Marvel’s ‘Avengers’ Movie Universe: Was it Worth It?

Published 2 years ago by , Updated April 15th, 2014 at 11:23 am,

Marvel Avengers Movie Universe Discussion Marvels Avengers Movie Universe: Was it Worth It?

The Avengers is officially a record-shattering box office success - a film revered by millions of fans that even managed to impress a lot of those ‘snobby critics’ out there. Here at Screen Rant we gave the film a 4.5 out of 5 star review, and filled over an hour and a half of our Avengers Podcast Special with glowing praise for writer/director Joss Whedon’s blockbuster Marvel superhero team-up. No doubt about it: Avengers is a monumental success on many levels.

However, it’s important to remember the road that led to The Avengers as Marvel Studios enters the next phase of its shared movie universe, in the build up to The Avengers 2. A few years ago, we posed the question of whether the road to Avengers was being paved at the expense of  the solo character films. Now that Avengers is here, we once again have to ask ourselves: was the big payoff worth the comprises in storytelling it took to get there?

To be clear: we’re not going to debate the quality of The Avengers. Us giving the film a good review obviously says that we thought Joss Whedon and company did a good job. What we will do here is look back at Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America, and identify which elements of those films were crucial to the story of The Avengers, and if each solo film was well-served by its inclusion in (and obligations to) a larger cinematic universe.

Click on each of the titles below to jump to the discussion of that film:

-

Iron Man 

Iron Man 2008 Avengers Discussion Marvels Avengers Movie Universe: Was it Worth It?

Our Review Score: 4.5 out of 5

Avengers Contributions: Iron Man origin / Arc reactor creation / S.H.I.E.L.D. Introduction / Avengers Initiative

Iron Man was the film that started it all. By earning a worldwide total of $585 million, it proved that even second-tier Marvel superheroes (i.e., not Spider-Man or Wolverine) had legitimate box office appeal. Iron Man also proved that Marvel Studios was indeed the best place for these heroes to be adapted for the big screen – in full accordance with their source material origins and mythos – instead of being tinkered with and altered, as some third-party studios had done (see: Fox’s (mis-)handling of the X-Men movie franchise).

Of course, being released so early in the game – when Marvel’s plan to build a cinematic universe was largely still a gamble married to a pipe dream – Iron Man was free from some of the pressures that its followers (including its own sequel) would inevitably face. After all, the most direct connections between IM and The Avengers are S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) and the brief post-credits  “button scene,” which revealed Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury – more of a fun nod to fans than the obligatory weaving of a larger mythos.

nick fury samuel l jackson and iron man robert downey jr Marvels Avengers Movie Universe: Was it Worth It?

Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) sets The Avengers initiative in motion.

In the end, Iron Man was mostly left free to tell its own story: How an arrogant arms dealer is nearly destroyed by his own hubris, and must learn to use his talents for a greater good. As a standalone narrative it’s complete and well-developed – even though it didn’t even have a fully-formed script as it entered production. Thanks to star Robert Downey Jr.’s charisma and his ability to successfully collaborate with director Jon Favreau, Iron Man was more than just a solid story: It was a fun introduction to the Marvel Movie Universe.

Verdict: Since it didn’t have a lot of Avengers obligations to fulfill, Iron Man was able to stand strong on its own mechanical legs.

-

THE INCREDIBLE HULK…

« 1 2 3 4 5 6»

TAGS: agents of shield, ant-man, captain america, captain america 2, iron man, iron man 2, iron man 3, the avengers, the avengers 2, thor, thor 2

185 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. I loved this article. Great points. In the end, though mistakes were made, I wouldn’t change a thing. We’ve got the childhood Avengers dream on screen. Well… I might’ve changed a bit of IM2.

    Here’s a question…

    If the Masters of Evil were used, which members?
    Obviously Zemo, but who else?

  2. Did anybody else notice the copy paste mentality of IM & TIH? IM’s adversary was a bigger iron man, TiH’s adversary was a bigger Hulk, then they went the numbers route in IM2 with multiple iron men soldiers! I was expecting an army of Hulks for TIH2, but thankfully that didn’t happen.
    At least they got their act together in the later movies although I thought Thor’s earthbound story to be very weak, like it was budget constrained, anyone else feel like that? Loved them all in their own way though, just for being up there :-)

    • well if by the “Multiple iron man soldiers” you mean War Machine then War Machine is a Marvel Character. It was i guess expected to happen.

