THE AVENGERS (2012) Pre-Release. - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 

What use is an Archer when you have a space-god, robot, monster and a super soldier?

I wonder if that might be part of the storyline... the Avenger Initiative begins with some highly-trained "normal" operatives who find themselves on the outs when the heavy hitters arrive. Maybe ol' Clint returns to being the carnival roustabout/low-level bad guy he started out as.

Not expecting that, but I could see it working...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeb 

I wonder if that might be part of the storyline... the Avenger Initiative begins with some highly-trained "normal" operatives who find themselves on the outs when the heavy hitters arrive. Maybe ol' Clint returns to being the carnival roustabout/low-level bad guy he started out as.

 

Not expecting that, but I could see it working...

 

That sounds reasonable, and it'd make sure if Fury recruited Black Widow and Hawkeye first into SHIELD before he started with others, more powerful individuals like Capt. America, Iron Man, and Thor. But I hope they'd do it like the Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes cartoon series, where both BW and Hawkeye ended up saving other teammates with their skills and expertise in more than one occasion. Don't underestimate them just because they don't have the SS serum or have a super armor that makes them practically Supermen.
 

Mike's Pants, You are...On Target!  Hawkeye is just Too...Awesome, to leave off...The Avengers!  First, he annoys nearly everyone, with his constant whining about being the best of the best.  He also dated...Black Widow, and hit on several of his fellow female Avengers!  Even Supervillains...Tease him for being the weakest Avenger!  Forget...Boxing Glove Arrows, that is...Green Arrow's Specialty.  Hawkeye uses all kinds of tech based arrows.  Also, in the comics, Hawkeye was also...Goliath!  Getting Big, was the biggest boost the Avenger with the Biggest Ego, received

Considering how unflattering that image made even Scarlett Johansson look, I don't see what the big deal is with Renner. The dude's a convincing hard man as evidenced in The Town (so great) and he fits right in here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andres 

Echo what Andrew said. I am expecting Ruffalo to nail  this Banner incarnation. 

I just watched The Incredible Hulk last night and while I enjoyed Norton's interpretation, the last impression I got from it was: scientist. That screenshot alone seems more Banner-esque than any thing Norton put together.

Wouldn't bet on it... Mal Reynolds, anyone?

Speaking of which, I read somewhere (io9?) that "Castle" was getting his own comic book and becoming a part of the Marvel universe. As a result, an actual Marvel character will show up on the show next year. Would have sent this in as news, but this was more than a week ago already. Could be a goof, I suppose. OR A MAJOR AVENGERS PUZZLE PIECE STAY TUNED TRUE BELIEVERS EXCELSIOR

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyB79 

Wouldn't bet on it... Mal Reynolds, anyone?

Did... did you just imply that Malcolm Reynolds is a douche?

Malcolm Reynolds was a douche.  Look at him in SERENITY.

If the Browncoats hear you guys we will get NO PEACE around here.

Also, I disagree with you.

They are filming here this week. Downtown Cleveland will be your Manhattan. They are also using a NASA center in Sandusky, OH and in the movie, NASA will be said to be cooperating with SHIELD.

Won't actual New York City be some of the New York City we see in the movie?

I don't know but they are filming extensively in Cleveland, Sandusky, Parma, and elsewhere in OH

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/168161-the-avengers-production-setting-up-in-cleveland

Superherohype has some video from a Cleveland news broadcast. I know they're filming in Brooklyn but that might be all studio work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

Jeremy Renner is... not a handsome guy. :(

Certainly the least fuckable Avenger.

In the movie, maybe. In the comics, I have to go with the Wasp. There's just not enough KY in the world.

It's possible to keep the libertarian, idealized right-winger aspect of Tony's character and not have him be a flaming douche. Especially since, as I wrote above, that could make for an interesting friction with Cap's ideals, which are pretty much the polar opposite.

MikeI, Do you mean the...Ultimate Wasp, where she is part insect?  The...Original Wasp, Janet Van Dyne only could shrink like a wasp and sting, she was all human.  She is also one of the...Goofiest of Earth's Mightiest Heroes.  She was a fashion designer, and created all of her costumes as well as some other Avengers outfits.  The Wasp remains one of my...Favorite Avengers!

But she was very, very, very small was my point, Duke. If I acknowledge that she can change sizes, the jokes loses what little humor it had.

And to your point, yes, making her part insect would be worse.

I guess my definition of douche is different because my point is... I don't see it. I see arrogant and borderline irresponsible, but not douchey.

MikeI, You never mentioned the possibility of both shrinking to bug size making for some interesting...inSEX!

Um.

There are times when "shrinking down to bug size" is an acceptable phrase. And then there's when talking about sex.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeI 
And to your point, yes, making her part insect would be worse.

Might depend on what half is insect, upper or lower.


