The Reality of Marvel's Avengers Project

All I have to hope for is that the sequel exceeds the first.

So far, this movie looks awesome just as it is.

I doubt that Marvel is going to scrimp on anything with this movie .

That blog bored me to hell.

Iron Man 2's main drawback was the talking in the middle. while it was very informative, like every lecture known man, it was incredibly booooooring.
and that was mainly because Marvel had to set up some plot threads for future movies. which led to it not really feeling like an Iron Man movie, but the Avengers Set Up Part I.
but i'm glad they went ahead and got the boring stuff out of the way because you can tell from Thor and Captain America that Marvel has learned from their mistakes of interference.

The Avengers should at the very least be good. as in watchable and you have seen worse. kinda like the first X-men. but if you want some incentive feel a little more faith, check out my Editorial that i posted the other day.

just click on the pic:

You contradict yourself with "the movie will make around 400-500 million domestically" because you had previously said, "the avengers will make more than all of the the prequel films but not a whole bunch more", and Ironman (which made the most domestically out of the Avenger set-ups) only made 318.4 million. I believe The Avengers will gross the third most, out of all the 2012 Comic Book Superhero movies, right after The Dark Knight Rises and The Amazing Spider-Man.

I do agree with you on Marvel's action. Thor was never quite able to match up to it's first action scene which made the "climax" seem dissapointing, in my opinion. They also could of done a much better job witht the Destroyer scene, or actually, it would probably be better for the movie if they didn't include that fight scene and added some other obstacle that could of completed his humbeling.

@Wadey

Spot on about IM2. That film committed two of the worse sins any movie could make. Firstly boring exposition scenes discussing things that have very little to do with the main plot.

And secondly Nick Fury as a Deus Ex Machina to essentially solve all Starks problems. This took away most any of the dynamic drama the film had built up.

Also - with regard to The Avengers - Marvel have a tricky balancing act in promoting this film. On one hand they have to let everyone know about how epic this film is with all these various characters from other franchises appearing in it. But on the other they don't want to alienate those people who feel they haven't watched all the other films and fear they won't have a clue whats going on.

"never in the history of film has five separate films led up to one giant summer blockbuster"

You're right.. Harry Potter did 7 separate films leading up to an 8th (summer blockbuster) film that broke records world wide.. it seems Ye have little faith.

@Intruder - " I said Iron Man had some of the best action I have ever seen in a film. Get it straight retard." You did, my bad... And I'm not retarded, I'm big-boned! lol

Honestly, Batman Begins had awesome action, though I agree with you on the rest of you sarcastic list.

If I were to stick strictly to CBM's I'd say the best, action-wise: SpiderMan 2, X2, X3 Scott Pilgrim, Kick-Ass, the whole Blade series, Iron Man 1, the Incredible Hulk and 300. Sorry if I missed any...

the problem ever since THE INCREDIBLE HULK is...Marvel seems to want to rush to The Avengers, which is understandable. i mean you can only sustain the momentum so much. the momentum which was started at the end of the end credit of the first Iron Man, when Fury said "Avengers Initiative". especially when people started to talk about it, the buildup and excitement just started to grow and grow even bigger.

now back to the problem. with TIH, the movie is NOT the first big screen Hulk movie, so, that's ALREADY a problem on its own. adding to that the ang lee's hulk disappointed not just critics and regular moviegoers, it underperformed at the box office. Thus, all this created skepticism and doubts, especially from non-fan audience. they probably decided to wait for the dvds when TIH came out, in 08, which is too bad.

not saying that the movie doesn't have its legit problems. the story's too light weight and doesn't have quite the appeal to the mass audience, outside CBM world. but, lemme just revisit this later.

with Iron Man 2...too much subplots in such a short time length. but, that too has a similar problem to TIH, but i'll get back to that later.

Thor, it manages to beat the odds by actually turning out a decent movie. before it came out, it's mostly perceived to be the MOST challenging of all Marvel movies to be adapted to a live-action movie AND the one most likely to fail. and yet, they picked the right cast, the right tone and the right everything. so, on that aspect, i think the movie's quite a big achievement. but, still it's NO Lord of the Rings, which some people tend to compare this to.

Captain America, which i just recently watched..it did the job in intrpducing a super hero concept, which was perceived to be TOO OLD FASHIONED and just would be a TOUGH SELL for today's audience. and in a world, post 9/11, where, it's pretty clear how America hasn't been particularly seen, by the international community, as the grand ideal country it probably used to have during WW II, the movie might face a huge obstacle in being a success internationally. but, so far, the story's been good to the movie and, internationally, it seems to be embraced quite well. however, the review's not been all rosy.

now...from all the marvel movies, the first Iron Man still seems to be the ONE to nail it, cuz, it's the first one. nobody had ANY expectation for it to be a HUGE success, especially in the same summer as The Dark Knight, the clear favorite and champ. plus, it's the FIRST one, so..there's more time and ideas given to mold the movie JUST RIGHT to be an exceptional one. and it's got one HUGE advantage, it's got that "never seen anything like this before" factor, which usually happens with the FIRST movie of any franchise. in this case, it applies enormously to Robert Downey, Jr.'s portrayal of Tony Stark.

by the time of IM 2, Downey's Stark is still amusing but not as fresh. the pacing, much like the rest of the other marvel movies (talkin bout the ones with shared universe), seems to be short and RUSHED, just like the productions.

through out all the movies, since Iron Man 1, i've seen some badly executed or poorly conceived scenes or storylines and dialogues, which, if given more time, i'm sure the filmmakers would've spotted and fixed. all the acting have been quite superb through out, but the scripts still needed to be polished a little more, because the biggest challenge to all these live-action movies IS to translate and connect to the general audience, who's got NO idea on who's Loki? why the Hulk always gets to keep his pants on, while hulking out? or why and HOW was Rhodey able to wear the metallic iron man armor without tony's help? actually...the last one PUZZLES everyone, even the fans.

after seeing all the marvel flicks, post-Iron Man 1, i believe, if only given the right amount of time in pre-production and length of the movie, all of em will be much bigger successes at the box office, even Thor, the least known of them all.

hopefully, by the time they were about to start the production of The Avengers, they'd have recognized these problems and more and would address and fix em.

ps: i do find the last action scenes in IM 2, Thor and Cap are quite BELOW my expectations. they're not bad..but for an ass-kickin super hero movies "not bad" is NOT good enuff.

Cap is the worst offender regarding Marvel Studios' ethic of "stuff this partuclar movie, we just want to get straight to the Avengers". How they basically ommitted Cap's Mark II initiation and condensed 3 years of missions into a 2 minute montage is absolutely criminal. And the first bit of real story telling in his Mark II uniform, is the final mission.

This is more weird considering that the first half of the movie is perfectly executed and I was expecting the movie to turn out better than IM.

And we didn't even get to see a frozen Steve. Rubbish!

Does Kevin Feige insist that no single movie can go over the 2 hour mark?? Thor could have done with an extra 5-10 minutes, Cap at least another 20 mins. There's nothing wrong with a 2h 30min movie when it feels more like a 2 hour movie (both Thor and Cap brisked along at a fine pace) and I'm yet to meet someone turn away from a theater on the basis that a movie is over 2 hours in length.