      In my opinion Iron Man 2 was a bit… feeble.

  3. They’re gonna have a hard time going back to the standalone movies as everyone wants to see Avengers 2 now as soon as possible. Plus: People WANT to see even more Marvel characters thrown into the mix. And I’m not talking about Antman or Wasp…I’m talking about major, well-established icons such as Spider-Man and Wolverine! With Disney/Marvel refusing to buy back these characters any time soon, lots of people will be disappointed.

    • refusing? They don’t own the rights. sony owns spider-man and fox owns wolverine

      • LOL watching for the thread to be overtaken by the Spiderman/Wolverine gang again…

  4. A very detailed and thought – provoking article. Many points I agree with more than others.

    I’ve always felt the 1st Iron Man was more good than great. A strong typical ‘origin’ story was undermined by a lack of danger and an all too brisk climax. Along with Downey Jnr’s relevation, much of appeal was that it showed that you comic book films can be fun and light hearted, but still have a serious tone without being cheesey (like Fantastic Four). In the minority here , but I thought IM2 was superior, having more of the same beats as the original but to a greater level. But yes, a huge chunk of it was tying to the Avengers and the movie did suffer a bit as a result.

    The Incredible Hulk has good action and effects, but still felt generic and insubstantial. Lacking the depth and intelligence of Ang Lee’s film – it still displayed to date – post Avengers – the best rendition of the Hulk, lean , menacing and more athletic.
    Thor was an excellent movie, but i agree that the character had a much more expansive story that wasn’t exploited enough. I’ve always reckoned at least 75% of the movie should’ve taken place in Asgard and played more on the planet’s mythology and magic. To be fair thought, Thor is not a regular superhero and his story wasn’t as easy to translate as Iron Man was. You can’t blame Marvel for playing it safe to an extent, but now Thor 2 has the chance to more grander in scale. That’s part of the beauty that Avengers has achieved , opening up greater possibilities for these characters.

    For me Captain America was actually the weakest of the films. Not because it was bad, but because it was a bit underwhelming. When Rogers becomes Captain America it should be a signature moment – but the pace moves too quickly at times – and we never got to savour the hero himself or how amazing his abilities really were.

    But overall, yes whilst having to have some tie in to Avengers 2 – Marvel must ensure it concentrates on the individual characters’ stories first. This will make for better movies , which will in turn guarantee even further the success of Avengers 2.

  5. Smike, do you realize how much money it would cost to buy back spider-man and wolverine? just those 2 alone would be billions just because spider-man is starting a new series and wolverine 2 is ready to shoot as soon as jackman is done with les mis. i would love to see spider-man in the shared marvel universe but its just not gonna happen.

  6. For me, the only thing I’d do differently is let Thor and Captain America have 2 movies each, especially Captain America.

    Thor needed it less, so I’ll just focus on Cap. Basically, I just felt like Cap getting frozen happened too early in his career. He was involved in a couple battles, though the montage thing made them seem completely unimportant, then he fought Red Skull once, and then he was frozen. It would have been better for him to have a longer war career, give him time to become a real, seasoned leader.

    In the Avengers, he still felt like a kid from the Bronx, not the kind of guy who could really lead a team consisting of a god and a giant green monster. Part of this had to do with casting; don’t get me wrong, I think Evans did a good job with the material, but he just looks to young. But the problems were compounded by the fact that we never saw him do anything. He never even punched any Nazis!

    And Thor went from Arrogant to Humble literally overnight.

    I understand why they only got one film each, they were both untested properties and the plan was always to make the Avengers movie as soon as possible, but I still think the characters could have been fleshed out better if they each got two films, like Iron Man did.

