Marvel Studios Now Making the Lazy Comic Cash-Ins It Was Founded to Replace
by Zachary LeemanMarvel 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.
The studio was clearly becoming a run-of-the-mill entity interested more in getting out quick, fast food-like product rather than giving people memorable films that entertain and refresh far beyond a 90-minute popcorn summer film. Rourke, known for his brutal honesty about everyone from himself to those he works with, outed the studio while he was out promoting the film “Immortals.” Rourke made the following statements about his experience working with the studio:
[W]hen I did Ivan Vanko in Iron Man, I fought… You know, I explained to Justin Theroux, to the writer, and to [Jon] Favreau, that I wanted to bring some other layers and colors [to the character], not just make this Russian a complete murderous revenging bad guy. And they allowed me to do that. Unfortunately, the [people] at Marvel just wanted a one-dimensional bad guy, so most of the performance ended up the floor.
[It’s] ****ing too bad, but it’s their loss. If they want to make mindless comic book movies, then I don’t want to be a part of that. I don’t want to have to care so much and work so hard, and then fight them for intelligent reasoning, and just because they’re calling the shots they… You know, I didn’t work for three months on the accent and all the adjustments and go to Russia just so I could end up on the floor. Because that can make somebody say at the end of the day, oh **** ‘em, I’m just going to mail it in. But I’m not that kind of guy. I’m never going to mail it in.
If they let you, play the bad guy with other dimensions other than one-dimensional. You have to fight for that though, to bring layers to the character. Otherwise, if you’re working for the wrong studio or let’s say a director that doesn’t have any balls, then they’re just gonna want it to be the evil bad guy. […] So, if you’re working with some good studio guys that got brains and you’re working with a director with a set of nuts that’ll let you incorporate that then it’s fun. Otherwise, you end up with what happened on “Iron Man.”
That sounds like enough explanation as to why “Iron Man 2″ felt like it was made by a 13-year-old boy. The films just got worse in quality with the release of “Thor” and “Captain America.” I mean, they picked the guy who directed “Jumanji” to direct “Captain America!” The same guy who was quoted time and time again wanting to downplay the patriotic side of Captain America. What? I thought these guys were trying to be more faithful to the characters they showed on screen. His name is Captain America! The film was awful. The special effects showing Chris Evans as a scrawny pre-Captain America were just sad and awkward. The action scenes were so cardboard that the film felt like it had no personality. And it all just felt like one big rush to the setup for “The Avengers” at the end. Clearly, Marvel Studios had become interested in simply making mindless comic book movies, which is the reason they took control of these projects in the first place.
The studio also dumbly fired Norton when it came time to cast The Hulk in “The Avengers,” and it replaced him with Mark Ruffalo. Here was their explanation:
We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in the Avengers. Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert, Chris H, Chris E, Sam, Scarlett, and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks.
I’m not the smartest guy in the world, but I can read between the lines. Basically, they needed someone who was more of a puppet than Norton and whose voice would not interrupt theirs. So much for being a novel idea.
Has Marvel Studios really been a success? Not really. “Iron Man” and “Iron Man 2″ managed to pull in heavy sums, but “The Incredible Hulk” couldn’t even match its production budget with its domestic haul. Neither “Thor” nor “Captain America: The First Avenger” could even touch the $200 million mark. The hauls they brought in were almost guaranteed just based on curiosity with the movie going public. I, for one, am not looking forward to “The Avengers.” Why should I? Marvel Studios has become just like the studios they were a reaction to. They make mindless entertainment that barely scratches out a profit and they allow no creativity, which we know leads to the lasting success films need.
We’ve already had Ruffalo out there comparing the Avengers to Occupy Wall Street, and behind the camera we have Joss Whedon, whose film credits include directing a whopping total of one picture. Marvel Studios is now just a part of the crop of studios turning out everything from crap to liberal crap and then not understanding the financial results. Waste your hard earned money on something more worth it.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
126 Comments
I must respectfully disagree. I thought Captain America was a very good movie, maybe even one of the best of last year. I thought it was very patriotic and its use of special effects, making Chris Evans scrawny, was seamless. Joe Johnston made the very under appreciated "The Rocketeer" and I thought he brought the same type of gung ho, pro-America feel into Cap as he did to Rocketeer. I can't wait for "The Avengers" and while there have been some misses, Marvel Studios still excites me and I can't wait to see what they have in store for us in the future.
Agreed. Captain America is one of my fave superhero movies, right up there with Ironman and Chris Nolan's Batman.
Yeah, I thought Thor and Captain America were both very good, certainly better than Iron Man 2. The only part I'm inclined to agree on was that Norton was a much better choice as Bruce Banner than Mark Ruffalo.
I was hesitant about seeing the first Iron Man movie because I'm not all that interested in comic books, but everyone was saying it was great, so I bought the DVD. It was better than I expected because it wasn't comic-bookish; it seemed to me to be a genuine sci-fi flick. If The Avengers were not part of the picture, Iron Man II would have been better. Getting to the set up to The Avengers seemed to be the goal. The movie didn't bother me, but I can see Rourke' and Leeman's point. I saw Captain America on PPV, and thought, "This isn't so bad." Then the villain took of his face to reveal a red skull head and I dropped completely out of suspension of disbelief. Oh now its a comic, but worse, it's a cartoon.
This new uniform is not an improvement.
