The Giant Marvel Ciematic Universe Debate Thread, Mark XVII

[Tomato]

There we are, Marvel Cinematic discussion thread. Go nuts.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Just give me a sec.  I need to begin my arcane rituals to summon Spade so he can say something that will make everyone else so mad that it sparks an entire argument about something completely different.  Okay, he should be coming along any moment now.

Well I can summon his words in any case.

Edward Norton was the better Bruce Banner.They should have payed him,no matter the cost.

The issue wasn't pay.  The issue was that he insists on having his own way with the script, the directing, everything.  With the Hulk, for example, he re-wrote most of the script himself.  This was probably a good thing in this case.  With the Avengers, however, that would not have worked.  It was a team movie and one single actor from one part of the franchise could not be allowed to dominate everything and have his own way, not if they wanted to steer the entire franchise in a single direction.  For that, they needed a clear leader, and Whedon was they choice.  He was the right choice, as the Avengers proves.  One of the two had to go and they were right to dismiss Norton.

[Tomato]

Yeah... I said at the time, as much as I miss his influence, Norton and Downey being together in the same film would have been a nightmare. their egos are bad enough alone, but competing with one another? it would have been a disaster. Mark Ruffalo did a very good job, much better than I expected, and I loved his little bromance with Downey.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Agreed, Ruffalo was fantastic.  I actually liked him better than Norton, although that's mostly a matter of preference.

[Tomato]

I think both brough different things to the role, but I'm a huge fan of what both actors brought to the table. Norton was much more the geeky nerd, but there was also an edge to his performance where you still believed this was a dude who had been on the run for a long time (that scene where he's like "I only need this... but could I also get that... and maybe this as well" to betty is the sort of thing I've encountered with homeless people and those who have had to beg for help.) Ruffalo is very much the opposite... he's not really the geeky nerd, but you get the impression that there's a real genius that's being hidden behind the unassuming fascade he puts up. The way he responds to Tony and Cap's discussion... it's clear he's smart enough to know that Tony's right, but he also is going out of his way to stay out of this situation as much as he can.

[Talavar]

I think both brough different things to the role, but I'm a huge fan of what both actors brought to the table. Norton was much more the geeky nerd, but there was also an edge to his performance where you still believed this was a dude who had been on the run for a long time (that scene where he's like "I only need this... but could I also get that... and maybe this as well" to betty is the sort of thing I've encountered with homeless people and those who have had to beg for help.) Ruffalo is very much the opposite... he's not really the geeky nerd, but you get the impression that there's a real genius that's being hidden behind the unassuming fascade he puts up. The way he responds to Tony and Cap's discussion... it's clear he's smart enough to know that Tony's right, but he also is going out of his way to stay out of this situation as much as he can.

He also had a simmering rage that I never felt Norton had.  I could believe Ruffalo having rage issues.  Norton, not as much.

Now I'll try to quote Spade from the other thread, to leave that one in peace:

-Because that happens in the last 10 min of movie and armors get smashed like there paper.Seriously why did he bother.
-Hurting some fans is still preferable to hurting all,right?Fan backslash was so enourmous that they quickly tried to patch it up with All hail the king.
-Your just making some straw arguments.Mandarin is insulting to you,but Whiplash isnt because your not Russian.So?Im not Chineese either.
I see i will have to provide visual aid so you will understand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3r4FklA4gI
WHEN A TERRORIST MASTERMIND KIDNAPS THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA THERE IS ONLY ONE MARVEL FRANCHISE DISNEY CAN AFFORD TO CALL
PREPARE FOR AN IRON MAN MOVIE WITH HARDLY ANY IRONMAN IN IT.ALSO NO AC/DC.

