirm something about them. Supposedly they're prominent in the second half of the movie. I get a little worried and I really wish I could read a script.
Obviously Captain America and Bucky are in The Invaders, but...
Namor? This seems the most obvious Invader. He's such an awesome character, you'd think his role would be a big deal and if he were in the script they'd say so. I don't think he's in it.
The Human Torch (who is a robot)? :blink: As stupid as it is to be confused that an actor is playing two Marvel superheroes, putting The Human Torch in would be awesome but not something I think they'd do. Seeing him in comics for the first time made me go look up who he was which I think is awesome and makes me appreciate the Marvel universe having a history. But still, after Cap used to be Human Torch, having another Human Torch would be something they'd worry about alienating General Moviegoer. They could totally put him in and not give him the codename, but still, no mention of the character AT ALL in the movie seems like he isn't in it.
Union Jack, Jr., Spitfire, Toro, etc.? They could fit quite well but it's still weird that they don't mention them.
At this point I think they'd mention if there were other superheroes prominently featured in the second half of the movie. I think they'll just be soldiers.
Namor won't be part of the Invaders - he was apparently part of the Fantastic Four character rights, which Fox still controls. Doubt we'll see android Human Torch either, for a similar reason.
Spitfire and Union Jack, I would expect to see them, and maybe some other Marvel heroes rebranded to be from other countries.
Without Namor, I'm MUCH less interested in seeing the Invaders. I would like to see the original Union Jack, though. He's cool.
New picture from the Thor movie
http://www.sfx.co.uk/2010/07/19/yet-another-thor-pic/
Hey, look, Odin has a helmet. ^_^ Hmm....I don't know...it looks okay. I like that they've got Hugninn and Muninn in there.
Every pic I see of Thor...he has no winged helmet...and with every pic I see...my expectations for this film gets lower and lower. :(
At this point I'm ready to say there will be no helmet.
I can understand if the classic helmet might not have looked too good in real life but they could have easily modified it so it would work. Maybe they're going Ultimate style? But if you're going to go Ultimate you gotta go all Ultimate, you can't go half and half like this.
What I'm hoping is that, at the very least, he wears it during battle. We have yet to see any action shots...so there is still a chance.
If they went with Ultimate Thor...I would have burned down Hollywood.
Did you guys spot the horned helm off to the left of the pic. If they can get THAT into the movie, I wouldn't doubt Thor will eventually adorn his head with his own helm. The thing is probably a bit too heavy to be wearing throughout the whole film....
QuoteNamor won't be part of the Invaders - he was apparently part of the Fantastic Four character rights, which Fox still controls. Doubt we'll see android Human Torch either, for a similar reason.
They've clarified earlier that only the Johnny Torch was given to the Fantastic 4, they retain the rights to the android Torch. It's also possible that they've retained the gold age Namor as well, but I find that doubtful at best.
If you look at Thor's left arm it looks like he is holding his helm. My guess is that he took it off out of respect for Odin as he kneels before him in his throne room. Kinda like a knight would remove his helm before kneeling before the King.
Honestly, not having his helmet on isn't the end of the world, IMO. With or without it, this is WAAAAAAAAAAAY better than the Ultimate version(which I too would have firebombed Hollywood). I honestly didn't envision him wearing it too long if at all anyway. When you think about how it would play in a movie, with deeper characterization, action and realism, I don't see how he could wear it through an entire film.
Again, I'm just glad they've pretty much ignored Ultimate Thor.
Here`s hoping he at least wears it in battle. Its forgivable to change the costume a bit for the movie but there are some costume parts that just need to be there, like Thor`s helmet, or Cap`s wings while we`re at it.
he has the helmet, judging by that scene and the way he's kneeling, it's off for a show of respect for odin
they wouldn't give loki his and not thor's, loki's looks 5 times as stupid
Thor's helmet is part of his overall design...it's like Superman's spit curl...for me any way. He just doesn't look right without it.
I think you guys are right tho...after examining the pic more closely...he has the helmet off for respect to Odin. I don't think it would be too heavy to wear throughout the movie however....not with todays materials and prop artists. A plastic helmet can be painted to look metallic and the wings can be made smaller to help with balance.
