The Gauntlet Has Been Thrown: The Future of Superhero Movies

[Mathim]

The Four Horsemen in the post credits scene were his original horsemen. They aren't immortal like him. So they didn't make the 5000 year trip with him to the modern age. And as for his look... they've already said his look isn't finished. That was a bit of rushed trailer to make CC.

I didn't know if his immortality was a result of his mutation or his use of technology. I assumed if he wanted he could find some way to freeze or otherwise preserve himself or others so I didn't know if he'd replace the originals because they fell in battle or if he kept making new ones every time the others died of old age, because then it's like, why only 4? And if one gets too old do you just leave them alive until they die or do you hold tryouts for new blood to come along and earn their spot by killing the one they're trying to replace?

[Beorning]

I didn't know if his immortality was a result of his mutation or his use of technology. I assumed if he wanted he could find some way to freeze or otherwise preserve himself or others so I didn't know if he'd replace the originals because they fell in battle or if he kept making new ones every time the others died of old age, because then it's like, why only 4? And if one gets too old do you just leave them alive until they die or do you hold tryouts for new blood to come along and earn their spot by killing the one they're trying to replace?

Why only four? Because, ultimately, Apocalypse is a comic book villain with a gimmick / theme to stick to...  ;D

Also, in one (bad) storyline, he did actually hold a kind of contest for possible Horsemen...

[Mathim]

Why only four? Because, ultimately, Apocalypse is a comic book villain with a gimmick / theme to stick to...  ;D

Also, in one (bad) storyline, he did actually hold a kind of contest for possible Horsemen...

Well it just made sense to me for how they choose who gets to be the next/replacement. I mean, that's how the Joker decided which of that one gangster's men to bring into his group, whoever survived that pool cue fight and that was one of the coolest scenes in TDK. Succession in a crazy powerful badass' royal guard should be decided by who can take the head of the one who came before them.

All the first showings of Ant-Man in 3D are sold out around my area. I guess that's a good sign for it, right? Hopefully it'll continue doing well enough that I can go see it in 3D next week instead, since I always catch the first showing for the discount.

[CaptainNexus616]

In truth Ant-Man had a weird formula that...idk worked greatly. It had a lot of humor in it and it was probably the most I have ever laughed during a movie

[Mathim]

In truth Ant-Man had a weird formula that...idk worked greatly. It had a lot of humor in it and it was probably the most I have ever laughed during a movie

Well, when you start out as the brainchild of Edgar Wright, you'd do well to play to your strengths, which is comedy, so that's no surprise. I definitely did not go into Thor: The Dark World expecting to laugh half as much as I did, but it was a pleasant surprise and made what otherwise would have been too dark and slow for me to enjoy more something that I gladly watch over and over. I was prepared to start regarding Ant-Man as more of a comedy than anything once I started seeing more of these new trailers and clips. Although some of the reviews on youtube are saying it is, above all, a heist film like the Ocean's Eleven series. I have to admit, I've never seen a heist film from start to finish. Not a big fan of that kind of thing. But I think the insertion of superheroes into the mix will make it a winner.

Speaking of which, the guys at Marvel say they don't make superhero movies, they make genre films that just happen to have superheroes in them. So a couple of them, I get, but there's a few I don't. Can someone fill in the blanks?

Iron Man - ?
The Incredible Hulk - Chase film
Iron Man 2 - ?
Thor - ?
Captain America: The First Avenger - Period Piece (1940's)
Avengers - ?
Iron Man 3 - ?
Thor: The Dark World - ?
Captain America: The Winter Soldier - Political Thriller
Guardians of the Galaxy - Space Opera
Avengers: Age of Ultron - ?
Ant-Man - Heist film

So what did they intend for all those question marks on that list? I think I heard of what some of them were but can't remember what was said, or if they ever double-dip and make two films of the same genre. What do you guys think?