I cannot agree with this article. While "Iron Man 2" was a disappointment to say the least, and both Hulk movies stunk (the first was so bad that it defies description), I thought that "Captain America" was great and "Thor" reasonably well done and both were highly enjoyable. However I do have two major concerns about "The Avengers."
The first was mentioned in the article, which is that there is a real possibility of the lefties screwing it up by injecting their politics. However I also worried about this with "Captain America" and as far as I am concerned, the movie showed plenty of patriotism and did not denigrate the United States the way one would expect from the left. Since this film turned out so well, I will take a wait and see attitude with "The Avengers" just as I did with Cap.
My second concern is with over crowding. I worry that they might have too many superhero characters in the movie. How can they do them all justice is my question. They barely developed the Black Widow in "Iron Man 2" and they didn't even bother trying with Hawkeye in "Thor." Will they be able to develop them and other characters in the new movie while still having time to showcase the major characters and build a decent plot? I doubt it.
I agree. I liked Edward Norton in his version of the Hulk. The thing that makes me very leery of Mark Ruffalo is that he is a certified moron. If you've ever seen what he has to say on issues you realize the man probably has problems tying his shoes in the morning, and he's wearing loafers.
I will agree with most of your critique…but dear god man do you even know who Joss Whedon is? He may have done only one movie but his writing and directing on TV is superior to many movie writers and directors who have Oscars. No matter what the flaws of the previous films, I trust that Joss will pull it out of the slump.
I have to disagree. I will admit to being concerned as well when I heard the director's comments regarding Captain America's patriotism but after seeing the movie it seemed as though my concerns were for naught. I thought it was a well done movie including the "scrawny to brawny" special effects. It was entertaining.
I think if you were to say you didn't enjoy it that would be acceptable. After all, different tastes. But to say it was poorly done just doesn't seem to be an accurate analysis.
I do agree that replacing Edward Norton is a crying shame but will refrain from a final judgement until I see the finished product.
As for Joss Whedon directing the Avengers, I have to admit that I am almost fangirly excited. I have loved almost everything he has ever been involved in and think he is incredibly creative and talented. Politics notwhithstanding.
I've never understood the hate for IM2. All the characters had clear, real motivations for their actions. The first IM and the Hulk clearly setup that stark was going to be integral to the avengers and extending that connection in 2 was fun. It's the whole point of an interconnected universe.
My dad read comics since he was a kid in the 30's and I have since being a kid in the 60's. Any comic fan who looks at these movies and is disappointed doesnt really get comic books and didn't have to live through 70's marvel tv movies. We are in the golden age of marvel films.
It's not surprising that nothing quite measures up to Iron Man. What could?
So we went into Iron Man 2 with those expectations that had been magnified because we both remembered how great the first one was and remembered it as something unprecedented (this is also why the first Star Wars is much better in our minds than it was in reality… it was good, it was also something extraordinary *at the time*.)
But there wasn't anything wrong with Iron Man 2.
As for Rourke… I've seen Immortals. Have you? I liked it more than it deserved but, sweetheart, Rourke's character did not have *layers*. He was a vile, twisted creature who liked to torture, to punish everyone else for being alive. It was nasty. He was nasty. And the character had pretty much a single note. Rourke's character in The Expendables was better.
I thought that Rourke's character in Iron Man 2 was a splendid villain. I even wanted him to win, sort of. I was happy when he got away from the other fellow and when he subverted it all to his own ends. He was a better villain than the villain in Iron Man 1. Yes, I know he's the one who played the part, but he's just wrong. I understand how an actor might have one idea about how the character is supposed to turn out and then in the movie it's not quite what they thought it ought to be, that the experience is different in front of and behind the camera. Rourke is wrong.
I've seen Thor and Captain America more than once each, maybe three times. Thor wasn't a great movie, but it was absolutely *fun* and whats-his-name is excessively nice to look at. Captain America was a better movie, a little less fun, but worth watching over again.
but ScarHo NEEDS a paycheck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I do agree… no reason to change who played the Hulk. Particularly as Ruffalo simply doesn't look like Banner to me. Not even a little bit. Even if he never said anything stupid to annoy anyone, he just doesn't look like an egg-head. I think that they chose him because his face was easier to map unto a CGI Hulk, and for no other reason at all.
Simply, objectively not true that Captain America was a bad film. In fact, it was one of the best "superhero" movies yet. It took its time to develop its protagonist and build sympathy and complexity, was patriotic in a sweeping sense as well as a multiplicity of subtle ways highly evocative of 1940s films, had a fearsomely convincing villain in Hugo Weaving, elegantly blended in its special effects, had an apt score and sound design (moving, appropriate, reinforcing the story, never overbearing), was edited brilliantly, and had a surprisingly emotional and bittersweet ending. I was surprised and delighted by it, as I generally don't enjoy comic book adaptations.
I'm finding a lot of sloppy and slash-and-burn writing on this site lately. It's disappointing.
The is an inner child in there dying to get out. Set him free!
Don't sleep on Joss Whedon. Even IF you would discount his geek cred from "Firefly" and his other inferior titles about pretty vampires, the guy was the writer of one of the best X-Men runs in recent memory, "Astonishing X-Men". That said, I HATED "Thor". Norse gods don't manscape their face or look like Venice Beach lifeguards. "Captain America" was a lot of fun, and I felt that the true spirit of the hero was honored just fine, despite what we had heard about the possible downgrade of Cap's "jingoism".
Yes — besides Buffy and Angel and Firefly and Serenity, Whedon's writing credits include "Toy Story"… Can you top that, Zachary Leeman?
