Movie Avengers

[BentonGrey]

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!

[Previsionary]

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....

[BentonGrey]

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.

[TheMarvell]

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?

[Previsionary]

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.

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.

[TheMarvell]

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.

[BWPS]

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.

[BentonGrey]

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.

[Podmark]

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.

[TheMarvell]

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.

[Previsionary]

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.

[BlueBard]

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.

[steamteck]

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.

[Podmark]

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.

[Previsionary]

Oi... I wish the 3d craze would stop. Both Thor and Captain America will have 3d releases. Get those glasses ready!

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:



To which I say, meh. A very cold, but loud, MEH!

[BlueBard]

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...)

[murs47]

LOL! Is Odin daydreaming? And what's up with that tinfoil eye-patch?

[Talavar]

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....

[TheMarvell]

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...

[Previsionary]

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 ). 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.

[BentonGrey]

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?

[Talavar]

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.

[BlueBard]

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.

[herodad1]

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.

[BentonGrey]

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.

[ow_tiobe_sb]

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.

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Whirled Braker

[JeyNyce]

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.

[TheMarvell]

there's now a rumor that Mark Ruffalo will replace Ed Norton as the Hulk.

[BlueBard]

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.

[BWPS]

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)?  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.