-Because there were dozens of Extremis soldiers, and the movie had already established that one of them is a challenge to Tony in his armour.  Then, using the tons of armours, he kicks their collective butt.  That's why he bothered.
- You accuse people of not reading what you post, only to do the same things to others.  Here's what I said earlier, condensed: the Mandarin is a racist caricature.  He's not racist just because he's Chinese and also evil.  I thought you got it when you posted that hilariously racist image, and admitted he could use changing for the present day.  The Iron Man 2 villain (who I assume you mean when you say Whiplash, because the comics Whiplash wasn't even Russian) was evil, but wasn't racist/stereotypical of Russians.  You asked if the character was offensive to Russians, which I can't answer.  But is he a racist stereotype of Russians?  No.  The Mandarin is, but of China. 

The Crimson Dynamo, who the Iron Man 2 villain is equally based on to Whiplash, is more stereotypical of Russia, or the Soviet Union really.  But even then, most versions of the Crimson Dynamo were more critical of the USSR's government, rather than its people, and none of that is present in the film version.

Honest Trailers bash every movie they do - it's a humour website.  And who the &$#@ cares if there's any AC/DC in the film?  What does AC/DC actually have to do with Iron Man? 

An actual complaint, that there's hardly any Iron Man in Iron Man 3 I just don't understand.  There are 6 action set pieces in Iron Man 3, he uses no armour at all in 2 of them - when he gets attacked in the town in Tennessee by Extremis soldiers, and when he infiltrates the Mandarin compound with makeshift weapons.  When he escapes from the Mandarin compound he's using parts of his armour, and the other 3 action set pieces use suits of armour. 

Let's compare that to Iron Man 1: it has 4 action set pieces, 3 of which take place in armour.  Iron Man 2 has 3 action set pieces, all in armour - though one doesn't start that way.  By percentages, okay, the 3rd movie is lower.  But in total Iron Man action, it has just as much as the two previous films, plus scenes of Tony using ingenuity and homemade weapons to take down bad guys.  How is that a bad thing?  Right, it's not - butt hurt fanboys just make terrible critics.

[Tomato]

I think both brough different things to the role, but I'm a huge fan of what both actors brought to the table. Norton was much more the geeky nerd, but there was also an edge to his performance where you still believed this was a dude who had been on the run for a long time (that scene where he's like "I only need this... but could I also get that... and maybe this as well" to betty is the sort of thing I've encountered with homeless people and those who have had to beg for help.) Ruffalo is very much the opposite... he's not really the geeky nerd, but you get the impression that there's a real genius that's being hidden behind the unassuming fascade he puts up. The way he responds to Tony and Cap's discussion... it's clear he's smart enough to know that Tony's right, but he also is going out of his way to stay out of this situation as much as he can.

He also had a simmering rage that I never felt Norton had.  I could believe Ruffalo having rage issues.  Norton, not as much.

I'd agree with that as well. Honestly, I feel like if I HAD to choose a favorite Bruce Banner, Ruffalo just barely edges out Norton. Basically, I feel Norton is much more reminiscent of the Bruce Banner of the original comics (a brilliant man who would transform into a monster), whereas Ruffalo is more the type of person the Hulk would actually be. They both have very great takes on the character, I just feel like Ruffalo's performance is a touch more layered.

[XStream]

Being a huge fan of the Incredible Hulk (movie) I was very displeased with Edward Norton's ego getting in the way of him doing the Avengers. I did not like that they moved on without him, and I was not overly excited when it was announced that Mark Ruffalo would be playing Banner.

All that changed when I saw the Avengers. I can not picture Norton in that movie, at all. And Ruffalo was great. I think he accomplished everything he needed to in the film to make me forget about Norton; he came off as awkward, I believed he had rage issues, he pulled off the funny lines that were supposed to be serious, his scenes opposite Tony/RDJr were awesome, and his CGI made for a very classic looking Hulk.

As much as I liked Norton in IH, I don't miss him.

Changing Topic....

I am one of those rare fans who enjoyed Ironman 3. I realize this is probably because the extent of my knowledge of Ironman before the Marvel Cinematic Universe (I so want to abbreviate that to MCU.... but I can't....) was cameos in other comics because... I never liked Ironman before the movies, and I still don't read the comics....

