147 replies to this topic

[Windu]

I don't think The Avengers have backed themselves into a corner at all. There are so many story lines they could follow.

It depends on how they do Thanos in the next movie.

Spiderman's and Batman's enemies won't reach the level of power of Loki (or even Hulk). Again, this goes back to the very nature of the original writing because Marvel has god-like heroes and villians which makes it more of a challenge to construct a movie in which they are in any danger. However, that will all change with Thanos. I mean, we're talking about a guy that can rape Silver Surfer, beat Hulk, beat Thor, possibly go toe-to-toe with Galactus, probably take out Superman, remember Gladiator? Thanos would pwn him.

I don't see the comparison with The Matrix at all.

Edited by Windu, September 07, 2012 - 02:14 PM.

[last stand 2.0]

My comparison is god-like characters. I'm not familiar with the marvel universe. I love avengers. If they ground the hulk by having a ridiculous villain like thanos( all I know about him is he was in the after credits scene) then that's perfect.

Heroes can't be stronger than the villains. That's my basic point. Heroes have to struggle to win, there has to be a chance of losing for people to care.

My comparison with the matrix was in reloaded that made neo essentially a god. And until the end of revolutions you just felt like every fight was meaningless because neo was just stronger than everyone.

That turns audiences off, including myself. I want the heroes to have to fight for victory. Not be assured of it.

[Windu]

I think thats why it works with most Marvel movies....some villians are stronger than the heros: Carnage and Venom > Spiderman, Onslaught > X-men (and a LOT of others too), Apocalypse > X-Men, etc.

I like to see the heroes struggle too but not at the expense of the original story.

In the Matrix, there just really was no variables on who he could/would fight. It was either agents or smith and thats it. The story just doesn't have enough depth and years behind it like the comics do.

I actually wish The Avengers producers wouldn't introduce Thanos already but that's the movie business nowadays.

[last stand 2.0]

Well you could make the argument for Nolan introducing the joker in the second movie.

There will only be 3 avengers movies with this cast IMO, just because the next one is in 2015 so the one after that will be 2018

The actors will all be pretty old. So as long as they have a plan in place they should be fine.

Also the 2nd movie is usually the most important in a trilogy.

If you ignore Indiana jones

Edited by last stand 2.0, September 07, 2012 - 06:01 PM.

[Windu]

name some 2nd movies in a trilogy

Actually liked both Blade and Blade 2 (3 is not good)

yeh, Spiderman 2 takes the cake; Spiderman 2 > Spiderman > Spiderman 3

Ironman > Ironman 2

The Dark Knight Rises is probably my favorite in that trilogy. albeit, I wanna watch it again on blu before I make a definitive decision

X-Men > X-men 2 > X-men 3

I'm expecting big things outta Thor 2

[last stand 2.0]

Well I think x-men 2 was better than x-men

Empire strikes back is better than new hope

Spiderman 2 like you said

The dark knight IMO is the best of the 3, though the 3rd is close though.

Two towers is better than return of the king IMO

Are recent ones. Great trilogies are carried by the 2nd movie IMO. When the first is the best the trilogy dies out.

[Windu]

I think people will be hungry for Ironman 3 by the time it comes out

[last stand 2.0]

I think people will be hungry for Ironman 3 by the time it comes out

I am. Should be awesome

[netlord]

I think the only thing im not liking at this point is with the dress design.

[Mr Terrific]

You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.

Edited by Mr Terrific, September 08, 2012 - 10:35 AM.

[PhillyLaker24]

I think the only thing im not liking at this point is with the dress design.

Yea the costume does look a little weird.

[last stand 2.0]

The costume is made that way because it shows up glossy on film. That's what the scales are for. It was the same thing with amazing spiderman. Suit looked awful in pictures taken but once it got on film it looked nice and shiny

[Mr Terrific]

[fido]

True that a series is carried by its second part / second act. It's usually the most intriguing because the heroes show weakness and by nature its supposed to be the act when everything goes to hell.

That's only when you deal with a trilogy with one storyline running throughout.

If you're doing an episodic trilogy, like "The Avengers" will be, the second act won't dictate the pace so much. In fact, it works opposite in episodic second acts. Typically, it's the one where filmmakers tend to get carried away with the details and lose sight of the bigger picture. But I have faith in Whedon's love for the source material that he can hit gold twice.

What Whedon did so well in "The Avengers" is grounding them. As outlandish as the concepts of the characters seemed, he made them human. The best moments in the film is the bantering between characters. The action was fun, but it's the attention to character that made it so damn good. That's something that's often fumbled over with action oriented stuff.

