The Marvel Cinematic Universe

HULK's easily the best of the lot.

Not sure about Hulk, considering it's the third actor playing him in as many films.

For my money, Captain America was the best of that bunch. I dug the pulpiness of it.

I thought HULK's captions were pretty pulp.

Jack Wade wrote:

The Avengers is getting pretty good reviews early on. Currently at 96 percent on Rotten Tomatoes with just fewer than two weeks until it opens.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/marvels_the_avengers/

I made sure I got my early #s in the comics before their prices skyrocket. If anyone has to price gouge and dig out eyeballs, it will be me....

eg my #11 cost me $60 in high-grade six months ago...I am selling it for $120, a 100% markup, and have 2 guys fighting over it...

Awhile ago I wasn't terribly interested in the whole Marvel universe thing. I thought it might hurt the solo films by throwing all these bits and pieces that would eventually come at full force in THE AVENGERS. But having just revisited the five films and seeing the one that just came out, I really gotta give a big Orson clap to Marvel Studios for pulling it off such an ambitious strategy. Overall the films manage to work by themselves pretty well without having to see all of them. The only ones that sorta get hurt are how they tacked on what should have been the post-credit endings of THE INCREDIBLE HULK (Stark meeting General Ross) and CAPTAIN AMERICA (Steve Rogers waking up in 2011 New York).

THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA are probably my favorites of the Pre-Venger flicks. I dunno, I just find them more appealing. THOR looked like a turkey to me when I saw the trailer, so yeah I was very impressed. CAPTAIN AMERICA works as an old fashioned adventure flick in the same style as THE ROCKETEER, which I always dug.

Well, the success of THE AVENGERS means that Edgar Wright's ANT MAN might be going ahead after all;

http://www.hitfix.com/articles/is-edgar-wrights-ant-man-movie-finally-making-progress

Which means that when THE AVENGERS 2 comes around:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55554

Ant Man might be included in the line-up.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Awhile ago I wasn't terribly interested in the whole Marvel universe thing. I thought it might hurt the solo films by throwing all these bits and pieces that would eventually come at full force in THE AVENGERS. But having just revisited the five films and seeing the one that just came out, I really gotta give a big Orson clap to Marvel Studios for pulling it off such an ambitious strategy. Overall the films manage to work by themselves pretty well without having to see all of them. The only ones that sorta get hurt are how they tacked on what should have been the post-credit endings of THE INCREDIBLE HULK (Stark meeting General Ross) and CAPTAIN AMERICA (Steve Rogers waking up in 2011 New York).

THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA are probably my favorites of the Pre-Venger flicks. I dunno, I just find them more appealing. THOR looked like a turkey to me when I saw the trailer, so yeah I was very impressed. CAPTAIN AMERICA works as an old fashioned adventure flick in the same style as THE ROCKETEER, which I always dug.

THOR, IRON MAN 2, and HULK 2 all happen simultaneously, and before Avengers came out I created a custom fan-edit of them in chronological order that was five and a half hours long. I also included the Agent Coulson short films. It was great fun -- invited my friends over and we all watched The Prevengers before going out to see Avengers. It was cool seeing how everything really fit together and it really established that they must've done a lot of work early on to map that road out.

That would be interesting to watch. Besides tacking on Ron Jones music on TNG clips, I haven't done fan edits for a long time.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

It was cool seeing how everything really fit together and it really established that they must've done a lot of work early on to map that road out.

I believe Joss Whedon was given the scripts for THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA before they had even begun to be shot so that he would have as long as possible to work on THE AVENGERS' draft.

He also did some uncredited polishing on Captain America.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

It was cool seeing how everything really fit together and it really established that they must've done a lot of work early on to map that road out.

I believe Joss Whedon was given the scripts for THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA before they had even begun to be shot so that he would have as long as possible to work on THE AVENGERS' draft.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

He also did some uncredited polishing on Captain America.

Read that as "poisoning." Was about to agree. ;)

I didn't know he had a hand in the screenplay for THOR. I thought his only involvement was when he directed that post-credit bit at the end of IRON MAN 2 with the agent finding the hammer.

Okay, for the rest of my Marvel run I will post in here.

You got THOR with you?

In terms of the movie's you've seen so far -- the scene at the end of Iron Man 2 between him and Fury really helps set everything in terms of the chronology. That scene happens about a day after the University battle in INCREDIBLE HULK, meanwhile the events of THOR started around the time of Stark's birthday party, and finally they have just found (but not yet awakened) CAPTAIN AMERICA. Stark's appearance at the end of INCREDIBLE HULK is in his role as a "Consultant" for the Avengers Initiative.

This actually seems like a better place to post about the Marvel flicks anyway.

Thor (2011)

FANTASTIC! Yeah, they went overboard with the Dutch angles, but I'll take Dutch angles over lens flare anyday.

I did not expect to like this film. I don't have any interest in fantasy or gods or whatever. I'm a tech head, I wanna see an Iron Man suit, but I thought this movie was terrific. Kirk's dad was terrific, and so was everyone else in it. Rene Russo no longer looks like Rene Russo. Just sayin'.

I don't what to say. It was Shakespearean family conflict in one of the most impressive worlds I've ever seen created for a film, and it was half entertaining/comedic hijinks in New Mexico. Makes me think of STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT in a way. Heh, Sharky'll really be glad I didn't post this in the regular thread! But in FC I've always felt a lack of overall suspense... like that movie only has the New Mexico part of this film, and needed the huge epic shit to sustain it. But I digress.