The issues that I had with Ironman 3 have nothing to do with the storyline, the use of villains (sorry guys, I loved the Mandarin reveal), or even lack of Ironman. It was the story telling that bothered me. As a stand alone movie it is great, but when packaged with the previous two I feel like I3 is just too big of a departure in storytelling from the first two. The change was very distracting to me. I really wish John Favreau had stayed on board at least to complete the trilogy. But he says he was done, and I respect that he didn't do it half heartedly (and his Happy Hogan was great!).

I also loved both Thors.... so there!

[HarryTrotter]

@Talavar: Whiplash(IM2 one) was just an analogy,so no need to be hung up on that.And like I said Mandarin is one of those charachters that need rework.But it could have been done,right?Or left of the movie?Because it really serves no purpouse,here.I mean thats not ignoring the comics,thats wiping your *** with it.

@Topic: Since Im accused of hating MCU,let me count the things I liked in the movies:
-Edward Nortons Hulk
-Tim Roth as Abomination
-Antony Hopkins as Odin
-Loki
-Nick Fury
-Malekith passes as a decent villan
-Hugo Weaving as Red Skull
-Action in The Avengers
-Ultron,God I hope they dont mess it up
-Guardians of the Galaxy.Casting choices and all.
-Possibility of Ghost Rider and Punisher entering the fray

[Tomato]

I never had any issue with the Mandarin thing either... in a way, I'm actually glad that it happened the way it did. The director said, from the very start that Mandarin wasn't going to be in it. He said he had no intention of using him. And then people complained non-stop, because ZOMG you HAVE to use Mandarin, he's totally like, Iron Man's version of the Joker.

Umm... No. I've NEVER associated Mandarin with Iron Man that way in the comics. The only place where I really ever saw that (and admittedly, I didn't read too many Iron Man books) was in the 90s cartoon. In the comics? The most notable stories involved other corporations stealing his designs, him being in fights against other armored enemies, or That one time he went against Doctor Doom. Heck, in my mind, Doctor Doom is a FAR better "archenemy" than Mandarin... he's as intelligent as Tony, his armor designs are easily in the same league, AND he has ties to the mystical forces that everyone credits Mandarin with.

So... yeah, when the Mandarin debacle happened, I found it hilarious. Because, again, the director said FROM THE VERY START that he didn't have any intention of using Mandarin, and HE DIDN'T. They left a hundred different ways for "the Mandarin" thing to change (there's the canon explanation that the Mandarin was being impersonated by AIM, but they could have also had it that he was really Mandarin all along, but playing dumb to get into AIM) but everyone was in ZOMG OUTRAGE mode so they were too busy complaining to notice. Hell, my dad came out of the theater pointing out two or three different things they purposely left hanging with regards to the Mandarin stuff.

[HarryTrotter]

Doom is THE Enemy of Fantastic Four so its hard to imagine him in MCU,let alone going up against Iron Man.

[steamteck]

There was some armor action in IM3 but it was sucky armor action. The one halfway decent scene with the falling folks out of the plane, he wasn't even in the suit and then it got busted up by a truck. The armor was all such junk one wonders why they even bother. There are no armor scenes I liked other than the above mentioned one.

War machine got disabled by a superheated handshake and got no decent action of his own

The last fight scene  ( which my son loved) where he is going through suits like  MacDonald's goes through roast beef I couldn't stand. Everyone in my crowd agrees you should turn off the movie once he blows the suit with killian in it.

The best thing I can say for IM3 is it replaced TDK as the movie I hate most that many  people like. Its the only Marvel produced movie so far I will not get for home viewing. It made me appreciate IM2 a lot more also

I ma now terrified what Shane Black is going to do to my beloved Doc Savage.


I 've loved pretty much everything else from Marvel though.  Avengers is my favorite superhero movie period  ( followed by MOS then Winter Soldier)

[HarryTrotter]

Somebody is objective for a change.Killian,an ex nerd who wants revenge on Tony because he missed an appointment once,gets defeted by Gwyneth Paltrow in yoga pants.Talk about anti-climatic.