Well maybe you guys are right, I hope you are. Thor with a (somewhat) classic costume without a helmet just doesn't look right.
yeah, and what viking goes into battle without his helmet? sheesh! still cant wait while we're talking about thor, for his Tales of Asgard animated movie and his animated series!
CBR (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=27323) just posted two promotional posters for Thor and Captain America that will be available this week at Comic-Con International.
Spoiler
Thor:
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y246/podmark/ThorMovie.jpg)
Captain America:
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y246/podmark/CapMovie.jpg)
He looks better without the helmet, his hair is sexy and hardcase. So is the rest of the costume. The helmet doesn't even look good in the comics half the time and they'd have to make it really different for live action or else it wouldn't sit right on his noggin during any kind of movement.
Quote from: BWPS on July 21, 2010, 03:56:58 AM
He looks better without the helmet, his hair is sexy and hardcase. So is the rest of the costume. The helmet doesn't even look good in the comics half the time and they'd have to make it really different for live action or else it wouldn't sit right on his noggin during any kind of movement.
*shakes head* That's just silly.
I actually agree with BWPS.
Then you're silly too.
Seriously though, I don't find it that hard to believe that the guys in charge of wardrobe could create a helmet that would be wearable. For heaven's sakes, all it would take would be for it to fit well.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 21, 2010, 04:35:43 AM
Then you're silly too.
Seriously though, I don't find it that hard to believe that the guys in charge of wardrobe could create a helmet that would be wearable. For heaven's sakes, all it would take would be for it to fit well.
The helmet is being saved for a sequel co-starring Captain America. It will take place after the Avengers movie. The two heroes will embark on the greatest challenge of their careers.
The working title will be
Spoiler
"Marvel Team-Up: Search for The Missing Head-Wings"
Blue Bard= MASSIVE win. :thumbup:
Quote from: BWPS on July 21, 2010, 03:56:58 AM
He looks better without the helmet, his hair is sexy and hardcase. So is the rest of the costume. The helmet doesn't even look good in the comics half the time and they'd have to make it really different for live action or else it wouldn't sit right on his noggin during any kind of movement.
Quote from: murs47 on July 21, 2010, 04:27:26 AM
I actually agree with BWPS.
Hmmm...I can't seem to find the "You're #&!*$&* crazy!" emote that perfectly responds to these posts. :D
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 22, 2010, 01:14:21 AMHmmm...I can't seem to find the "You're #&!*$&* crazy!" emote that perfectly responds to these posts. :D
(http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/5872/smiley1.gif)
That seems strangely apropos, 'Mato, my friend.
Official word came out of the San Diego Comic Con today that Joss Whedon is directing the Avengers. No surprise there.
HELMETS!!!!! (http://marvel.com/news/moviestories.13391.sdcc_2010~colon~_see_thor~apos~s_helmet)
some where, there is a skinner dancing and giggling like a school girl
*awaiting complaints about the helmets* C'mon guys, don't let me down. Told you the helmet would be in there just not much.
Well good. They look good in the pic.
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on July 23, 2010, 07:02:44 PM
some where, there is a skinner dancing and giggling like a school girl
Tee hee hee :D
:cool:
Yay!!! They all look great! :D
Casting news:
Mark Ruffalo has reportedly signed to play Bruce Banner (http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2010/07/23/cci-marvel-and-mark-ruffalo-reportedly-reach-hulk-deal/)
Jeremy Renner was confirmed by director Joss Whedon to play Hawkeye (http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2010/07/23/cci-whedon-confirms-jeremy-renner-as-hawkeye-in-avengers/)
Whedon also said that Nathan Fillion will be Ant-Man, but it's believed to be a joke.
Quote from: Podmark on July 24, 2010, 05:24:29 AM
Casting news:
Mark Ruffalo has reportedly signed to play Bruce Banner (http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2010/07/23/cci-marvel-and-mark-ruffalo-reportedly-reach-hulk-deal/)
Jeremy Renner was confirmed by director Joss Whedon to play Hawkeye (http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2010/07/23/cci-whedon-confirms-jeremy-renner-as-hawkeye-in-avengers/)
Whedon also said that Nathan Fillion will be Ant-Man, but it's believed to be a joke.