LOL. So what do Norse gods look like then? I understand some of the other fussing, but certainly Thor looked like Thor ought to look. Didn't he?
LOL. So what do Norse gods look like then? I understand some of the other fussing, but certainly Thor looked like Thor ought to look. Didn't he?
I agree.
I remember looking forward to the TV adaptations of Spiderman or Doctor Strange only to sit there with the feeling that while I should love these "films", I knew that they were pure crap.
As far as Iron Man…John Favreau and RDJ made my 12 year old fantasies a reality, and I thank them both.
IM 2 was a disappointment, but nothing compared to Hasselhoff starring as Nick Fury.
Zachary Leeman – "The same guy [to direct 'Captain America!' ] who was quoted time and time again wanting to downplay the patriotic side of Captain America. What? I thought these guys were trying to be more faithful to the characters they showed on screen. His name is Captain America! The film was awful. The special effects showing Chris Evans as a scrawny pre-Captain America were just sad and awkward. The action scenes were so cardboard that the film felt like it had no personality. And it all just felt like one big rush to the setup for 'The Avengers' at the end."
Virtually every point made here is wrong. While the director did make some pre-release comments that had conservatives' antennae extended, the movie itself proved that the worry was unwarranted.
There had similarly been much talk of the scrawny Steve Rogers effects being distracting and unconvincing. I went into the movie prepared to overlook them for the sake of my suspension of disbelief. To my surprise, I found them absolutely naturalistic and convincing. I can only conclude that those who found it otherwise were so aware of Chris Evans's actual physique that seeing him in the scrawny state was in-and-of-itself bizarre and distracting, regardless of the quality of the technical effect.
The acting was uniformly character-driven in precisely the way that Mickey Rourke described it should be in his rant. Additionally, the characters' attitudes and positions were consistent with a 1940s verisimilitude, not naive in the way that young people always believe previous generations were but innocent in a pre-"post-ironic" way that is not steeped in the strong tea of cynicism of today.
The story was perfectly functional, having both to tell the origin of the character and to set him on an adventure and to do so with comic-book abandon. We take impossible characters like Cap and Red Skull on faith and ask only that their inherent impossibility be handled in as earthbound a way as possible. This movie did that.
Likewise the action sequences were exciting and character-driven, most notably the early chase scene which had Cap diving into water after a submarine. This scene established forcefully, excitingly and humorously how absolutely determined Steve Rogers was. His determination to join the army was not a one-off trait that was disposed of after his transformation, but was shown to be part-and-parcel of his being. It was an expertly conceived and executed sequence.
My disappointment with "Thor" is another story.
Edward Norton in known as being difficult to work with and a bit of a prima donna. That's why he wasn't brought back for The Avengers. It's unlikely he would have agreed to do it anyway if he wasn't the focus of the story.
This review completely misses the mark on pretty much all of the movies it hit on. Hulk was good, despite not finding it's audience. The problem is that Norton was such an incredible pain in the ass behind the scenes that they were afraid he'd screw up The Avengers. Iron Man 2 was fine, if a bit underwhelming. Thor was good and Captain America was very good (although obviously rushed). Marvel has done a great job at keeping some level of quality in their products. In a Hollywood that gives us more crap films than good ones, you can count on Marvel films to be entertaining and family friendly. They take products that have ridiculous premises and manages to make them seriously and in a way that doesn't treat the audience like a bunch of suckers.
BTW, that $200 million mark that Zach so flippantly said they should have easily made…..only 13 movies based on comics have ever made $200 million, and that includes Superman, X-Men, Batman, Spiderman, Fantastic Four, Men In Black, and all of their various sequels and reboots. Both Cap & Thor were close to the $200 million mark, and that was in a summer heavy with comic book/sci fi movies. Put either in a year without heavy competition (a new big movie came out virtually every week for three months) and they would have gone over $200 million easily.
I don't get this post – all the marvel movies made a heck of a lot of money. I liked the Incredible Hulk, much more than the previous version. As for Iron Man 2? It wasn't a bad movie – it just wasn't as good as the first one. However I thoroughly enjoyed Thor and Captain America. Thor was just a fun movie. It didn't try to be anything it wasn't and it was a good action flick you could take your family to see.
The whole stable of movies are better then about 90 percent of the other crap that has come out of Hollywood lately. The bottom line is the movies made money. 176 million for Captain America isn't anything to sneeze at and 181 million for Thor is much more than I expected it to make. Don't just look at the 200 million mark, think about the movie business as a whole – Making these amounts of money is incredible.
I, for one, look forward to the Avengers. Maybe what the creator of this piece needs to do is go back to the 80s and 90s and watch the comic book movies that were made then. Most sucked and weren't even worth the time to put 'em in the vcr or DVD player.
I think Ruffalo looks like Banner more than Norton did. But that's neither here no there…
Didn't like Captain America, didn't like Thor, didn't like Iron Man 2. Couldn't agree more. But how dare you bring down the Whedon? When has he ever disappointed?
If a movie is fun to watch, it is a good movie to me despite anything else. I'm kind of sick of movies trying to have messages and telling me what I should or shouldn't be feeling/thinking/etc. I just want to sit down to a movie and be entertained for an hour and a half to three hours. Thor did that for me. It was fun and If I had kids, I wouldn't mind letting them see it. How many adult oriented movies can you say that about these days?
