The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread- Open SPOILERS -enter at own risk!

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Iron Man 2 cost $60 million more than the first one, but it made $6 million less at the US box office. I don't blame Marvel for getting a little budget conscious.

Or is Paramount cutting back the budget on a film that they will no longer be distributing? Let Disney cover the budget if they are the ones that get to release it now.
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Can you say Hulkbuster vs Hulk in the Avengers movie :rock

Well, at least that's what I take away from this comment, I mean. why else would his suit evolve again in the live action movie series. :dunno

What, another blood infection again :lol

• Iron Man will have a new set of armor for his appearance in The Avengers.

_ Feige writes:_ "Joss would kill me if I gave anything away, but I will say that the evolution you saw his armor take in IM2 will continue in The Avengers."
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Well, at least that's what I take away from this comment, I mean. why else would his suit evolve again in the live action movie series. :dunno

It's called marketing...Why are the Star Wars movies loaded with dozens of characters that get 2.5 seconds of screen time? To give the studio something to license to the toy companies. Same thing with Iron Man, if he doesn't have new armor, what will they sell to Hot Toys and the mass market toy companies?

Plus it's certainly true to the comics where Tony Stark is constantly tinkering with new/improved/specialized armor designs

Still, I do hope we get the Hulkbuster armor in the Avengers. That would indeed be epic.
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

All movies are filled with characters with 2.5 seconds on screen time, it's just that Star Wars fans are crazy enough to want backstories, future stories, and figures of those characters. They didn't fill that cantina in A New Hope to sell figures.

There could be alot of reasons Tony is debuting a new suit, it happens plenty in the comics so it makes sense for the new movie. If it is Hulkbuster, even better.
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Hulkbuster makes complete sense. If Hulk had no problem destroying Blonsky while he was on the Super Soldier serum, then Cap probably won't be able to stop him either. Thor can put up a fight but if they need to get in close and try to capture Hulk then armor specifically designed for that seems the way to go.
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Could be how Tony gets on the team too. They need his tech, and either he'll make it a condition that he's on, or he'll make the suit so he is the only one who can pilot it.
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Well I think Tony is on the team by the end of IM2, I think that was what that sit down with Nick Fury was all about. Plus he is in the end of the Hulk telling Ross he can help or w/e the exact quote is.

Considering Stark made those Humvees that already failed to stop Hulk, I suspect he was referring to himself and a suit.
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

I haven't seen IM2 since the theater, but I thought it ended with Stark on the team in an advisory type position or something. Widow's report said, "Iron Man: Yes, Tony Stark: No" as I recall and then Tony negotiated but I got the feeling he wouldn't be active in the field and that when he was talking to Ross he was just talking about the team stopping Hulk.
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Do you really think Tony is going to listen to what Fury has to say? If he wants to join them in the field, he will :lol
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Fair point, but that doesn't make him a part of the team.
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

For all we know Thor and/or Captain America's modern bits take place before Hulk so things might have changed since the end of Iron Man 2.

And even if not, I can forgive the slight error since they made that so far in advance and didn't have the full story hammered out yet.
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

For all we know Thor and/or Captain America's modern bits take place before Hulk so things might have changed since the end of Iron Man 2.

And even if not, I can forgive the slight error since they made that so far in advance and didn't have the full story hammered out yet.

Some of what you're saying might be accurate.

Read a recent interview with Favreu where he was very anti Marvel and saying that he has no idea how Marvel is going to pull it off and he believes that Marvel doesn't even know and that they're just making it up as it goes along.

Very very anti Marvel interview. :horror

What the heck happened, wasn't he their golden child (no pun intended..lie).
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Where did you read that interview. Doesnt sound like something he'd be saying. Especially if he wants to stay doing Iron Man 3.
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Yeah and with Shield being such a big part of the Iron Man films, it seems like he was with the whole Avengers idea since Iron Man 1. Maybe he is just bitter over not getting picked to direct the Avengers? But realistically, he couldn't be able to do both Avengers and Iron Man 3 so close to eachother. One would have to have been bumped back.
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

I was surprised he didn't get the Avengers. Joss is a worry for me a bit. They picked a guy who has nothing to do with the other films. It should have been Favreu but at least one of the others.
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Where did you read that interview. Doesnt sound like something he'd be saying. Especially if he wants to stay doing Iron Man 3.

MTV News did their usual thing this week when they talked with director Jon Favreau about next year’s Cowboys & Aliens – they sort of touched on his future projects but got just about no information and asked no interesting questions. They asked the director about Iron Man 3 and he gave one of the great vague answers I’ve ever heard:

“In theory, ‘Iron Man 3′ is going to be a sequel or continuation of ‘Thor,’ ‘Hulk,’ ‘Captain America’ and ‘Avengers,’” he said. “This whole world… I have no idea what it is. I don’t think they do either, from conversations I’ve had with those guys.”

Everybody ran with the sizzling headline that Iron Man 3 would be a ‘sequel’ to The Avengers, but duh – of course it would be. The film comes out after The Avengers, and we’ve already learned that the Marvel Movie Universe is closely connected. What interests me here is Favreau’s seeming lack of interest in what’s up with the rest of the Marvel Movie Universe; he doesn’t know a thing about Thor and he’s barely chatted with Joss Whedon about The Avengers. Favreau’s the guy who started this universe, and at one point he was chomping at the bit to direct The Avengers.

But he’s busy with Cowboys & Aliens, you say. Of course he’s not keeping up with Marvel. To which I say, sure, maybe… but you’re forgetting about The Magic Kingdom. Favreau’s weird sounding Disney movie (Night at the Museum at Disney Land, essentially) is hitting in 2013. The same year that Iron Man 3 is scheduled.

Could Favreau deliver two major FX-heavy blockbusters in 2013? Technically, sure. Maybe Magic Kingdom is a Christmas film; we know that Iron Man 3 is scheduled to come out in the early summer. I guess he could jump right from Iron Man 3 to Magic Kingdom; or perhaps Iron Man 3 could be pushed back to 2014. But I doubt that – Iron Man is the only sure-fire hit series that Marvel has, and I don’t know if they’ll want to go four years between entries (especially if Captain America, Thor or The Avengers don’t take off).

I know that Favreau wasn’t happy on Iron Man 2. He had a very hard time on the film, and I think his second experience with Marvel wasn’t the most positive. I’m sure that the film’s large box office is helping him overcome any hard feelings, but is Favreau done with the Iron Avenger?

This will probably all play out in the next few years, as Favreau has proven to be no chump when it comes to negotiations. That said, I wouldn’t be so sure that the first three Iron Man films all come from the same director.
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

Favreau didn't get it because he didn't see eye to eye with Marvel on it. He said he didn't want it early on because he didn't want to have to try to mesh so many other established (by that time) characters and storylines into one while introducing another. It would be hectic. Other reports claim it was a monitary issue, while some others say it's because he wanted to focus outside of the Superhero realm.

Either way Joss is what we've got so let's see how he does it. At least the action sequences will be longer and he is used to dealing with characters with multiple sides sharing screen while Favreau's characters seem to take a backseat depending on who is focusing on. Favreau seems psyched about Iron Man 3 in the interviews I've seen as putting a finishing touch on his stuff much like Nolan is saying so I wouldn't count him out just yet.

As for Tony, I could see him being a consultant and coming in like the calvary when he sees things going sour leading to natural conflict between him and Cap about how things are done.
 
Re: The Avengers: Discussion Thread

As with anything I think this is mostly just posturing to get more money. I believe he likes working on the Iron Man series and wants to finish his trilogy if thats all for him. He'll be there.
 
Back
Top