I like Renner and Hawkeye...so that's all good :cool:. Sadly we'll probably see him wearing that horrible and boring Ultimate costume.
Ruffalo is good actor...but I still rather Edward Norton.
Nathan Fillion needs to be cast as Nathan Drake from the Uncharted series before anything else.
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 24, 2010, 02:17:17 PM
Nathan Fillion needs to be cast as Nathan Drake from the Uncharted series before anything else.
He is WAY too old. Also that would be a very unnecessary movie.
Renner and Ruffalo are official.
They all appeared on stage together.
http://chud.com/articles/articles/24583/1/GEEK-HISTORY-IS-MADE-THE-AVENGERS-ASSEMBLED-ON-STAGE/Page1.html
Quote from: Courtnall6 on July 24, 2010, 02:17:17 PM
Quote from: Podmark on July 24, 2010, 05:24:29 AM
Casting news:
Mark Ruffalo has reportedly signed to play Bruce Banner (http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2010/07/23/cci-marvel-and-mark-ruffalo-reportedly-reach-hulk-deal/)
Jeremy Renner was confirmed by director Joss Whedon to play Hawkeye (http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2010/07/23/cci-whedon-confirms-jeremy-renner-as-hawkeye-in-avengers/)
Whedon also said that Nathan Fillion will be Ant-Man, but it's believed to be a joke.
I like Renner and Hawkeye...so that's all good :cool:. Sadly we'll probably see him wearing that horrible and boring Ultimate costume.
Ruffalo is good actor...but I still rather Edward Norton.
Nathan Fillion needs to be cast as Nathan Drake from the Uncharted series before anything else.
as much as i agree with you that the ultimates costume sucks, i still think it would be very hard to transfer hawkeye to screen like they have done with the rest of them. the purple really kills it, which is why i sadly say we'll never see a classic Goblin
A darker less saturated purple could work with a dark blue/black for the secondary colour. I'm hoping they'll at least try to get as close as they can to his classic look before jumping straight to the Ultimate garbage version. It'll probably end up being some lame hybrid of the two designs. After what they've done with Cap (and many others)...my hope for a decent Hawkeye is pretty low.
As for Green Goblin...they chould just go with the design for that was used in MUA2. It was "real" and still looked like GG. Infinitely better than the Green Goblin Power Ranger anyway.
Yeah C, you beat me to it. I was going to say pretty much the same thing. Although, I do think that they could probably bring in the chainmail that he has in some versions of his costume. With a little chainmail mixed with the leather, it might lend the whole thing a bit more functional of an appearance. I imagine that all you'd REALLY have to do would be to darken his colors up a bit, maybe cover his arms, and maybe put in a few other tweaks.
It'll probably depend on how they write him in. If go the superhero route then his costume will probably be somewhat classic. But if they go the military/black ops route they'll probably use something like either of his Ultimate looks.
But the Marvel movies really aren't going the Ultimate routes that much. Iron Man is based on his current 616 armor. Thor is modified from his current 616 look. Cap I can't say that it's Ultimate or 616, it's kind of it's own design. Black Widow is classic, so was War Machine. Hulk was still green. So they seem to target the modern 616 designs more.
Fury is the exception, but I think that may have more to do with Sam Jackson than anything else.
So my best guess is a modified 616 version of Hawkeye's costume. Probably using a colour scheme like Court described. I wouldn't count on the classic mask though.
Quote from: Podmark on July 24, 2010, 05:24:29 AM
Casting news:Whedon also said that Nathan Fillion will be Ant-Man, but it's believed to be a joke.
Being a Castle fan... I'd look forward to that.
RTT
Quote from: RTTingle on July 25, 2010, 07:06:29 PM
Quote from: Podmark on July 24, 2010, 05:24:29 AM
Casting news:Whedon also said that Nathan Fillion will be Ant-Man, but it's believed to be a joke.
Being a Castle fan... I'd look forward to that.
RTT
Whedon confirmed there is no Ant-Man in the movie.
Quote from: Podmark on July 25, 2010, 07:14:05 PM
Quote from: RTTingle on July 25, 2010, 07:06:29 PM
Quote from: Podmark on July 24, 2010, 05:24:29 AM
Casting news:Whedon also said that Nathan Fillion will be Ant-Man, but it's believed to be a joke.