BTW I saw the Immortals. Rourke was probably the best part of it. It had some good action scenes but man I hated the metrosexuality of the gods in that flick, heh.
I watched reruns of those Marvel films in the 80s (Late 70s/80s anyway.) Man they were so bad… It made the later 80s super hero movies look like Oscar winners in comparison.
BTW I like Iron Man 2 – I just didn't enjoy it as much as the first film. BUT I didn't dislike it. In a era where Hollywood is spewing out crap, it really stands out as a good movie.
Serenity is one of the best scifi movies ever. Even if Whedon only had that one movie out, he deserves the credit he receives.
Call it old age but I remember a time when the thought of a comic book movie being made was a comic book geeks wet dream. I remember reading the back pages of comic scene magazine, looking for updates on when a spiderman, Xmen or Captain America film would be made. This was back in the late 80's early 90's when comic books were sooo popular. Sure studios would buy the rights or attach a director to a movie but nothing came of it. I know some people may not remember this but comics where really shunned by Hollywood and the public in general, like videogames. I mean, they just weren't taken seriously. Now, we have movies like Blade, Spiderman, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Xmen, etc. To top it off most of them are actually good and dare I say even great.
I do not disagree with Mr. Leeman per se but as an old guy who grew up on this stuff, I think we as fans sometimes need to put things in perspective. Like I said, maybe it's because I am old but I am really enjoying what Marvel is doing with their stable of characters. Marvel Studios is really trying to bring the Marvel Universe to life in the movies and given the limitations of time that you have using movies as a medium for comics, I have been very impressed. Absolutely loved Iron Man and even Iron Man 2. The new Hulk with Norton was awesome and Thor was one of my favorite movies last year. Captain America surpassed all my expectations because there were so many things they could have done to mess it up but they stayed true to the character and actually made a great movie.
So I will be looking forward to the Avengers, something that's never been done in movie history. I will be the fat guy in the middle row geeking out with my son, passing on the torch and letting him know how lucky he is that he can watch an Avengers movie:)
My favorite hero as a little boy in the early sixties was Thor. I think they did a great job with the bifurcated story line. As I recall, Thor was a fish our of water, all arrogant and a literal royal pain. The comic books usually went back and forth between Earth and Asgard. I think the movie did a great job in capturing both locales and capturing Thor's otherworldly nature. While I could point out a few flaws, when they are going to put your personal favorite up on the screen, you sigh with relief that they didn't totally screw it up. Just think of the poor folks who call the Hulk their favorite, or the Fantastic Four. Now, I'm wondering and waiting what they'll come up with for Dr. Strange, one of my other faves.
Iron Man was the one that probably exceeded preconceptions the most. If that's going to be the standard, well, it's a pretty high bar to set. That movie was driven by a performance that even Downey hasn't been able to duplicate. And Favreau lost his mojo as well. Sometimes things just come together all at the right time and place.
I enjoyed Captain America and felt the transformation effects were excellent. In my opinion, it wasn't as good as Thor but I have less emotional attachment to the characters. That's why there's more than one comic book on the rack, right?
I echo the concerns that there may be too many characters filling the screen to pull of a great Avenger movie. But, it's possible. Xmen and LOTR showed that it could be done.
Banner is Bill Bixby to me.
Always.
Kenneth Branagh (director of Thor) is a "name" and well respected, he probably was not cheap. Captain America was a pretty good movie, all in all, and the WWII set designs were not cheap. If Thor was all Shakespeare in Space, with Gods, Captain America was a WWII movie made with CGI. Emotionally it hit the right points.
The Hulk movies were flat, mostly because the leads were unconvincing, and the CGI Hulk lacked emotion.
Iron Man 2 was phoned in, Rourke was right on that.
Whedon? OVER-RATED. He's not even the best comic book writer out there: No Brian Michael Bendis, or James Robinson, or Micah Ian Wright, or Keith Giffen, or Garth Ennis. Writers actually trying to push new emotional boundaries, with new/original plots and character development. Instead of chain-jerking cliches. Whedon has not CREATED any new characters fans love, like say Gerry Conway (the Punisher). Whedon's a hard-core Liberal and self-proclaimed feminist who has stated how much he hates the Punisher as a character.
How good is he going to be as a hard-core feminist and Liberal on the Avengers? Odds, are, not very good. He was a genius in casting: Adam Baldwin, Nathan Fillion, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Alyson Hannigan, Eliza Dusku, Anthony Stuart Head, are all VERY good actors. He's never had a bad actor working for him, near as I can figure. But casting is already done. As a writer, he sucks, mostly, depending on chain-jerking manipulation (killing fave characters) to keep attention and not bore the audience, instead of character development. He's frustrating because his gifts for dialog and character development are over-ridden by his obsession with "cool" and shiny object characters/plot-points. Twilight is pretty much the Buffy-Angel thing, so you can blame him for inspiring Stephanie Meyer (Buffy and Angel's dialog could be substituted for Meyer's almost word for word).
Whedon's Titan AE was not very good, Alien Resurrection? His TV shows depended mostly on great actors, not the erratic, inconsistent writing ("Spike you loved me so much you had to rape me!" — that's Whedon's.) He's known to be "difficult" and could not turn in a script for Wonder Woman (duh, that's easy if you buy a clue).
But his Quote was undoubtedly CHEAP. And the economics are moving towards that.