[thalaw2]

Doom is THE Enemy of Fantastic Four so its hard to imagine him in MCU,let alone going up against Iron Man.

I have to disagree with that.  Sure Doom and Reed still have some issues from their time in Uni, but Doom has not been exclusive to the FF. 

As relating to this thread I am very happy with most recent Marvel films....maybe all, except X-Men 3.  I'm a Hulk fan and like Xstream i didn't mind at all that Edward Norton was switched out for the Avengers movie.  In fact I was more upset that the franchise was rebooted after the first Hulk film.  I don't see Marvel making anymore Hulk movies in the future as the character may be too hard translate to his own pics.  Everything that works for Godzilla doesn't seem to translate well for Jade Jaws.  I would like to see cameos of Ruffalo in other Marvel movies for as long as he is Hulk. 

[Tomato]

Doom and Tony have fought each other on several occasions, both in Tony's capacity as an Avenger, and during his solo adventures. Doom in the comics is a big time player... yes, he's had a plethora of run ins with the fantastic four, but he's also got his hands in practically every worldwide villain scheme in one capacity or another.

[Talavar]

Somebody is objective for a change.Killian,an ex nerd who wants revenge on Tony because he missed an appointment once,gets defeted by Gwyneth Paltrow in yoga pants.Talk about anti-climatic.

This is called story-telling.  A villain is much more interesting if they have personal ties to the hero, and a reason to oppose them specifically.  Killian is a villain because he wants to manufacture super soldiers for sale to the US government, super soldiers that occasionally blow up.  He cleverly uses these accidental explosions as a fake terror threat, creating more demand for the very thing he's selling.  But he also wants everything Tony Stark has.  Wealth, power, looks - the whole Tony Stark lifestyle. 

The fact that Pepper, who Killian reduced to a status symbol for himself, is the one who finally beats him is hardly a weak point of the movie.  Tony had already defeated his plan - the president is saved, his army of super soldiers destroyed, his villainy revealed - but it's Pepper who defeats him personally.

There was some armor action in IM3 but it was sucky armor action. The one halfway decent scene with the falling folks out of the plane, he wasn't even in the suit and then it got busted up by a truck. The armor was all such junk one wonders why they even bother. There are no armor scenes I liked other than the above mentioned one.

War machine got disabled by a superheated handshake and got no decent action of his own

The last fight scene  ( which my son loved) where he is going through suits like  MacDonald's goes through roast beef I couldn't stand. Everyone in my crowd agrees you should turn off the movie once he blows the suit with killian in it.

The best thing I can say for IM3 is it replaced TDK as the movie I hate most that many  people like. Its the only Marvel produced movie so far I will not get for home viewing. It made me appreciate IM2 a lot more also

I ma now terrified what Shane Black is going to do to my beloved Doc Savage.


I 've loved pretty much everything else from Marvel though.  Avengers is my favorite superhero movie period  ( followed by MOS then Winter Soldier)

I personally think Tony saving the people falling from the plane is a great action scene.  It's something we've seen very little of in all the recent superhero movies - that superheros don't just fight bad guys, they save innocent people.  Maybe if Man of Steel had shown Superman actually saving more people during its climactic scene, it wouldn't have received so many complaints.  I don't see how Tony  piloting the suit by remote diminishes that scene in the slightest.

War Machine/Iron Patriot gets taken out by a superheated handshake - and the fact that his suit's system was compromised by AIM during its upgrade/makeover to allow that to happen in the first place.  Rhodey does get some nice action scenes at the end - he saves the president himself after all - but you're right that it's not in armour.

I agree that Tony's suits get taken out too easily at the end, and that Killian probably shouldn't have walked off the exploding armour (a great and clever use of the modular armour bit used throughout the film).  But I can also get behind the reason they did it: giving Pepper some agency of her own.  After all, what Killian's done to her is worse than what he's done to Tony (kidnapped, painfully experimented on, reduced to bargaining chip/status symbol vs. Tony having his house blown up). 