Being a Castle fan... I'd look forward to that.
RTT
Whedon confirmed there is no Ant-Man in the movie.
This actually makes me a little sad, but I do hope they'll bring him in eventually. I love Hank Pym.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 25, 2010, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: Podmark on July 25, 2010, 07:14:05 PM
Quote from: RTTingle on July 25, 2010, 07:06:29 PM
Quote from: Podmark on July 24, 2010, 05:24:29 AM
Casting news:Whedon also said that Nathan Fillion will be Ant-Man, but it's believed to be a joke.
Being a Castle fan... I'd look forward to that.
RTT
Whedon confirmed there is no Ant-Man in the movie.
This actually makes me a little sad, but I do hope they'll bring him in eventually. I love Hank Pym.
Hank's actually my favorite Avenger, but there's already a lot of characters in this movie so I don't blame them for wanting to cut it down.
Quote from: Podmark on July 25, 2010, 07:54:51 PM
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 25, 2010, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: Podmark on July 25, 2010, 07:14:05 PM
Quote from: RTTingle on July 25, 2010, 07:06:29 PM
Quote from: Podmark on July 24, 2010, 05:24:29 AM
Casting news:Whedon also said that Nathan Fillion will be Ant-Man, but it's believed to be a joke.
Being a Castle fan... I'd look forward to that.
RTT
Whedon confirmed there is no Ant-Man in the movie.
This actually makes me a little sad, but I do hope they'll bring him in eventually. I love Hank Pym.
Hank's actually my favorite Avenger, but there's already a lot of characters in this movie so I don't blame them for wanting to cut it down.
Yeah, my sentiments exactly, Pod. I would love to see him in, but they're working with a large enough cast that I don't blame them for not doing so. If he had gotten his own movie like originally planned, that would be something else. Still, we can hope he'll be introduced in the sequel!
I would think that the S.H.I.E.L.D. movie would be the ideal place to introduce Hank Pym. Wouldn't need to introduce him as Ant Man (not like its his only identity) and would set up at least a cameo in the film. Same with Janet Van Dyne.
I think S.H.I.E.L.D. is suppose to be more about Fury and his operatives anyways but it wouldn't be hard to at least have them in there briefly.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on July 25, 2010, 08:29:24 PM
I would think that the S.H.I.E.L.D. movie would be the ideal place to introduce Hank Pym. Wouldn't need to introduce him as Ant Man (not like its his only identity) and would set up at least a cameo in the film. Same with Janet Van Dyne.
I think S.H.I.E.L.D. is suppose to be more about Fury and his operatives anyways but it wouldn't be hard to at least have them in there briefly.
What S.H.I.E.L.D movie?
Quote from: kkhohoho on July 25, 2010, 09:16:38 PM
What S.H.I.E.L.D movie?
Paramount/Marvel have been talking about a feature film with Samuel L. Jackson in the lead that covers the start of the Avengers Initiative as well as flashback to moments that created SHIELD over the years. Rumors are that Black Widow will get another appearance here outside of her team role in Avengers as well as her own spin off movie. Course with more easter eggs and hints being dropped in other Marvel movies you never know what heroes might be thrown into the mix as enhanced agents.. Falcon? Battlestar? Mockingbird?.
- CQ
pity that there is no ant-man in the film but if he appears at all it has to be the guy from the mentalist
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on July 25, 2010, 10:03:43 PM
pity that there is no ant-man in the film but if he appears at all it has to be the guy from the mentalist
Yeah, I could see him being a good Pym.
Avengers Assembled! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjfeLTfzpcU)
this will probably get pulled soon but....
Spoiler
Thor preview from Comic-Con
http://www.silenthillresorts.com/news/cinema/thor-comic-con-trailer-leaked-1187
Probably too much told by that footage.
but
Spoiler
it now makes perfect sense why Thor is without his helmet much of the movie. (and he is seen with the helmet during one scene of the trailer. Odin stripped him of his title and the helmet was left on Asgard. He is seen removing it in the footage.
God that looks so awesome. I love superhero movies.
I'm with BWPS, it looks very promising. I'm really curious what the structure of the story will be, there's a lot of different things going on in this trailer.