Zachary Leeman – ”The studio also dumbly…replaced [Norton] with Mark Ruffalo. Here was their explanation:
We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back…Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the…collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members…who thrive working as part of an ensemble…
I’m not the smartest guy in the world, but I can read between the lines. Basically, they needed someone who was more of a puppet than Norton and whose voice would not interrupt theirs.
I can read between the lines, too. They needed someone who could, in the famous words of Quincy Jones, check his ego at the door. Norton wouldn’t. Therefore, good-bye Norton. Where is the evidence that Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johannson are “puppets?”
This might be the most wrong-headed post I've ever read on BH. Iron Man 2 was certainly no Iron Man 1. Hulk was about as entertaining and absorbing as you're going to get with a Hulk movie. That Rourke and Norton are famously difficult to work with and have never had qualms about trashing their own films is common knowledge. Does it mean they're wrong? No. But you have to also consider the source.
Thor and Capt. America were perfectly entertaining and faithful to the source material (that source being the Ultimates universe, which I'm not a huge fan of… but hey, I got to see THOR and CAPT. AMERICA movies last summer, and GOOD ones, so I'm not going to complain).
This post is just muckraking for the sake of muckraking and beneath BH.
Let me add, Marvel is under the same economic pressure as every other studio. Margins are declining all the time, piracy abroad is not going to stop, further eroding the "magic bullet" of foreign sales that was supposed to supplant DVD sales.
So you'll see more and more emphasis on "cheap" — cheap actors (guaranteed, there is ENORMOUS talent out there, angling for work), cheap writers, and cheap directors. Ten years ago Lucas would have had any studio happy to subsidize "Red Tails" just to get some project out of him, willing to take a bath of $100 million or so. Now Marvel has to hedge against losing more than $10, making the Mouse happy. Because THEY are under pressure.
John Nolte is right — Hollywood does not know how to execute, the easy money of DVDs and foreign sales are drying up, they are like crocodiles in an ever drying up water-pool in Africa. Marvel has lacked the imagination to fold in their lower-ranked characters in interesting ways. The Punisher, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four, are all good characters that could form the B-Team of Super-heroes, and can and should be on a network, particularly the Mouse's (but ABC is all female soap operas all the time). Even better, the fan-fave trick of cross-overs, like say the Punisher showing up in Daredevil, or Ghost Rider, is cheap and easy, but generates lots of press, favorable reaction, and showcases the Marvel "Wider Universe approach" that let it gain on DC in the 1960s.
I enjoyed both Captain America and Thor, as did the audiences I saw them with. I did think they could have done more with the physicality of the Cap character, but Evans did the character justice and it's hard not to like a movie where the God of Thunder keeps getting knocked on his ass by an intern. Volstagg seems to have been off his feed, though.
My biggest worry with the Avengers is that they left out both the Scarlet Witch AND the WASP. They're probably all gay in the office.
Why did I think that Titan AE was waaaaay older than 2000?
I remember thinking it was very good… for an "adult" cartoon not made in Japan. Maybe that's why I thought it was older than it was. Compared to Japanese animation it was undeveloped, a bit crude. In America animation is/was kid's stuff only. In that respect Titan AE was groundbreaking. It's not something that kids couldn't watch (like Heavy Metal animated movies) but it wasn't produced as a "for kids" cartoon. Which is a marketing problem. It could be done with live action and CGI with few changes to the script or settings and I think it would be received very differently.
Also, the sound track was awesome.
I think it's obvious this d-bag, Mrs. Z. Lemon, works for DC. What an idiot.
the only way ed norton would not be a problem on a film set is if he was doing everything himself,sort of like when bugs bunny played the gashouse gorillas in baseball.directed by ed norton,produced by ed norton,starring ed norton ,ed norton,ed norton and introducing ed norton. in anyother setup he will have a problem with someone and quite possibly everyone involved. its a shame he can't tone it down a bit,hes quite possibly the best actor alive at the time and hes costing him self camera time with his perfectionism.
some guys just don't get it,he reminds me of alec baldwin in a way as alec was on a roll early then he got bitchy.when he turned down the sequel to hunt for red october and harrison ford was willing to take the part I realized nothing was ever going to be up to baldwins artificially inflated sence of self worth,honestly how big does your head have to be that you call a roll an insult and han solo/indiana jones/deckard is willing to work for that money with no script changes.
Who let this guy write an article here? If he were any more wrong he could have posted this on the Daily Kos.
Captain America The First Avenger is probably the best film out of the five, very close with the first Iron Man. Thor was fun, and The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2 were fine for what they needed to do.
Granted, people may have different opinions about the quality of the films. But the biggest strike against this article is the dis against Joss Whedon. The one movie he directed, the author fails to note, is the excellent Serenity, the follow-up to his excellent Firefly TV show. The author fails to note this is the same Joss Whedon who is responsible for the excellent Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV show. The same Joss Whedon who co-wrote the original Toy Story. The same Joss Whedon who helped revitalize the X-Men comics in the 2000s. In other words, a director who is both visionary and perfectly suited for the material.
Well, that's just like, your opinion, man
Here's the thing though…..Norton can act. Ruffalo? Not so much.
Oh grow up, all of you!
How boring would it be if everyone on Big Hollywood only wrote what everyone agreed with? Yuck! It's far better to have people write articles we disagree with. It's more fun to comment that way. How boring is, "Uh, yeah, me too." repeated over and over?
And over and over.
And over.