Also, has anyone seen this article about why the MCU is bad for the film genre? I disagree with almost every point it makes but I wanted to see if anyone here feels strongly one way or another.

http://whatculture.com/film/10-ways-that-the-marvel-cinematic-universe-has-ruined-cinema.php

[CaptainNexus616]

It's kinda hard to ruin something when for the last decade it has been nothing but reboots and books attempting to make their own Harry Potter or hunger games success. The MCU has also helped how many actors reach breakthrough roles? It revitalized RDJ's career, it helped make Hemsworth and Pratt big deals. Plus lord knows how many other actors and actresses got a chance to shine as characters in those movies

Jason Staham gripped about anyone even his grandma capable being in one and lets face it. it doesn't take an actor who has already been around ten to twenty years with a body from the gods or is a teen to be part of the MCU.


As for the genre question I would say Thor counts as twist on Mythology

While Iron Man....I would say that's more of a drama as they normally focus more on Tony figuring out the problem before he starts flying around and shooting repulsor blasts.

[TheGlyphstone]

Yeah, the Iron Man trilogy is a character drama about Tony Stark growing up, so to speak, from the cartoonishly rich man-child he starts as to someone aware of his impact on the world and trying to make that impact positive.

Thor, actually, is somewhat similar - it's a story of Thor earning his birthright by maturing from a child into a responsible adult. So I guess they can both be considered coming-of-age stories, so to speak, as a variant on drama.

The Avengers movies are just sci-fi action movies, of which superhero movies are already a subset.

[Mathim]

Yeah, the Iron Man trilogy is a character drama about Tony Stark growing up, so to speak, from the cartoonishly rich man-child he starts as to someone aware of his impact on the world and trying to make that impact positive.

Thor, actually, is somewhat similar - it's a story of Thor earning his birthright by maturing from a child into a responsible adult. So I guess they can both be considered coming-of-age stories, so to speak, as a variant on drama.

The Avengers movies are just sci-fi action movies, of which superhero movies are already a subset.

Well I remember now, Iron Man 3 was supposed to be a techo-thriller, like something Tom Clancy would fit into, but I don't know about the other two. The original Thor might have been a High Fantasy or something but I don't know. And the Avengers was supposed to be some kind of team or assemblage category, but I don't remember the words exactly. I just wanted to know if Marvel could keep up this pretense when really, there's not a whole lot of genres out there to cover every single one of their nearly 20 different movies. Maybe they should quit while they're ahead and just say, "Yeah, these are superhero movies, with elements of different genres blended" so they don't have to be embarrassed later when it becomes impossible to keep that up.

[TheGlyphstone]

I guess Iron Man itself is the character drama then. It really is all about that transition for Tony from man-child into responsible adult, or at the very least a variant of the Gospel of Uncle Ben - With Great Money Comes Great Responsibility, whereas the second and third movies deal with the fallout of his decisions in IM1.

IM2 I have no idea, because it was so bad. If it had any central theme at all, it was Tony coming to grips with his past and getting over his latent daddy issues, but I don't know what genre that would count as.

[Mathim]

I guess Iron Man itself is the character drama then. It really is all about that transition for Tony from man-child into responsible adult, or at the very least a variant of the Gospel of Uncle Ben - With Great Money Comes Great Responsibility, whereas the second and third movies deal with the fallout of his decisions in IM1.

IM2 I have no idea, because it was so bad. If it had any central theme at all, it was Tony coming to grips with his past and getting over his latent daddy issues, but I don't know what genre that would count as.

Part 2 could have been so much better. I think there should have been way more involvement with both Tony and Ivan's fathers, more flashbacks to put more depth into the family enmity, and make Vanko a more sinister character early on. I felt it hard to sympathize with him since, let's face it, his dad was probably already going to die of old age anyway by that point. I think both him and Hammer needed to be darker and that would have made a big difference. Turning it into a family drama would probably have been a big risk but I think for the sake of story, getting to know the Howard Stark that Tony knew, and not the one Captain America knew, would have been better. Besides, why did Howard become so different with his son than without? They never go into that and it always bugged me. I think given the track record of Marvel movies, using the same directors more than once has yet to prove a good idea. Maybe IM2 could have been better without Favreau altogether.