    • @Jbrose…good points coming from you. Actually, i felt evans was too young to play cap myself. Marvel could have gone with someone a bit older in the face with a muscular frame that can easily been seen through the suit. I actually liked Cap’s movie, but would have preferred him wearing the suit he wore in the solo film for the Avengers movie, than the one he wore in TA. Out of the 4 Marvel movies that preceeded the Avengers, Thor’s movie was the only I rated the lowest. Screenrant gave it a 4 out of 5, but I gave it a 3. His movie and Cap’s movie felt rushed to me. However, they seemed to have been movies soley for the purpose of introduing these two characters, as these two films were the last 2 films before the Avengers. Hulk 2008 was excelent. It was way better than ang lee’s 2003 version, because of its great story and plot. For the record, i liked Norton’s banner better, and would have liked to see him playing the role in the Avengers, just for continuity. Iron Man 1 was good. And I have to say i did like Iron Man 2. Nuff Said.

    • I think the thing you have to realize is that the MCU version of Cap…..didn’t do much in WW2. He’s not 616 or Ultimate Cap. MCU Captain America is, quite literally, Uncle Sam. We was a figurehead. Most people probably don’t even know that he ACTUALLY fought in the war. They knew him from the war propaganda movies, and the USO shows, and the traveling tours, and the recruiting posters, and the comic books.

      The general public almost certainly never heard of Hydra laser weapons and the like. They went directly into the “Classified” pile, never to be seen again. We may have wanted to see a Captain America movie where’s storming Normandy…..but that just wasn’t what MCU Cap ended up being. Because of that, we get to see his character grow more. In the Avengers, he’s NOT really the grizzled veteran he was in the comics. He’s still fairly new to the game, having gotten frozen just as he was hitting his stride.

      The whole point of his character from the Avengers was that….he WAS still just a kid from Brooklyn. He didn’t come in with an established leadership role….we got to see him develop into the leadership role.

      • if you read some of te MCU timeline stuff that has been posted around the web, it says that cap was in WWII for about 3 years before he was frozen. now obviously the real WWII lasted for around 6 years (depending on if you consider the war in europe separate from pearl harbor and america entering the fray)

        either way 3 years is enough to make him a proficient leader though maybe not the ‘grizzled’ vet you (and I) want to see.

        i agree they glossed over many things but i hope they show him kicking a lot more nazi (or hydra….whatever) ass in the sequel. like taking down entire squads of nazi’s with just his pistol and shield.

        I liked Thor, just his character arc went by too fast. other than that it was a pleasant surprise to me how much i enjoyed the movie.

  7. Only thing I’d have done differently was Iron Man 2 but that’s easy to say now. I think instead of an Iron Man 2 sequel they should have just done the first S.H.I.E.L.D. movie and have RDJr be a major star as Tony Stark in that movie as well.

    But ah well! Hindsight is 20/20.

  8. Overrated.

    I’m waiting for ‘Amazing Spider-man” and ‘DKR”.
    Even ‘X-men: First Class’ was a far superior movie than ‘Avengers’.

    • (Sniff) whats that? (sniff) Smells like a troll came from under its bridge and thought he was cute and cuddly…

      • haha!

    • Dare I say that you are probably the only one on the planet that thinks XMFC was “far superior” to The Avengers. At the very least Avengers didn’t have to completely pillage and gut the X-Men canon to get the movie to work ;)

      • loved the avengers, best superhero movie ever IMO, but show me the comic its based on.

        Fox changes cannon, the devil at work. Marvel does it, they created a unique movie universe which honors the original material. Kind of a double standard, dont you think?

        • I’m not saying that Marvel didn’t change anything to get things to work plus there are inherent limitations to what you can do (like having a full Avengers roster) but the changes Marvel made to their movies is trivial when compared with what FOX did to make XMFC fit their story and timeline.

          And just an fyi…..A “cannon” is a piece of artillery that uses gunpowder or other usually explosive-based propellents to launch a projectile while “canon” is either a camera making company or a body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art.

        • The difference is, the changes that Marvel Studios made WORKS, but the changes that Fox made was an insult to the X-men mythos… IMO

          • To play the Devil’s advocate a bit……I would say that XMFC did work fine as long as you were willing to take it at face value and not start looking at how it fits or matches with canon. It completely falls apart however when you do start making comparisons (even with the first X-Men trilogy).

            This is a good example of shared universe inconsistency.

      • As much as I hate to to say this…while I LOVED The Avengers, I also enjoyed two X-Men films (X2 and First Class) a little bit more as well.