However, given your thoughts on the relative merits of the Dark Knight and Man of Steel, I doubt we're going to have the same opinions here.

[XStream]

I also do not understand why Tony's remote control over the suit causes so many complaints. It is set up from the very beginning of the movie, and I would totally expect Tony to create such a feature. Imagine the end of the New York battle if he had the option, don't you think Tony would have piloted the nuke from a safe distance?

It would have been much different if this had happened in the first movie. But by the fourth (obviously including Avengers) movie something different is welcomed in my book. I liked Tony taking on the villains without his armor.

In fact, I thought it was am excellent story device. Tony has been busy pushing the envelope with his experimental armor, and this new armor was still being developed when Happy was injured and Tony's home was destroyed. So it was the suit he was working with at the time... Although in the last sequence he calls multiple suits to his location to take out the bad guys... Wasn't there am explaination for this plot hole...?

[Tomato]

I think the difference was that the mark 42 was designed to respond directly to Tony's thoughts, whereas the other armors were more or less using pre-programed AI.

[Talavar]

I also do not understand why Tony's remote control over the suit causes so many complaints. It is set up from the very beginning of the movie, and I would totally expect Tony to create such a feature. Imagine the end of the New York battle if he had the option, don't you think Tony would have piloted the nuke from a safe distance?

It would have been much different if this had happened in the first movie. But by the fourth (obviously including Avengers) movie something different is welcomed in my book. I liked Tony taking on the villains without his armor.

In fact, I thought it was am excellent story device. Tony has been busy pushing the envelope with his experimental armor, and this new armor was still being developed when Happy was injured and Tony's home was destroyed. So it was the suit he was working with at the time... Although in the last sequence he calls multiple suits to his location to take out the bad guys... Wasn't there am explaination for this plot hole...?

Jarvis mentions that the workmen have cleared the debris away, or something to that effect.  The vault that opens up with all the armours was buried up until that point.  He couldn't have called them sooner.  I've seen this often cited as a plot hole in Iron Man 3, but the explanation is right in the film.

[HarryTrotter]

Why are you treating Iron Man 3 like some holy grail?Movie was mediocre at best.

[spydermann93]

Why are you treating Iron Man 3 like some holy grail?Movie was mediocre at best.

Differing opinions, I guess

I thought it was ok, but I'm not that much of a fan of the Iron Man films.  I'd say in order of how much I liked the movies, it would go:

Iron Man -> Iron Man 3 -------> Iron Man 2

[HarryTrotter]

Why are you treating Iron Man 3 like some holy grail?Movie was mediocre at best.

Differing opinions, I guess

I thought it was ok, but I'm not that much of a fan of the Iron Man films.  I'd say in order of how much I liked the movies, it would go:

Iron Man -> Iron Man 3 -------> Iron Man 2

My problem with IM is that its mostly used as a filler to bide time for THE AVENGERS.Just like THOR is an obligatory movie about Thor,who ends up agains Destroyer,the most generic villan Marvel ever made.But Loki was cool.

[spydermann93]

My problem with IM is that its mostly used as a filler to bide time for THE AVENGERS.Just like THOR is an obligatory movie about Thor,who ends up agains Destroyer,the most generic villan Marvel ever made.But Loki was cool.

Spoiler

I really didn't mind the inclusion of the Destroyer armor, but I really don't think that Thor should have beaten it so easily.

Maybe the Movie-verse Destroyer Armor isn't on the level of the comic Destroyer Armor, but he "destroyed" it way too easily.  Same thing with Kurse in Thor 2.

EDIT: Also, to be fair, the Destroyer Armor is not a villain, per say. The armor was created by all of the Skyfathers in Marvel's 616 universe (the mainstream universe) to defend Earth against the Celestials (Space Gods, basically).  The issue with it is that others (such as Loki) have taken over the armor by putting their spirit inside of it.  It's more of a tool for destruction than it is a villain since it has no motive.