Wow, Chris looks great as Thor. Looks like he did the "300" thing and really transformed his body for the role. Love his "accent" too, sounds very Thor like.
Here's another site for the Thor Movie
http://thefilmstage.com/2010/07/29/thor-trailer/
WOW!!!
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 29, 2010, 12:11:02 PM
Here's another site for the Thor Movie
http://thefilmstage.com/2010/07/29/thor-trailer/
There's an error, and the video won't load.
Quote from: kkhohoho on July 29, 2010, 02:49:43 PM
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 29, 2010, 12:11:02 PM
Here's another site for the Thor Movie
http://thefilmstage.com/2010/07/29/thor-trailer/
There's an error, and the video won't load.
Hmm... Worked for me, not long before you posted this...
Have to say, that looks amazing- better than I expected, frankly. Really looking forward to it.
Alternate link:
http://io9.com/5599251/check-out-the-full-thor-trailer-and-get-hammered (http://io9.com/5599251/check-out-the-full-thor-trailer-and-get-hammered)
I'm with all you guys in saying that the Thor trailer looks WAY better than I expected it would. Holy crap. I'm actually psyched for that now. And Chris makes a GREAT Thor!
-CM
For anybody who's planning on picking up the Iron Man DVD/ Blu-Ray on Sept 28
QuoteNow comicbookmovie.com is reporting that there will be a few Easter eggs included in the S.H.I.E.L.D. Data Vault - The 'Thor' completed teaser and the 'Captain America: The First Avenger' teaser (which may not reveal Chris Evans in costume depending on time factors).
Source: www.hidefdigest.com
http://screenrant.com/thor-helmets-captain-america-shield-marvel-comic-con-pauly-70672/
Some nice pics at the very least. :)
The Avengers Teaser Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvL4iJy2PPw)
Quote from: Midnite on August 06, 2010, 05:28:42 PM
The Avengers Teaser Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvL4iJy2PPw)
Man, that's nothing BUT a tease.
Cool logo, though.
Major spoiler for Captain America: The First Avenger and The Avengers
This is listed as a spoiler on the IMDB page for Thor. And is attributed to something Kenneth Brannaugh said
Spoiler
The Cosmic Cube is on Captain America: The First Avenger and The Infinity Gauntlet shows up in at least The Avengers and reportedly shows up in Thor as well. This pretty much suggests that Thanos could be the villain for The Avengers. OR could be something to suggest Thanos showing up for a future film.
I've seen the prototype prop for The Infinity Gauntlet. The test version that the company who made it sent to Marvel. It looks SWEET! I wasn't allowed to get pictures.... actually, I didn't even think about it.
Here you go
http://marvel.com/images/789664.The_Infinity_Gauntlet_prop_on_display_at_Comic_Con_2010/from/content.story.13391
The shown the Gauntlet at SDCC with Thor's helmet & Cap's shield.
Quote from: JeyNyce on August 29, 2010, 04:08:05 PM
Here you go
http://marvel.com/images/789664.The_Infinity_Gauntlet_prop_on_display_at_Comic_Con_2010/from/content.story.13391
The shown the Gauntlet at SDCC with Thor's helmet & Cap's shield.
cool, was not aware of the SDCC one. The one I saw was about a year ago. That's actually an improvement over the the one I saw.
If you were looking forward to seeing your hawkeye with an abundance of purple (and blue) while wearing that pointy, wolverine-esque mask, then you better get your complaints out now:
Quote from: http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/707520/Hawkeye-Will-Not-Wear-Purple-In-The-Avengers.htmlActor Jeremy Renner, who will play iconic Avenger archer Clint Barton, aka Hawkeye, may have given us a little glimpse at what his character will look like (or rather, what he will NOT look like) in the heavily-anticipated 2012 mega movie. Sitting down to interview with MTV, Renner revealed that his costume will reflect a more realistic tone in the film. As a result, his classic purple jumpsuit and pointy-eared mask which so define him in the comics, will not be a fashion choice here. Additionally, the actor hints that his character, as in the comics from time-to-time, may find himself in a little bit of romance with fellow Avenger Black Widow. If Renner's contract specified plenty of lip-locking scenes with Scarlett Johansson, then my hat's off him. Moreover, I'd get used to telling director Joss Whedon "maybe we better do another take" repeatedly to the point of awkwardness. According to Renner:
"I think it's going to be a little more reality-based," said Renner. "You can kind of tell with Scarlett [Johansson]'s character [in 'Iron Man 2'], it's going to be more of a uniform . . . and not a big purple, comics sort of thing. That's why I think it's more palatable to audiences — there's almost a sense of reality to these superheroes," he explained. "That's what makes it interesting to me, anyway."