  9. Wait so how was the plot point mentioned in the IM2 page relevant to The Avengers?

  10. Marvel Studios should introduce Black Panther in Cap 2. The sequel could have a ‘You Only Live Twice’ vibe whereby Cap is sent to Africa to help prevent Crossbones, Sin, and Klaw from invading Wakanda. The screenplay could be based upon both ‘Who Is The Black Panther?’ and the ‘Flags Of Our Fathers’ mini-series.

    It would be a welcome break from a New York City backlot that have become trite in action movies like Transformers, Battle: L.A., and the third act of every Marvel movie since Spider-Man.

    • This is a great idea but only if a solo BP movie follows. And yeah, they need some new locales, and why does everything just happen to happen in NYC?

    • New Locations?

      I’m down.

      ‘Sides, NYC has to rebuild after Hulk and Abomination trashed Harlem and there was a bigger mess left behind by an alien invasion :)

      Call Damage Control!

  11. Cap 2 could include grainy WWII flashbacks when a still inexperienced Steve Rogers first encountered (and fought) T’Challa’s grandfather. Hell, they could even throw in the Howling Commandos for good measure.

  12. Adding Wolverine and Spiderman is what most fans of the Avengers wants, but the only way it could happen is if Marvel makes a deal with Fox and Sony Pictures. Fans should write all three of these studios and tell them to work together for AVENGERS 2. Petition.

  13. Where did you guys get that Avengers picture for your article? That is cool. I want to use it as a wallpaper.

    • nevermind…. I found it. lol

  14. “Louis Leterrier’s retooled version of the jade giant did score major points with Marvel’s primary base (fanboys), and offered more irrefutable proof that Marvel could adapt its characters for the screen better than some third-party studio ever could.”

    Exactly. However, you referred to The Incredible Hulk as a “so-so” film. Was it because it did about the same (in revenue) as ang lee’s horrible version? The story and plot of the 2008 film were excellent, and made sense. Was it not screnrant who reported that ed norton’s “feud” with Marvel may have resulted in the film’s, although revenue turning, lack of an even bigger take at the box office? So much so, that Norton, according to screenrant, refused to promote the movie. Nevertheless, The Incredible Hulk, out of the 4 marvel avengers-preceeding-films is one of the best, next to iron man 1, and that’s it (not that the other 2, Cap and thor, were bad because they weren’t). Of course that’s my opinion.

  15. @ Avatar P…

    “Louis Leterrier’s retooled version of the jade giant did score major points with Marvel’s primary base (fanboys), and offered more irrefutable proof that Marvel could adapt its characters for the screen better than some third-party studio ever could.”

    The words in quotes above is what Kofi said in the article that starts this page. However, what I believe is of prime importance as it pertains to this post to you is the “B” clause in Kofi’s statement, which begins with the word “and.” This is because you, a few days ago, said that marvel could not make a better film of the X-men than Fox. So much for that.

    • Well if Kofi said it, it must be true……

      But seriously, I dont belive I said that. I belive I said something along the lines of Marvel having the rights to the X-Men franchise doesnt gaurentee an X-Men movie better than what Fox has produced. And if you read the article above more closely, I think you’ll find Kofi agrees that a Marvel Studios CBM isnt automatically a top notch production.

      “As the first film released after Marvel Studios had firmly-established its blueprint for The Avengers, Iron Man 2 is arguably the first (and greatest) casualty of shared universe movie-making. In fact, it’s a film whose shortcomings have only grown more apparent as better comic book movies – like The Avengers – have been released.”

      “Many of the crossover elements in the film came at the sacrifice of much-needed character development; meaning that when Thor eventually does learn the humility and wisdom he was sorely lacking, the change feels as rushed and unearned as the fly-by-night romance between the muscled Asgardian and the petite Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). It’s a shame, really, since star Chris Hemsworth ended up owning the role and achieving breakout stardom as a result of it.”

      There were more points in the article, but I dont need to go on. So really, my original point is kinda valid, isnt it? So much for that.

      • @ Avatar… Actually, I have disagreed with Kofi over the years on certain things. The above article is just one out of a few that I have come to agree with him on. As for me “reading the article closely”, I read it very closely. Nevertheless, I too said that both thor and cap’s movie felt rushed, particularly thor’s which is why I rated it a 3. As for Iron Man 2, that film was just a kind gesture from Marvel to the fans. I liked it, but it wasn’t a movie that was supposed to be anything of true substance or of super-high importance. It was simply a movie just to throw out to the fans as a bonus, because fans and non-fans (non-comic book readers) really liked Iron Man 1 and The Incrdible Hulk. I understood this.