[TheGlyphstone]

Pretty much. At its core, it was Tony vs. his past, but they tried to splice in the Demon In A Bottle storyline and failed, made Justin Hammer an utterly incompetent joke, and as far as I could tell Ivan Vanko's secret master plan was to repeatedly lose fights against Tony Stark in public. There was no continuity or coherency. IM3, for all of his legions of faults, at least had a coherent story arc it was aiming for - "Iron Man Is Tony Stark, a hero even without his armor" as a bookend against IM1's "Tony Stark is Iron Man origin story". IM2 just didn't know what it wanted to be, and that crippled it on top of the usual middle-of-a-trilogy problems.

[Mathim]

Pretty much. At its core, it was Tony vs. his past, but they tried to splice in the Demon In A Bottle storyline and failed, made Justin Hammer an utterly incompetent joke, and as far as I could tell Ivan Vanko's secret master plan was to repeatedly lose fights against Tony Stark in public. There was no continuity or coherency. IM3, for all of his legions of faults, at least had a coherent story arc it was aiming for - "Iron Man Is Tony Stark, a hero even without his armor" as a bookend against IM1's "Tony Stark is Iron Man origin story". IM2 just didn't know what it wanted to be, and that crippled it on top of the usual middle-of-a-trilogy problems.

I will say though, apart from the Avengers, IM2 did have the most satisfying final battle in all of Phase 1.

[mia h]

Age of Ultron is almost a sci-fi\horror film, sort of Frankenstien meets Wargames or Terminator without the time travel. Genius scientist creates life that tries to surpass it's creator.

[SapphireStar]

IM2 seemed to have no plot. Tony seemed to fall back into his wild ways because the device in his chest was corroding and poisoning his body. They seemed to try to turn it into a form of the Demon in the Bottle story from the comics. It seemed to be more of a vehicle to introduce the Black Widow then anything else. The characters seemed almost out of character.

[Mathim]

Age of Ultron is almost a sci-fi\horror film, sort of Frankenstien meets Wargames or Terminator without the time travel. Genius scientist creates life that tries to surpass it's creator.

I might agree if they succeeded, but Ultron was just not scary the way he was portrayed in the trailer. They did a complete 180 and made him a literal joke machine. What would have been terrifying would be him being LESS human, not more. Just more reason it should have been split into two films. The whole first film could be the robotic brain trying to juggle all the cognitive dissonances in its mind that we all take for granted, and as it gradually goes insane, takes on the 'Dark Mirror of Tony Stark' persona that would be perfect for a second-part conclusion.

And IM2 would have benefited from being a family drama, I still feel, if they decided to go that route. Delving into the dark corners of the family's past for both him and the villain, forcing him to make some soul-crushing decisions his father had to as a corporate mogul, and still having to escape from that while the clock is literally ticking. Instead we felt no tension while time ran out and the villains were too hollow to be interesting. If they didn't want to write a story they could have at least wrote decent characters. And given Vanko a damn suit to fight in at the race track. What was up with him not having any armor, just whips, and still manhandling Briefcase Armor Iron Man, who kicked a car and made it go skidding several yards?

[CaptainNexus616]

Well at the time Vanko didn't have the many resources. The second movie started with Vanko watching Tony reveal himself as Iron Man and the second movie took place I think roughly a year later. Imagine how hard it would be to create both a  mini arc reactor and electric whips from scratch and make sure they work while getting money to even get resources.

[Deamonbane]

Thing that always got me was... why whips? That's THE most inefficient use of the arc reactor's power. Sure, they look cool, but when you're going up against a guy with tech as good if not better than you own, it's like going to battle wearing the grey armor because it looks cooler.

[TheGlyphstone]

Thing that always got me was... why whips? That's THE most inefficient use of the arc reactor's power. Sure, they look cool, but when you're going up against a guy with tech as good if not better than you own, it's like going to battle wearing the grey armor because it looks cooler.