"Ironman 3" can't be any worse than the train wreck that was "Ironman 2". Favreau and company mailed that one in. If it wasn't for Joss Whedon redeeming comic book movies, I was ready to sign out of them entirely, as I think most of them (Captain America, both Hulk attempts, Thor) have been mediocre at best.

Curious to see if anyone can do something with Superman. The story itself, the villains and the look of the character tend to lend itself towards the hokey.

[last stand 2.0]

To be fair spiderman redeemed comic book movies, the dark knight changed them, and the avengers kind of took the people aspect of the dark knight and combined it with the campy humor aspect of spiderman.

But IMO spiderman 1 back in 2001 was truly the first great comic book movie. Better than 1989 batman, or x-men

IMO and spiderman 2 only improved upon spiderman 1. Those 2 movies don't get enough credit when people discuss great comic book movies. Every talks about Nolans batmans and whedons avengers

You'll rarely hear anyone mention spiderman though it deserves to be up there

[Windu]

I don't see how TDK changed anything to be honest. Just different writing.

David Coyer is a guy that wrote for movies such as Death Warrant, Dark City, Blade, Blade 2, etc. And we all know about Nolan.

The Avengers, on the other hand, had writers Joss Whedon (Speed, Toy Story, X-Men, etc) and Zak Penn (Last Action Hero, X-Men, X2, Last Stand ugh, etc.)

You can't approach a DC comics movie in the same you would a Marvel comics movie. The kind of humor you saw in Avengers would seem out of place in the Batman movies.

Prior to The Avengers, Spiderman 2 was probably my favorite comic book movie of all time.

[last stand 2.0]

I don't see how TDK changed anything to be honest. Just different writing.

David Coyer is a guy that wrote for movies such as Death Warrant, Dark City, Blade, Blade 2, etc. And we all know about Nolan.

The Avengers, on the other hand, had writers Joss Whedon (Speed, Toy Story, X-Men, etc) and Zak Penn (Last Action Hero, X-Men, X2, Last Stand ugh, etc.)

You can't approach a DC comics movie in the same you would a Marvel comics movie. The kind of humor you saw in Avengers would seem out of place in the Batman movies.

Prior to The Avengers, Spiderman 2 was probably my favorite comic book movie of all time.

After the dark knight every superhero movie tried to be dark and realistic. Most of them fell flat on their face.

Whedon gets props from me for not falling into that trap and going with his gut.

But TDK did create a ton of imitators. Moreso than any superhero movie in recent memory. Even the recent spiderman was an attempt at this darker style.

Only certain characters and directors can make a serious superhero movie. Whedon really made the right decision to play to the strength of his material and make it bright, campy, humorous and fun like the early 2000 spidermans

[Windu]

which movies tried to be darker following TDK?

[last stand 2.0]

[quote name='Windu' timestamp='1347232812' post='1174226']
which movies tried to be darker following TDK?
[/quote]

This is from an article actually outlining a comparison between batman and the avengers

[quote]Ever since Nolan brought Gotham’s favorite superhero to the screen in “Batman Begins,” Hollywood has had a love affair with “dark” superhero movies. The popularity of grim-and-gritty adaptations hit a fever pitch with the box-office triumph of “The Dark Knight” in 2008, and over the last few years, any potential adaptation that didn’t offer a darker spin on its source material faced an uphill battle with studios and audiences alike.

To their credit, Marvel bucked that trend, and gave audiences the bright, clever, and fast-paced action of “Iron Man” in 2008 — just a few months before “The Dark Knight” broke box-office records. Even though Tony Stark’s debut didn’t achieve the same success of Nolan’s moody Batman sequel, Marvel showed little inclination to shift things toward the dark(er) side, and pushed forward with the similarly lighter-toned “The Incredible Hulk,” “Iron Man 2,” “Thor,” and “Captain America: The First Avenger” over the next four years.[\quote]

I agree with this idea. Batman was influential for the wrong reasons. People took its darkness as the selling point ignoring it was the intensity and well written nature of the movies that made batman good.

So I'm glad avengers was successful as a fun movie while batman was successful as a dark movie. Maybe it'll show people that it's not about being dark or it's not about special effects

It's about creating a world that fits around the heroes and making a quality movie

[fido]

I agree with Windu.

The first Spider-Man was fine until he became Spider-Man then it was slow roll downhill. The second one was far batter. A lot of that goes to Alfred Molina , the guy knocks it out of the park in everything he does.

Yep, a good movie, no matter the genre, should be about story and character first. The action builds off of that. The problem with a vast majority of movies today (about 95%) id that they go for the glitz and glamour first, then the action and try to jam a story into characters who haven't been fleshed out.