        It’s like giving your wife (the fans), who never received a gift in the form of jewelry–and you (Marvel) wanting to make up for the past of not being able to give her jewelry (marvel being unbale to give the fans consecutive movies or consecutive good movies of its characters)–a diamond encrusted ring (Iron Man 1 and The Incredible Hulk)first. As a result she becomes really excited and is clearly enjoying the gift. However, because you want to keep her excited and enjoy seeing her excited, you then give her a simple bronze braclet (Iron Man 2), knowing fully that she is not into bronze, but will enjoy the gift anyway because of the previous gift, and the hint of a nicer gift soon to come…a jewel necklace (The Avengers).

        Besides, if there are going to be changes to any marvel film, I would rather Marvel do it, since it is their property, than some third-party film company who only seem to want to misuse our characters just for the sake of profit, caring nothing about the
        fans, who have made Marvel into a billion dollar company.

        “I belive I said something along the lines of Marvel having the rights to the X-Men franchise doesnt gaurentee an X-Men movie better than what Fox has produced.”

        So then is it safe to say that someone who has never been in your house can clean your house just the same as you can or better, even though they have no idea where anything is supposed to go?

        This comment of yours is plausible, but more to the point of being unlikely. Simply because Marvel knows these characters because they belong to Marvel. Second, Marvel cares for its fans, and while marvel has a vested interest in making a profit, it also has a vested interest in pleasing their fans. In other words, the latter is not thrown out the window when it comes to making said movies. Fox has done terribly, worse than sony in my opinion, because fox’s (in my opinion) movies have nothing to do with the fans. Their movies have a sense of arrogance to them, as if they actually feel they can make better stories about templated characters that belong to a company (Marvel) that is far older than them (fox). So yes, So much for that.

  16. Does anyone know how it works with movie rights? Can Fox and Sony keep making X-Men and Spider-Man films forever or do the rights revert back at some point in the future?

    • It used to be that film rights lasted forever and studios didn’t need to worry about them expiring. However that was amended a few years back so that the rights expire after a couple of years IF the character in question isn’t being used by the film studio in some way, as in they don’t have a movie with the character in it in the works. Its because of this change that Sony is doing this reboot of Spider-Man and why Fox is doing a Wolverine sequel, so that the rights don’t revert back to Marvel. So, until these studios decide they don’t want to keep making movies based on these characters anymore(which is probably never going to happen because there’s so much money to be made on them) or if Disney and Marvel decide to buyback the rights from these studios (which definitely won’t happen because that would cost billions of dollars to do.) the answers is sadly no, Marvel is not getting the rights to Spider-Man or Wolverine back anytime soon.

      • Good!

        That means Marvel most likely got Man-Thing rights back by now and…Sony won’t touch a Ghost Rider 3! Well, they still might…but wouldn’t it be neat if Sony DID give Ghost Rider back to Marvel?

    • Fox and Sony have to make a Spider-man and X-men related movie every few years or the rights immediately move back to Marvel. But the only way I see Marvel studios getting them back is if the next few Spider-man and X-men movies stink and they lose money.

      • So maybe we should ALL just boycott the new Amazing Spiderman movie. And we should make it clear why we are boycotting Spidey, we want Spiderman in Avengers 2. If Sony refuses to work out a deal with Marvel, we will not support any new Spiderman films. Same with Wolverine which is owned by Fox. These two characters are well known in the Avengers Universe comics/t-shirts etc. It is beyond stupid and idiotic for these characters not to be Avengers 2. Let’s make this happen. AVENGERS ASSEMBLE.

        • That’s the wrong approach to take. I may not be the biggest supporter of the reboot film coming soon, but as much as I would not mind Spidey coming back to Marvel to be part of a future Avengers lineup like most…

          That does not mean I “boycott” or refuse to see Amazing Spider-Man when it comes out because I want it to “fail”. If the film winds up being a pile of mush, then so be it. But I want the film to do well for Sony.

          Just like I want Fox to do well with the X-Men franchise and the related characters (Deadpool included) or the FF/Silver Surfer, or Daredevil.