MARVEL-O-Meter

1. HULK
2. THOR
3. IRON MAN
4. IRON MAN 2
5. FANTASTIC FOUR: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER
6. FANTASTIC FOUR
7. THE INCREDIBLE HULK

Thor's wenches-O-Meter

1. Kat Dennings and her boobs
2. Xena
3. Scrawny Natalie Portman

I'll say this for Marvel, they embrace the lunacy of the source material.

Kat Dennings!



Ahem. Anyways - I'd say Thor's two biggest weaknesses for me are the initial fighting with the Frost Giants (it's all too dark and murky and the CGI looks to be about the level of the first Lord of the Rings movie) and the fact that really all that happens is Thor saves an incredibly small backwards New Mexico town. It's very small scale on Earth. But Chris Hemsworth really gives it and the guy playing Loki is great and even Hopkins is fun so OTT.

Well, you should know that AVENGERS is basically a sequel to THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA.

Eh, I thought there was a hell of a lot more wrong with it than that. I wanted it to be far more OTT, unabashedly goofy, like Flash Gordon or something. The only times it worked 100% for me was the Komedy Hijinks on earth (eg. Thor getting knocked out via a needle in his ass).

My rough Marvelverse ranking:

1. Captain America
2. The Incredible Hulk
3. The Avengers
4. Iron Man
5. Thor
6. Iron Man 2

Most of it speaks for itself, but I evidently found Incredible Hulk far more entertaining than others here did. Maybe it's because I haven't seen Ang Lee's HULK. I felt Roth and Norton elevated the material enough to merit higher praise. I also liked how Leterrier worked the JAWS technique and kept Hulk in the shadows until his big reveal at the college.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I did not expect to like this film.

That was my experience too. Before actually watching it I thought it looked like a turkey. Really surprised me, I love surprises in flicks.

I agree with FS on the murkiness during the Forst Giant battle. I don't mind the small scaleness of New Mexico, as it's made up by a real engaging cast and the climax moves to Asgard at the end. Besides, we get some fun bits in the New Mexico bits like Stellan's drunken smile, just gives the film a quirky edge which really grabbed me more than IRON MAN flicks.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Eh, I thought there was a hell of a lot more wrong with it than that. I wanted it to be far more OTT, unabashedly goofy, like Flash Gordon or something. The only times it worked 100% for me was the Komedy Hijinks on earth (eg. Thor getting knocked out via a needle in his ass).

See, the thing is though that a good portion of the built-in audience for the film doesn't want to pay $15 to see their hero made fun of and his adventures turned into parody. It works for people who don't really like or know the characters, and with these sort's of movies it is always advisable to be a little tongue-in-cheek, but we're sort've past the era where you can get away with making these things completely silly -- especially since Marvel itself is running the show now.

That being said, there is plenty of room to indulge in silliness with Thor -- the best writer/artist of Thor ever, Walt Simonson, actually turned the title character into a giant frog for three issues, just for fun!


Granted, you can get away with that easier when you're telling one story a month instead of a story every three years or so.

It would be cool if in the sequel (whether it be THOR 2 or perhaps a THOR 3) they did the Surtur Saga, in which Odin, Thor and Loki put aside their differences to defeat the fire demon of lore.

Hopkins was perfect in the role, I could believe he was a God of the realms.

I don't mind the New Mexico thing in THOR. The Asgard stuff is so epic that it doesn't bother me.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

I did like it better this time. I think I'd prefer it be more straight forward with it's actual plot concerning Red Skull. Also, it's only got at most two sustained action sequences that are any good (chasing the Hydra agent in NYC and the final battle). The rest is mostly montage stuff. I like the story of Rogers being a hero, but I felt it needed a more immediate plot and threat for him to overcome. A threat only he could overcome. Or whatever. I think this script could have been reworked a lot. This post could be too, I admit I'm not usually good at putting stuff into words when it comes to diagnosing writing problems.

BATMAN BEGINS does a great job at establishing a hero only to have the second half become a dumbass action movie. But it does set up Batman. I think this movie needed something a little more in that direction, where we have action sequences that really matter and have an objective and further the story between Cap and Red Skull.

I have to figure out where it goes on my MARVEL-O-Meter. It's either above or below IRON MAN 2 for me. I like Evans in this, and I like the sense of heroism and duty, but the movie as a whole just doesn't come together for me.

After some thought, I'm calling it.

MARVEL-O-Meter

1. HULK
2. THOR
3. IRON MAN
4. CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER
5. IRON MAN 2
6. FANTASTIC FOUR: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER
7. FANTASTIC FOUR
8. THE INCREDIBLE HULK

For me CAP suffers from rather poor action sequences (which I think plagues most of these movies to a degree) and what I can only call a lack of real momentum in the second half. I like everything until Cap decides to go behind enemy lines. After that I think we needed to see a very clear and immediate conflict with Red Skull and have a totally clear idea of what the bad guy is trying to do. And instead of having some montage that takes place over time, I think the action of the second half should have taken place over a very short period of time. Basically one big, long mission.

Johnston's other period flick, THE ROCKETEER, takes place over the course of a few days, and it's very easy to tell what is happening and why and what Cliff Secord needs to do and why. And the action sequences all count for something. The first half of CAP rightly takes place over a longer period, but I think Cap should have proved himself in battle with one big ordeal to overcome. Not that it would have to be nonstop action in the second half, just something very immediate. Like a Bond movie would have.

I hope that makes sense.

I must say, I don't consider any of these movies to be straight up bad.

When do you think you'll be able to make time for THE AVENGERS?