I thought Thor and Captain America were awesome. I think you need to lighten up. If you want to see crap then watch the first Captain America movie, or the made for TV series. I agree Ruffalo is a clown. THAT ALONE is why I'm not spending money on the movie. I'll just get it for free……….somehow.
Yeah, I've never quite gotten the hate for Iron Man 2 either. It's not as good as the first film, but considering its shortened production/release time, and the number of balls it had to juggle to keep the Marvel Film Universe up in the air, it's still a solid piece of entertainment. I very much liked what both Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell brought to their characters, ScarJo made a decent little subplot addition, Favreau expanded his own character to comedic effect, and Downey Jr. was as charming as always. The initial critics' reviews were also mostly positive. Somewhere along the way, though, online fanboy b*tching about this detail or that seems to have tainted the whole film to the point where most seem to dismiss it as a giant POS now, like the above reviewer. It's clearly not – I'd have killed for a comic book movie as good as Iron Man 2 back in the quality wasteland of the '80s.
I thought Captain America and Thor were pretty good, too. Thor, in particular, had to have been an extremely difficult character to adapt, so the fact that Marvel pulled it off at all says something. Heck, many predicted Thor was going to be a box office bomb, and it went on to be the biggest comic book movie of the summer – $450 million worldwide. Not too shabby for a B-list character.
Mr. Leeman is clearly off his meds, or something.
Yep, me too. I saw each of these movies with my teenage kids and we all enjoyed them, even 'Iron Man 2'. Were any of these movies perfect? No, but they were very enjoyable, didn't insult me or my beliefs and I was smiling when I left the theater.
And I am looking forward to 'The Avengers' – one of the few movies I'll actually deal with the boneheads at the theater to see this year.
In Zachary's defense, here's my opinion:
if you go into a film with some sort of expectation, the film exceeds or doesn't even come close.
So, superhero movies, I go in with expecting the worst but hope for the best. Thus, I typically enjoy said product. "Thor" was great! I loved it!
But I haven't seen "Captain America" or made any attempt to do so. And the ONLY reason I think I'm going to see "The Avengers" is two-fold: Nick Fury and Joss Whedon. I was unaware of the "firing" of Edward Norton and frelling pissed off at the casting of Mark Ruffalo, who isn't making my decision any easier.
Hahaha. Another Big Hollywood writer mercilessly skewered by his own readers.
Perhaps if I ever read any of the Marvel comic books, I might have a different perspective of the films Marvel has produced so far, but from what I've seen, I've had no complaints.
I was pleasantly surprised by Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr. initially was the last actor I'd have thought to play Tony Stark), found Iron Man 2 to be equally as good (although it was a shame they didn't cast Terrence Howard to reprise the role of Colonel Rhodes), and Thor was pure fun (it surprised me to find out Kenneth Branagh directed it). I look forward to checking out The Avengers this summer.
I've heard about Norton as well. He tends to try to hijack the writing credits on every movie he works on. Just listen to him on the commentary of FIGHT CLUB where he catches himself after implying he wrote the script.
I liked the movies better than you did, but we should save the thumbs-downs for the boneheads, not for someone who didn't like a movie we did. I gave you one back.
I think Thor was my second favorite, after the original Iron Man. I don't worry too much about Hawkeye in Thor, as that was just a little cameo to set him up for later. I doubt if he and the others will be developed too much, though, as I assume it's going to mainly be the Cap, Tony and Thor show.
I am not that aware of Whedon's work. I mean, I know what he's done, but I haven't seen much of it. When he was doing the Astonishing X-Men comic, I remember a liberal bitterly complaining that Whedon was "a Republican who thinks he's a Democrat." Is there anything in his work that would make that make sense? I mean, the turn-off for Avengers is Dark Buffalo, so if I can put up with him, it doesn't matter if the statement is total bunk.
I totally agree about Captain America! I thought it was an outstanding movie! Thor while not up to Cap and Iron Man was incredibly entertaining. Ed Norton has a reputation for being extremely difficult to work with to the point of literally taking over projects. While he is a gifted actor, his history does not bode well for working with an ensemble cast.
Like the others responding, I liked Iron Man 2, but not as much as the first. I think the problem is Marvel setting a release date and saying, "Make that date" instead of letting the production schedule dictate the date. I mean, you can't let it get out of control, but give them enough time to make the best movie they can instead of cutting corners because you insist it be done for May 2.
Iron man 2 cost 75 million and brought in 312 million. Thats not a success? I call bs.
"Get me the guy with the biggest, dumbest Hulk face you can find."
(in unison): "MARK RUFFALO!"
I can't fathom why someone would choose to use the examples of Iron Man II, Captain America, and Thor (all pretty good movies) and the newer Hulk. What about the Fantastic Four movies, X-men III, Ghostrider, Daredevil, Punisher, and freaking Elektra?
The quality of the Marvel movies has clearly gone up. If they're cashing in, it's not nearly to the extent that they were. Your whole thesis is flawed.
Zach, did you see the same movie that I saw re: Captain America: The First Avenger? I was bracing for the worse, too, particularly because of the very same comments you cite from director Joe Johnston, but this movie was a delight:
Stebe Rogers was a noble and admirable person:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v620E6ozrKI&li...
The song "Star Spangle Man" was great:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm0kdA9ii3o&li...
The end titles could not be any more patriotoc and inspiring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-v3wHyR-no&li...
Sorry, Zach, but you mised the bus on this.
you wouldnt have a different opinion. This guy just doesnt know what hes talking about. Ive been reading comics for 20 years and the only disappointment ive seen in recent marvel history is ghost rider. Before marvel studios, daredevil, elektra and hulk. They still have many more good than bad.