  17. Wait a minute I started visiting screenrant.com back in 2010 I clearly remember you guys giving Iron Man2 a 4 out of 5. Upon further viewings did you guys change the score?

    • Shhhhhhhh!!!!!

      After multiple viewings there was a change of heart about that film’s score.

      (Don’t tell anyone!)

      • Haha ok but only because you guys are awesome.

  18. I have to say I enjoyed Ang Lee’s Hulk, after going to the Marvel movie database and reading the history of the character, not being an avid comic book reader. It was interesting to note all the things which were included in Lee’s version.

    The genetic anomaly in his blood which allowed him to survive the gamma radiation was the most interesting point, although the introduction of the nano-meds was probably not necessary to his survival, however as a plot point (in this case research) it was a good reason to be using gamma rays to cause damage.

    I didn’t like the montage at the beginning of The Incredible Hulk which suggested a link to the TV show. Banner’s analogy in that assumed that greater gamma ray output on certain days gave people unusual strength in emotional situations. In reality pumping all those rad’s of gamma into his noggin would have most likely killed him. I don’t recall any mention of his genetic anomaly to explain why he didn’t die of radiation poisoning.

    I did feel that Lee focused too much on things like moss growing on rocks, since when is Hulk that contemplative and deep? It’s also been suggested that he “grew” to large, probably a valid point, keeping his size down probably would have been a good idea. I did like the design of Hulk as opposed to TIH but visually I guess that’s subjective. I did enjoy Bana as Banner, wasn’t a fan of Norton’s version but Mark Ruffalo would have to be the best Banner so far, very likable and fits the part really well.

    Josh Lucas was a great antagonist for Banner in Hulk, Nick Nolte was also terrific as Banner’s father.

    Also having Desert Base as a location was good as it was also from the database.

    But in the end I think the two films complement each other in a way as they both have elements from the origin’s.

    • I like Ang Lee’s Hulk too. It failed because it tried too hard. The desert scenes were beautiful and I even liked the moss growing on rocks. I took that as something that was reaching Bruce and sparking memories of his mother and also he is shown earlier spraying water on some moss he has growing near his desk.

      All and all Hulk took some chances and looked different from any other Super-hero movie. That’s something I’m afraid we won’t be seeing from Marvel. I won’t be rushing to see the next round of movies unless they look really good. So far they’ve been mediocre, except for Iron Man and Avengers.

      • One other element I really did like was the story-board affect they used throughout the film, quite clever idea which I don’t recall being used before, except maybe Creepshow, and I think Creepshow 2 if memory serves me.

        But you’re right, they did take a few chances with it which is probably one of the reasons I like it, and origin stories are always hard as you have to try to introduce the character to non-fans and still please the fans who know the whole back-story.

        I think it just goes to show that Hulk is one of the harder character’s to actually sell to a wider audience, maybe more humour is the way to go, Hulk certainly had some amusing scene’s in The Avenger’s, loved how he plays with Loki like a rag-doll, “Puny god”. Very funny. And his king-hit on Thor just after they’d been working together, loved that.

    • Both Hulk films have strengths and weaknesses. Ang Lee’s version is great for character study and it’s approach. I liked the film a lot. The editing of comic book panels was bold and daring. But it also became distracting and Bana’s Banner has slightly passive.

      The Hulk look has improved greatly over the course of three films. I thought the ’08 Hulk had far better action, and gave the masses what they really wanted to see. The Avengers rocked.

  19. The fact that this was even attempted despite all the risks is awesome. Just imagine if Iron Man was a disaster, then all this probably wouldn’t have happened.

  20. Honestly, I don’t see the big deal surrounding Edward Norton’s portrayal of Bruce Banner. He’s a good actor, and TIH is a good movie, better than Hulk for damn sure. But I still enjoyed both. Anyways, I think Mark Ruffalo is the best Banner so far. I actually believed his brilliant scientist/doctor, as opposed to Norton, who screamed “average joe”

  21. It has been argued many times with good reason, that the reason Ruffalo and the hulk received so much praise from the Avengers, is that Hulk as a character didn’t have to carry the movie. All characters are introduced first before Hulk, so when he does appear it makes such a big impact, because the groups most powerful character.