I guess the movie Destroyer is different in that it just defends Asgard and follows the ruler's orders ever-so obediently

[HarryTrotter]

My problem with IM is that its mostly used as a filler to bide time for THE AVENGERS.Just like THOR is an obligatory movie about Thor,who ends up agains Destroyer,the most generic villan Marvel ever made.But Loki was cool.

Spoiler

I really didn't mind the inclusion of the Destroyer armor, but I really don't think that Thor should have beaten it so easily.

Maybe the Movie-verse Destroyer Armor isn't on the level of the comic Destroyer Armor, but he "destroyed" it way too easily.  Same thing with Kurse in Thor 2.

EDIT: Also, to be fair, the Destroyer Armor is not a villain, per say. The armor was created by all of the Skyfathers in Marvel's 616 universe (the mainstream universe) to defend Earth against the Celestials (Space Gods, basically).  The issue with it is that others (such as Loki) have taken over the armor by putting their spirit inside of it.  It's more of a tool for destruction than it is a villain since it has no motive.

I guess the movie Destroyer is different in that it just defends Asgard and follows the ruler's orders ever-so obediently

What Im saying its an animated suit of armor,not a very compeling charachter.They should have included Wrecking Crew in Thor movies 

[spydermann93]

My problem with IM is that its mostly used as a filler to bide time for THE AVENGERS.Just like THOR is an obligatory movie about Thor,who ends up agains Destroyer,the most generic villan Marvel ever made.But Loki was cool.

Spoiler

I really didn't mind the inclusion of the Destroyer armor, but I really don't think that Thor should have beaten it so easily.

Maybe the Movie-verse Destroyer Armor isn't on the level of the comic Destroyer Armor, but he "destroyed" it way too easily.  Same thing with Kurse in Thor 2.

EDIT: Also, to be fair, the Destroyer Armor is not a villain, per say. The armor was created by all of the Skyfathers in Marvel's 616 universe (the mainstream universe) to defend Earth against the Celestials (Space Gods, basically).  The issue with it is that others (such as Loki) have taken over the armor by putting their spirit inside of it.  It's more of a tool for destruction than it is a villain since it has no motive.

I guess the movie Destroyer is different in that it just defends Asgard and follows the ruler's orders ever-so obediently

What Im saying its an animated suit of armor,not a very compeling charachter.They should have included Wrecking Crew in Thor movies 

That would've been really fun to see

[HarryTrotter]

My problem with IM is that its mostly used as a filler to bide time for THE AVENGERS.Just like THOR is an obligatory movie about Thor,who ends up agains Destroyer,the most generic villan Marvel ever made.But Loki was cool.

Spoiler

I really didn't mind the inclusion of the Destroyer armor, but I really don't think that Thor should have beaten it so easily.

Maybe the Movie-verse Destroyer Armor isn't on the level of the comic Destroyer Armor, but he "destroyed" it way too easily.  Same thing with Kurse in Thor 2.

EDIT: Also, to be fair, the Destroyer Armor is not a villain, per say. The armor was created by all of the Skyfathers in Marvel's 616 universe (the mainstream universe) to defend Earth against the Celestials (Space Gods, basically).  The issue with it is that others (such as Loki) have taken over the armor by putting their spirit inside of it.  It's more of a tool for destruction than it is a villain since it has no motive.

I guess the movie Destroyer is different in that it just defends Asgard and follows the ruler's orders ever-so obediently

What Im saying its an animated suit of armor,not a very compeling charachter.They should have included Wrecking Crew in Thor movies 

That would've been really fun to see

Thors charachter arc is basicly over,but there are more movies to come.I mean they got Batroc,for freak sake.Not to mention that Whiplash got a whole movie,so IMO Wrecking Crew is a possibility.

[Starman]

Thor has a squillion years of material that could be adapted for a third film. Donald Blake, king of Asgard, etc.

The Wrecking Crew, whose leader is a guy wearing a purple sock on his head and uses a magic crowbar, would be really difficult to bring to the screen without looking really silly. Alternately, if they played the characters "straight" (like they downplayed Batroc), they'd be pretty boring.

