Marvel Studios started as a novel concept. Headed by Kevin Feige, the group was asked to take control of Marvel’s own comic-to-big-screen incarnations and make them more faithful to their source material, as well as develop continuity between their projects.

It’s the kind of criss-cross universe comparable to that of their comics that made geeks salivate at the mouth. They even started off pretty well. “Iron Man” had an inspired bit of casting in Robert Downey Jr. and ended up making $318.4 million domestically. They even threw in a cameo of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury! Genius, I say.

Next came the more mediocre “The Incredible Hulk” which barely managed to top its Eric Bana-starring previous incarnation at the box office. But the films successfully began Marvel’s path to the upcoming “Avengers.” There were even rumors that “Hulk” star Edward Norton was so passionate about the character that he took on uncredited roles as both a producer and a screenwriter. He certainly wanted in on “Avengers.”

The company looked like it was different from the ignorant studios that seem to own Hollywood. They were giving fans what they wanted by hiring quality filmmakers and showing a dedication to the quality of their own projects–a live-action Pixar, if you will.

But the studio truly hadn’t been put to the test yet. Their next film was “Iron Man 2,” and it was a clunker if there ever was one. I mean, how do you mess up a film when you have Downey Jr., Jackson, Sam Rockwell and Mickey frickin’ Rourke!? Well, they managed to do it, alright. Audiences expecting the same smarts and energy as the first installment experienced shoddy storytelling, a plot that was not clearly fleshed out, and montages such as Tony Stark shooting lasers around a room and suddenly discovering a new atom… seriously?

What about the dark, alcoholic Tony Stark fans love from the comics? Why were actors like Rockwell and Rourke literally wasted, only performing in scenes necessary to move the plot forward but not to flesh out character? I mean, no one’s going to disagree that they are both excellent character actors.

(more…)

Many on the left would have you believe that the world hates America, but I humbly disagree.  An alternative school of thought–one to which I subscribe–is that the world’s left hates America.  That’s a lot of people, to be sure, but they don’t speak for everyone.  Also, saying the world “hates” us is probably a bit too strong; more accurate would likely be that the world is “super jealous” of America.  They’re not jealous of everything, of course, but it gets under the “world community’s” collective skin that we have have enough wealth and freedom to build and play with all the toys we want and enough power to clean up human garbage around the globe whenever we damn well please.  Needless to say, a country spending billions upon billions on technology to create the most bad-ass military on the planet will not sit well with your typical pacifist lefty “citizen of the world.”  But your typical pacifist lefty “citizen of the world” does not your average superhero movie fan make.

The Hollywood Reporter informs that Marvel Studios and Paramount have elected to keep “Captain America” in the title of their upcoming blockbuster in all but three countries (see below).  The Reporter notes that the decisions to keep the U.S. title were likely made based on the fact that Captain America is a universally recognized brand.  That’s true, but so is the United States of America.  America is the world’s sole military super power and Captain America is known for being a patriotic symbol.  No matter what you think of this nation of ours, if there are some bad guys who need their teeth kicked in, the world knows where to turn.  In other words, if it’s called “Captain America,” you know we mean business.

Here’s to hoping Hollywood did the American hero–and now the world–justice.

Captain America hits theaters July 22nd.

From the Hollywood Reporter:

Marvel Studios and Paramount’s Captain America: The First Avenger will keep its US title in all but three countries: Russia, Ukraine and South Korea.

Though it is common for American blockbusters to feature less US-focused titles in foreign markets, Paramount largely decided against the alterations for Captain America, and instead gave foreign countries the choice of two titles, Captain America: The First Avenger or The First Avenger.

Interestingly, most international distributors believed the franchise name was so identifiable that not using “Captain America” in the title could risk losing ticket sales. (more…)

A lesson in why it’s important to read the whole story; because after reading the first two paragraphs my blood was at full boil:

But director Joe Johnston and the team at Marvel Studios have a plan for “The First Avenger: Captain America,” which is due in Summer 2011: They’ve added a new wrinkle to the classic mythology to explain why a scientifically enhanced super-soldier would venture out in the WWII battlefields in a costume that leans a bit heavy on the old Betsy Ross imagery.

“The costume is a flag, but the way we’re getting around that is we have Steve Rogers forced into the USO circuit. After he’s made into this super-soldier, they decide they can’t send him into combat and risk him getting killed. He’s the only one and they can’t make more. So they say, ‘You’re going to be in this USO show’ and they give him a flag suit. He can’t wait to get out of it.”

Captain America “can’t wait to get out of” wearing the American flag? Captain America’s too cool for the American flag? 

Because we all know how stripping Superman of his Americanism (and masculinity) worked out for that franchise, right? Before you explode like I did, read on… (more…)