    TIH has the right idea in giving the Abomination as a nemesis, unfortunately it didnt have the skill to create villain who could make a lasting impression

  22. I agree with just about everything in this article with the exception of “Dr. Strange, a mystical character, seems like an odd choice for a movie franchise”….He would be a much more interesting character than ANT-MAN. I mean come on, ANT-MAN?? I didnt realize that character had any fans….not trying to troll but he should be a supporting character at the most. Their money would be better spent on a Dr.Strange solo film

  23. my problems with thor stem from a few things

    A: ghastly over use of dutch angles, just no
    B: lack of explaining lore, who besides fans knew that odin had fallen into the odin sleep? there’s no explanation in the movie to why he just collapses, they say he’s tired sure but it would of taken 5 seconds to state what the odin sleep is.
    C: 180 transformation of thor from arrogant prince to goody two shoes, they lay some ground work with realising he’s unworthy but they skip a step to many to get to the end with him being all nice. they needed him seeing mortals helping each other for the greater good, him taking people into battle like he did on the ice giant home world then they get killed cause mortals don’t regenerate like asgardian’s, consequences for his arrogance. kill of that hipster comedy lady who wasn’t funny.
    D: horrible lighting for the ice giant home world scene ( i can’t spell it’s real name)

    aside from that i loved the design for asgard, the casting of hemsworth, hidelston and hopkins. all perfect for their role.

    and the ice giants worked really well.

    just some problems that make it feel rushed and not as good as it could of been

  24. I can’t help but wonder if there hasn’t at least been conversations in Hollywood about possibly bringing all or some of the X-Men franchise and the “Avengers” franchise together for the same film. After all, Wolverine has a comic strip history with both Hulk and Captain America….just one of many examples. Or even Spiderman…who’s had run-ins the Avengers, specifically Hulk.

  25. @Jay

    The most obvious set up for that movie would be to follow the ‘Onslaught’ comic book storyline in the mid 90s. Its a project that could definitely be the 3rd Avengers film where all forces join together for one battle against the unstoppable force. All heroes could then fall in one last ditch for save the world, therefore concluding the trilogy.

  26. What Marvel was able to do with the whole Avengers films was masterfully executed. There were countless of ways this could of blown up in their faces but Marvel somehow pulled it off. Sure, it wasn’t perfection, which people like this website and other film blogs do which wants absolute perfection from every little effin thing, guess what, it’s easier said then done. Back to my point, this could of gone terribly wrong but Marvel was smart about it. Did some films suffer from it, sure it did, but if you have to sacrifice something to get the end results that you want, then you make those sacrifices. IM2 was doing to much, but it had too because that was the first real film to set-up the Avengers story and I applaud Favreau and Marvel walking that tight line. But overall the movie didn’t suffer as much as it could of easily have. As for Thor, can you blame them for taking the route they did, let’s be honest, Thor isn’t one of the popular Avengers and for them to even make a movie about Thor was a huge risk, and it paid off perfectly thanks to Chris Hemsworth portrayal of Thor. He made Thor so likable and fun that if they would of known that from the beginning, of course they would of focused the story more on him than on Natalie Portman’s character. But they went the safe route and just made the safest movie they could have to help with the Avenger’s storyline.

    All in all, The Avengers films pulled a miracle off that was a great thrill to watch. And now that every character and story has been established, don’t expect Marvel to do the same for The Avengers 2. They don’t need to build up to A2 like they did the first one because Thor, Capt, Hulk, Shield are all established. They can go off and make their own films with little hints of A2 without it hurting the actual stand alone films. I can’t wait for IM3, Thor 2, Capt 2, hoping Hulk 2 and maybe a black widow/hawkeye film and finally THANOS!!!

  27. Ask this question in five years. We haven’t emerged from the hype faze yet and so many films that did great box office in years past seem pretty mediocre after some time has passed. Will it be Jaws or will it be Superman (1978)?

  28. Hate to be grammar cop but didn’t see a way to contact the author directly. Wanted to flag a typo – end of second paragraph “comprises in storytelling”.

  29. Ya know something? The title of this whole thing is,
    “Marvels Movie Universe: Was it worth it?”

    No one has really bothered to answer that question. So I guess I will do so as simply as I can.

    Was it worth it? “Yes”

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

Be Social, Follow Us!!