[Cyber Burn]

In regards to Thor, I've never been the biggest fan, I missed the second movie, and not really knowing the mythos, I really can't say what I would like to see in a third.

In regards to Iron Man, I went in to each movie placing it as its own title, not as part of a whole, and in all honesty, I really wasn't disappointed. That's not saying that improvements could have been made here or there, but what I saw, I enjoyed. If a fourth was to be made, personally, I would absolutely love to see something based more heavily on the "Armor Wars" storyline.

In regards to Captain America, I haven't gotten to see "The Winter Soldier" yet, I really want to, but it just hasn't been in the cards. Now if a third Cap movie is made, I would seriously love to see how the Serpent Society would be brought to the big screen, they were major Cap villains when I was younger, and I would be blown away to see them properly utilized in the Cinematic Universe.

[Talavar]

Why are you treating Iron Man 3 like some holy grail?Movie was mediocre at best.

Well clearly,  I don't think it was mediocre at best.  I think it's one of the better MCU films.  It's definitely not perfect, but a lot of the objections to it on the internet are simply ridiculous.

Overall rankings of the MCU films, I'd definitely put Iron Man 3 near the top.  My list would probably go something like this (best to worst): Avengers, Captain America 2, Iron Man/Iron Man 3, Captain America, Thor 2, Incredible Hulk, Thor, Iron Man 2.

My problem with IM is that its mostly used as a filler to bide time for THE AVENGERS.Just like THOR is an obligatory movie about Thor,who ends up agains Destroyer,the most generic villan Marvel ever made.But Loki was cool.

This viewpoint I don't get at all.  I don't think any of the movies are filler to bide time to the next Avengers, but especially not the Iron Man series.  You've got a charismatic lead actor, a great main character, and the launching point for the entire MCU.  I think the first Thor comes closest to being made largely for the sake of the Avengers (needing to expand the scope of the film universe), but none of the sequels are obligatory.  After all, not all of the films got a sequel.

[HarryTrotter]

Thor has a squillion years of material that could be adapted for a third film. Donald Blake, king of Asgard, etc.

The Wrecking Crew, whose leader is a guy wearing a purple sock on his head and uses a magic crowbar, would be really difficult to bring to the screen without looking really silly. Alternately, if they played the characters "straight" (like they downplayed Batroc), they'd be pretty boring.

Hero is an Alien considered a god of thunder,doesnt get weirder than that.Wrecking Crew was just an example of charachters I wanted to see.

Why are you treating Iron Man 3 like some holy grail?Movie was mediocre at best.

Well clearly,  I don't think it was mediocre at best.  I think it's one of the better MCU films.  It's definitely not perfect, but a lot of the objections to it on the internet are simply ridiculous.

Overall rankings of the MCU films, I'd definitely put Iron Man 3 near the top.  My list would probably go something like this (best to worst): Avengers, Captain America 2, Iron Man/Iron Man 3, Captain America, Thor 2, Incredible Hulk, Thor, Iron Man 2.

My problem with IM is that its mostly used as a filler to bide time for THE AVENGERS.Just like THOR is an obligatory movie about Thor,who ends up agains Destroyer,the most generic villan Marvel ever made.But Loki was cool.

This viewpoint I don't get at all.  I don't think any of the movies are filler to bide time to the next Avengers, but especially not the Iron Man series.  You've got a charismatic lead actor, a great main character, and the launching point for the entire MCU.  I think the first Thor comes closest to being made largely for the sake of the Avengers (needing to expand the scope of the film universe), but none of the sequels are obligatory.  After all, not all of the films got a sequel.

All you said stands but IM2 and 3 could have been a lot better.Like almost all movies here they suffer from generic and uninteresting villans.
Thor 1 IS the one I called obligatory for THE AVENGERS so each hero would have its own movie,well except Black Widow and Hawkeye.Dark World was much better than the first movie.