Thank goodness.
Lol
Someone should tell Mr. Renner that Johansson wore something very similar(if not a complete replication) of what her character wears in the source material.
But It's what it's what I expected. But if a mask is good for Captain America, why not him?
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on September 16, 2010, 03:41:25 PM
Lol
Someone should tell Mr. Renner that Johansson wore something very similar(if not a complete replication) of what her character wears in the source material.
But It's what it's what I expected. But if a mask is good for Captain America, why not him?
I'm wondering it's more the color and the fact that it is perceived as a jumpsuit. As for the design, I kinda get what he means about the "pointy ears".
I'll wait till I see the costume.
Personally, I think that if you're an actor signing up to play a *masked* super hero, you shouldn't really be whining about "face time". You knew what you were in for, so suck it up & deal with it.
Bah.
I was pretty sure they wouldn't go for a classic Hawkeye design. I'll guess they'll go original Ultimates for their inspiration.
I was honestly curious if they could pull of a decent classic Hawkeye costume. It's one of the costumes in comics that I could see looking really ridiculous on a real life person.
Eh. I'm soso on this... like, I think there needs to be a balance between classic look and functionality, and there are ways to do that with hawkeye that aren't rediculous.
Personally I'd rather see something akin to what's already been done with the marvel looks (overall classic looks with a twist to make them more modern) and not a retarded rehash of the ultimates design.
They could always do the outfit with the headband...
Quote from: daglob on September 16, 2010, 07:06:30 PM
They could always do the outfit with the headband...
Uh, no. Just... no.
I'll wait and see exactly what they DO do before complaining, in hopes that they at least find a way to suggest his classic look. After it becomes clear that they won't do that,
then I'll complain. :P
Cowards.
Quote from: Alaric on September 16, 2010, 08:41:47 PMI'll wait and see exactly what they DO do before complaining, in hopes that they at least find a way to suggest his classic look. After it becomes clear that they won't do that, then I'll complain. :P
But by then Benton & I will be *far* ahead of you in the "complaining" queue. No cuts!
Quote from: Courtnall6 on September 16, 2010, 10:22:28 PM
Cowards.
Who, the wardrobe department or the non-complainers? :P
Y'know, I've been thinking some more about this, and I've come to several conclusions;
1) Much as I'd like to see something resembling Hawkeye's classic look, it's much more important to me that hey get his personality right. Clint's got to be the guy who can have some profound, sensitive insight one minute and completely put his foot in his mouth the next, the unpredictable loose cannon who's also, despite himself, the ultimate team player, the guy with the guts to throw himself into battle against cosmically=powerful enemies armed only with a bow and arrow, simultaneously overconfident and deeply insecure, who pushes himself so hard to make up for his lack of powers that he actually performs better when teamed with or fighting against more powerful opponents than he does otherwise, and yet who's not even a little intimidated by thunder gods or androids...
2) They certainly wouldn't have to precisely copy any of Hawkeye's costumes- he's changed his costume many times, anyway- but I would like to see something that makes him visually identifiable as Hawkeye- the two most important traits would be; a fair amount of purple in his outfit, and some sort of "pointy-ness" on his head (could just be a pointed mask, shaped like a stylized arrowhead, or something...).
3) It would be pretty easy to explain his costume in a more "realistic" world- he's a performer by background. His costume and code name could have been part of his act. Maybe someone was impressed enough by his carnival act to set him up as a performer in Las Vegas or something, where a flashy, superhero-ish costume might have replaced whatever outfit he wore before, and when the Avengers battle some enemies where he's performing, he jumps in and helps them, then asks to join the group- while impressed, they turn him down, but he starts following them around and eventually wins acceptance as a member...