While I would have liked Norton in The Avengers, I was pretty sure his "willingness to help" in other areas of the film would simply have caused trouble, and a breakdown in the chain of command.
This is easily one of the worst articles this site has ever ran. I disagree with everything in it, but there's no substance in it at all — it reads like a blogger's rant. But since that's pretty much the MO of the "editor in chief" here, it's not hard to see that the direction of this site reflects that type of vapid, directionless nonsense.
BigHollywood: Get an idea — define a narrative here, and then get after it.
(Can't resist the Dude)
You figured "Oh, here's a loser," you know? A deadbeat, someone the square community won't give a s**t about.
The one thing that should be noted about the second set of movies that you noted is that they were not done by Marvel but by other movie companies that had no idea how to handle the characters they were working with. I will take Marvel's weakest movie ten times over the crap some other movie company makes. I know that Spiderman I and II, X-Men I and II were not done by Marvel but they were done by people who loved those characters. When those characters were taken away from them, Raimi and Singer, and made by the studios, we got X-Men III and Spiderman III.
Something seriously wrong with the pathetic Dr. Doom they wasted in those horrible FF movies.
Dr. Doom could have been the ultimate movie if they did it right.
The picture of the blogger wearing a beret lamenting Hollywood messing with his comics heroes is just too ridiculous(:
Begs the question regarding the real motives of his service……….or is it his last outfit in comiCon.
Wow: About the only item I agree in the column is NOT bringing back Ed Norton as Bruce Banner/Hulk is a tragic mistake.
What movie did you see? All the movie were good to excellent and as one put 75 mil budget with 300 dom box is pretty good in anybodies book. Not to mention Capt America was competing against Harry Potter and Planet of the Apes. Much to serious…
That would actually work and make for a pretty decent movie. I just don't see any reason to have the other characters there if they're just going to be background scenery. Focus on Cap, Iron Man, Thor and the Hulk and leave out the rest of them. That way there's no need to get into the other characters at all and they can still do a lot with those four.
To be fair, Norton is also a moron. Sometimes you can forget Norton is a moron, on screen, but not so much with Ruffalo.
It's not so much disagreement, it's an author who clearly doesn't know very much about the subject he's ranting about. For someone to write a piece on sic-fi and action movies who doesn't a) know enough about the genre to know who Joss Whedon is and b) doesn't know enough about film making/movie stars/general media knowledge that Ed Norton is a royal pain in the arse to work with smacks of someone who should perhaps be writing on another subject. If he didn't like Cap or Thor or Iron Man 2, that's fine, but his reasons for disliking them seem a bit illogical to me (and clearly many of the other posters.)
I'm with you there—but I knew they were going to suck when they put Doom on the rocket with the FF in the first place.
Marvel Studios Now Making the Lazy Comic Cash-Ins It Was Founded to Replace
YA' THINK MAYBE IT'S SIMPLY THAT YOU'RE AN ADULT NOW AND EVEN THE BEST OF SUPERHERO FILMS CANNOT MEASURE UP TO MORE MATURE STANDARDS?
BRUCE GETS ANGRY, TURNS BIG AND GREEN AND BREAKS THINGS….IT'S GOOD CLEAN FUN, BUT IT AIN'T HAMLET.
Marvel is more than happy to steal Jack Kirby's characters to make more money while his estate/family probably sees none of it.
The man's been dead for 2 decades now, and Marvel still continues to screw him over.
Cpt. America is a bit of fun. My wife was very pleasantly surprised with Chris Evans and the development of Steve Rogers as a character.
We both loved Stanley Tucci. He helped make Rogers such a great character.
And another comment from a pointless jackass.
It does not "beg the question".
Oddly, your first comment actually begs the question.
I'd love to have Norton's Banner/Hulk back and leave Ruffalo in the dust… but Norton's reputation as a meddling pain in the ass would have slowed things down and wrecked the ensemble.
If Norton could somehow have promised not to over-step his boundaries as an actor, then he certainly should have been in The Avengers. I suspect the studio could not count on him to do that.
It's a pity, but it is probably for the best.
Ruffalo, though, does not seem like the best choice at all. Unless they were only going to use him to motion-capture the Hulk. He's a tantrum-throwing jackass.
"I mean, they picked the guy who directed “Jumanji” to direct “Captain America!”
Have some respect. The "guy" is Joe Johnston who also directed "The Rocketeer." A fact that you either were too lazy to Google or conveniently left out since "Rocketeer" has lots of fans and is very close in spirit to the nostalgic, old-fashioned story-telling of "Captain America." And just how were the early Steve Rogers CGI effects "sad and awkward?' If your writing wasn't sad and awkward you wouldn't have to elaborate.
CAPTAIN AMERICA was to my mind half a terrific movie that fell a full letter grade between hour one and hour two.
And although IRON MAN 2 was fairly mediocre, there is one — one — absolutely fantastic moment when Downey's Tony Stark says something derisive about Liberals (I can't remember the exact phrasing now. Anyone…?)
It was the kind of dialogue you almost never get to hear anymore.
Whedon didn't direct or write Titan AE, that's why it was still worth watching, but you could see the Whedon-esque touches throughout the movie which now just make me cringe. Look out, here comes the female buttkicker, we all know who's gonna be in charge, she's gonna show the guuuuys how its done.