Another reason why I think Vanko's plan wasn't actually to beat Tony, but to force Tony to exert himself so much winning the fights that the arc reactor would poison him to death faster.

[SapphireStar]

Ivanko's character was supposed to be Whiplash, who did use whips as one of his weapons. Whiplash was also featured as one of the villains in the Iron Man cartoon who worked for the Mandarian. It would have been great if they continued to tie in the Ten Rings throughout the movies culminating with the real Mandarian apearing in the third movie.

[CaptainNexus616]

That may have been the original plan until Jon Faveru (forgive me if I spelled that wrong) chose to not direct the third.

The guy who directed Iron Man 3 has not been hired for another Marvel film since and I'm sure same deal goes to the guys who ruined the Mandrain and gave Tony a kid sidekick.

[Mathim]

See, I had the idea that instead of just buying a passport of whatever off that black market guy like in the movie, Vanko could have been using them to make his own suit. I had this awesome scene I wrote for it where they'd come after him looking for the money he owed them for it, and those would be the first guys he'd actually kill in his quest for vengeance.

I thought the climax would have been much cooler if his armor in the final battle had four arms and four whips, but if someone like the Mandarin had just gotten his hands on the wrecked armor, or even just the schematics, they could have used that later on even without Vanko.

Well since Shane Black co-wrote the script for IM3, obviously he's one of those guys who got the boot for thinking a kid as part of the story makes it more palatable for ANYBODY. Even kids see through that crappy gimmick nowadays.

[SapphireStar]

Alot of times the movie scripts go through several re-writes before the final one is completed. The Studio executives probably tossed in the idea of having the kid to make the movie more kid-friendly. Something that the kids could enjoy, seeing a kid being a part of the "action". IM3 was better then IM2, in that it had a semi-coherent plot. And, Tony was relying more on his brains then the armor to solve his problems.

About the only thing good about IM2 was a few fight scenes later in the movie. They should have continued following the Mandarian in the IM movies. Being that he was largely the main antagonist throughout the IM comics. They teased him in the first with the Ten Rings, then nothing in IM2. They had potential for an epic battle between the two but they missed it.

[Mathim]

Alot of times the movie scripts go through several re-writes before the final one is completed. The Studio executives probably tossed in the idea of having the kid to make the movie more kid-friendly. Something that the kids could enjoy, seeing a kid being a part of the "action". IM3 was better then IM2, in that it had a semi-coherent plot. And, Tony was relying more on his brains then the armor to solve his problems.

About the only thing good about IM2 was a few fight scenes later in the movie. They should have continued following the Mandarian in the IM movies. Being that he was largely the main antagonist throughout the IM comics. They teased him in the first with the Ten Rings, then nothing in IM2. They had potential for an epic battle between the two but they missed it.

Well they could have at least put in a rock 'em sock 'em robots reference in the movie when Tony and Rhodey were in the boxing ring, with one of their faceplates popping up or both of them, even.

[CaptainNexus616]

Could have worked lol. Iron Man was essentially the prototype for the Marvel Cinematic Universe if you think about it.

The first two and the Incredible Hulk were the first ones out so it kinda helped them figure out what was good and what wasn't really. I personally don't own Iron Man 2 or 3 along with Incredible Hulk but its worth watching at least once in my opinion

[Mathim]

Could have worked lol. Iron Man was essentially the prototype for the Marvel Cinematic Universe if you think about it.

The first two and the Incredible Hulk were the first ones out so it kinda helped them figure out what was good and what wasn't really. I personally don't own Iron Man 2 or 3 along with Incredible Hulk but its worth watching at least once in my opinion

The only one I don't own is Iron Man 3. The direction they chose to go with it, honestly, you could skip it and by the time Age of Ultron comes around, you'll have zero reason to need to know any of what went down there. But I'm not going Blu-Ray with any of them.