Quote3) It would be pretty easy to explain his costume in a more "realistic" world- he's a performer by background. His costume and code name could have been part of his act. Maybe someone was impressed enough by his carnival act to set him up as a performer in Las Vegas or something, where a flashy, superhero-ish costume might have replaced whatever outfit he wore before, and when the Avengers battle some enemies where he's performing, he jumps in and helps them, then asks to join the group- while impressed, they turn him down, but he starts following them around and eventually wins acceptance as a member...
Or maybe they'll go the Ultimates route and make him part of S.H.E.I.L.D...
Quote from: daglob on September 16, 2010, 07:06:30 PM
They could always do the outfit with the headband...
Alright you're banned from reality now :P
Quote from: kkhohoho on September 17, 2010, 03:16:13 AM
Or maybe they'll go the Ultimates route and make him part of S.H.E.I.L.D...
I want to say that I read somewhere that they are doing something like that. Either I read that or I was just thinking they might do that.
If so it could be that Clint simply isn't a superhero in the first movie and he's in the military or SHIELD first and is wearing something along the lines of Black Widow, with the possibility of the superhero costume appearing later on in the series.
Quote from: kkhohoho on September 17, 2010, 03:16:13 AM
hey'll go the Ultimates route and make him part of S.H.E.I.L.D...
I'm going with the thought that Hawkeye will already be a member of S.H.E.I.L.D. when we run across him in Avengers and probably will be wearing some kind of military/special forces combat gear with some purple highlights including maybe shades with a purple hue to them. I think he will be played off as a excellent marksman and probably first appear with a sniper rifle backing up Black Widow on a mission when they first introduce them to the storyline. Now I'm going to take a shot that at some point during the storyline Hawkeye is stuck with only using a bow and starts shooting arrows with uncanny skill and when Fury reveals the Avengers to the public as a team that Hawkeye has a more customized uniform/costume and the hi-tech compound bow and quiver of tech arrows we know and love.
And as far as the personality goes.. It's very easy to see watching The Hurt Locker that Jeremy Renner has the reckless personality and attitude that is pure Hawkeye but also that leadership ability that will come into play when they expand on his character in any spin-off film and Avengers sequels to come.
- CQ
Quote from: kkhohoho on September 17, 2010, 03:16:13 AM
Quote3) It would be pretty easy to explain his costume in a more "realistic" world- he's a performer by background. His costume and code name could have been part of his act. Maybe someone was impressed enough by his carnival act to set him up as a performer in Las Vegas or something, where a flashy, superhero-ish costume might have replaced whatever outfit he wore before, and when the Avengers battle some enemies where he's performing, he jumps in and helps them, then asks to join the group- while impressed, they turn him down, but he starts following them around and eventually wins acceptance as a member...
Or maybe they'll go the Ultimates route and make him part of S.H.E.I.L.D...
I agree that that's what they'll probably do, I was simply giving a possible "realistic" explanation for the costume- something along the lines of what I'd like to see in the movie, not what I expect to see. Personally, I think the "S.H.I.E.L.D. agent" origin for Hawkeye is kind of boring...
Here's a real long shot.......Why not make Hawkeye's costume like his son in the Next Avengers DVD.
QuoteWho, the wardrobe department or the non-complainers?
Everyone involved with this moronic decision. Studio heads, producers, director, actor, wardrobe, etc.
Quote from: Podmark on September 17, 2010, 03:29:49 AM
Quote from: daglob on September 16, 2010, 07:06:30 PM
They could always do the outfit with the headband...
Alright you're banned from reality now :P
Promise?
Realistic super-heroes... that's funny.
Hawkeye's costume is one that would actually almost work in a movie. The headgear is pretty goofy and the medieval looking pieces like the boots and loin cloth would have to be different. But the colors just need to be muted (like navy blue and really dark purple) to make it better. Oh and of course the bow and arrows need to be replaced with a sniper rifle but that goes without saying.
Hawkeye's costume in comics is fugly in real life, and he's not nearly iconic enough a character to get away with it.
BUMP!
http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/cobie-smulders-closes-in-on-avengers/
Could it be? Will Maria Hill be in the Avengers movie?
I had heard that the Nick Fury female sidekick could also be Carol Danvers, but that Deadline article seems pretty certain the character is Hill.