There is a difference between disagreement and demands that Big Hollywood purge it's ranks of those deemed to have the wrong opinions. Most people just disagreed. Nearly everyone disagreed. But a few were attacking the person. Personal attacks are not okay.
So we've got a few who seem angry that someone didn't have the right opinions and willing to personally attack him, and at least one person crowing that the conservatives aren't properly lock-step. Note that both sides of that are demanding that conservatives be properly lock-step and then behaving badly.
Someone ought to say something about that being wrong.
I don't consider myself a huge Whedon fan, but I'm pretty familiar with his work, excluding Buffy and Angel.
I own every issue of his Astonishing run, and honestly, nothing is coming to mind concerning liberal vs. conservative philosophy. I can't remember any emphasis either way. But he does have a habit of portraying government and large institutions as oppressive oligarchies. Maybe that's it.
Also, Firefly is very libertarian, although the 'heroes' are not necessarily good examples of libertarians. But he shows an oppressive, over-reaching government bureaucracy opposed by individualist, capitalistic profiteers.
He's got writing credits on Titan AE. I hadn't known that until I went and looked.
But to call "buttkicking female" a Whedon-esque feature is ridiculous… as if no one else ever comes up with that.
"They needed someone who could, in the famous words of Quincy Jones, check his ego at the door. Norton wouldn’t."
Odd you should mention that. Looking back on it, it could be said that Ed Norton keeps playing the same character. Someone who always needs to be the smartest guy in the room.
Well, Raimi still made "Spider-Man 3," but I seem to recall hearing that he was more or less forced to include the whole entire Venom storyline by the studio and, indirectly, fan pressure. That can kind of take your heart out of a project.
And Singer voluntarily left to direct "Superman Returns." I'm not defending "X-Men: The Last Stand" as a good movie by any means, especially in comparison to the first two, but it's not like the studio yanked it away from Singer. He left on his own accord.
Forgive the lack of originality, but WORD to all of that – though, to be fair, I generally enjoy comic book adaptations if they're not lazily done. I loved Captain America, and I'm not worried about The Avengers – if anyone can pull it off, it's Joss Whedon.
Growing up, Spider-Man and Batman were the only superheros I had a slight interest in. My inner child shrugs them off for other pursuits. Though I did like ROM (and had the toy!) but that character didn't last long.
My inner child is into more mature subjects.
He's pretty anti-gun. He made reference several times during Firefly commentary about the issue. However, aside from Buffy, which was a very mythical based show anyway, this view isn't really noticeable in any of his works.
I like IM2 more than Leeman did. Though it was jarring to get used to Cheadle as Rhodes.
More likely than not, I'll see The Advengers.
Rom was cool. I like how they made him a part of the Marvel Universe, until they lost the rights.
"Neither “Thor” nor “Captain America: The First Avenger” could even touch the $200 million mark."
Worldwide Box Office
Thor 448 million.
Captain America 248 million.
Got those numbers here, http://tiny.cc/c0ini
Avengers is going to be review proof and print money but I expect it to be pretty good too.
I enjoyed Thor and Captain America and reviewed them here http://tiny.cc/420tm http://tiny.cc/esudt
I was very disappointed to learn Mark Ruffalo would replace Ed Norton. Norton was excellent as Bruce Banner, and The Hulk was great. Besides, Ruffalo has the appearance and slurred speech of a hobo. I can't imagine him trying to play a brilliant scientist.
Thor and Captain America were much weaker than Iron Man and The Hulk (though Helmsworth worked out surprisingly well), Scarlett Johannson was awful in Iron Man 2, Samuel Jackson is overrated, and Mark Ruffalo will be in it. But, I still have some hope for The Avengers.
It seems Marvel wants to make sure their movies are no better than their comics.
Captain America could have been great instead of merely good. Where they went wrong was sci-fying it up. First half of the movie was thoroughly enjoyable. The second half was "leaning my head on my hand and saying 'Really?' Oh well.
Thor was enjoyable, just glad I waited to watch on DvD rather than in the theaters.
I'm with you, too. My only complaint about IM2 is that it was pretty much a "more of the same" type sequel that didn't offer much we didn't see in some form in the first film, but it was still pretty entertaining.
I agree that this is just bad, sloppy writing, and wrong on nearly every count. Iron Man 2 was good, not as good as the first, but Scarlett Johansson's one action scene was worth the price of admission. And I definitely got the sense of Vanko's grievances and motivations, so I don't know what Rourke is talking about. Captain America was wonderful, Chris Evans and Hayley Atwell were phenomenally good. Everything I have seen about Avengers makes me want to see it. And seriously, you are questioning Joss Whedon's ability to direct character-driven action? Seven seasons of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, five seasons of Angel, half a season of Firefly, and Serenity? That Joss Whedon?
And I'm the geek who devoured Avengers comics in the 70's and 80's. I'm the fanboy who whines that The Vision, Scarlet Witch, the Wasp, Hercules, and Wonder Man aren't in the movie. I'm the guy who's excited because perennial fan-favorite supporting player Hawkeye is in it.
And what's with the profile picture? I was in the Army Reserve (Infantry, hooah) , too but I never felt the need to wear my uniform in my driver's license photo.
I dunno, I might have to look at him for another three or three hundred hours, just to make sure. "Okay, and turn a little bit, and flex . . . hmm. Well, I'm not sure just yet, still thinking. This is going to take a WHOLE lot more looking, I do believe."
You must be logged in to post a comment.