 

I don't want to clutter the Batman /. Supes thread, but Renn raised an interesting point. The success of Avengers is a pretty open question. Will it be considerable more successful than Iron Man 2 (the most successful of the lead ins)? Will it just barely beat it out? Will any thing short of what TDKR brings in be seen as a loss?

Here's what the lead in films made at the box office worldwide, courtesy of imdb.

Incredible Hulk - $254 million

Captain America - $285 million (and growing?)

Thor - $445 million (and growing?)

Iron Man - $572 million

Iron Man 2 - $616 million

(By comparison: The Dark Knight - $1,069 million)

So the range represented there is $254 - $616 million.

Based on nothing but our prior experience, and assuming a decent product what's the thinking here? (IM2 is the most successful to date and calling it "decent" is just about right)

My guess - $700 million worldwide to account for increased ticket prices and the 3D premium since IM2.

I think Harry Potter numbers are likely. How could it do worse than Iron Man 2?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

I think Harry Potter numbers are likely. How could it do worse than Iron Man 2?

People that saw Iron Man 2 and didn't like it. Superhero fatigue. I don't expect it to do worse than IM2, but nothing is guaranteed.

Harry Potter numbers could mean any where in between 1,214 million (HP7b) and 795 million (HP3)

I think this has a shot at doing really well but it all depends on the footage/trailers. Marvel's built up a lot of good will with everyone who's seen their films (except for IM2) so that can't hurt but I have to wonder how much of this year's crop of Marvel films was the baseline fans seeing all the movies, maybe even more than once. How will The Avengers do with the audience past the Marvel faithful? I suppose big giant spectacle will put asses in seats. So it HAS to be much bigger and better than Green Lantern (oh snap).

Pop Zeus, Iron Man 2 was...Awesome!  Sure, I wish there was...More, of Iron Suited Tony Stark, than business suited Tony, but the finale, also featuring War Machine assisting in...CREAMing Ivan's...HAMMERoids!  Come to think about it, Ivan didn't even say...Vanko You to Tony and Rhodey!  I am eagerly awaiting for May 4th 2012 when...The Avengers...Assemble!, at Theaters Everywere!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeI 

 

My guess - $700 million worldwide to account for increased ticket prices and the 3D premium since IM2.

This seems like a pretty good ballpark guess to me. Aside from 3D ticket premiums, I'd say continued interest in RDJ's Tony Stark and the sheer novelty of the film will be factors. I know there's some geek backlash against the Marvel movies as being nothing more than lead-ins for Avengers, but I'm betting the idea of seeing multiple franchise characters sharing the screen will excite the mainstream audience. C'mon, it'll be like watching a Bond/Bourne team-up flick. How is that not gonna spark some curiosity?

Some consideration has to be given to the "geek bubble." The backlash against Marvel films is coming from geeks. But so is any enthusiasm.

With the possible exception of Spider-man, the Marvel characters have always been way behind Batman and Superman in crossover appeal. Have Thor and Cap and Hulk successfully crossed over? Because if not, it's not going to be like Bourne and Bond teaming up, it's going to be like... the Harlem Globetrotters teaming up with the cast of Gilligan's Island.

It's clear Iron Man has crossed over. I'm not sure about the others. It's also unclear how much enthusiasm there is among us. Witness post 133 for this thread versus post 1179 in TDKR prerelease.

To be fair, there's more activity in the DKR thread because:

1) DKR has been filming for a while with a lot more leaked footage;

2) It's a sequel to the highest-grossing superhero film of all time;

3) It's friggin' Batman. Even the all-star team up of B-listers that is Avengers is hard pressed in a popularity contest against Batman. That's why I think your guess of $700 million is a good one, because I doubt Avengers will surpass Dark Knight's $1 billion, at least not without a highly publicized return to debauchery for Robert Downey Jr., followed by the discovery of his corpse in a Tijuana whorehouse.

No argument on 2 and 3, but 1 is... not quite true. That thread had just shy of 900 posts before filming hit Pittsburgh.

I agree that it's not clear if Cap and Thor have sunk in with the public the way Iron Man has, which is why I think Marvel might have done well to space them out a bit more. Still, you've got to figure this will get the people who like Iron Man, plus the people who liked Thor, plus the people who liked Cap (not that there isn't substantial overlap there, but anywhere there isn't, they're covered) and the novelty of being a big "team-up movie", which hasn't really been done before...not on this scale, at least.

Imagine someone made a movie that teamed up...let's say....Jason Bourne, Riddick, Lara Croft, and the Antonio Banderas Zorro. You can argue that only one of them is a real A-lister, but the others certainly have their followings, and presumably the effect would be cumulative, right?

I would watch that movie and I'm only really a fan of Bourne.

I declare your theory sound!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

I agree that it's not clear if Cap and Thor have sunk in with the public the way Iron Man has, which is why I think Marvel might have done well to space them out a bit more. Still, you've got to figure this will get the people who like Iron Man, plus the people who liked Thor, plus the people who liked Cap (not that there isn't substantial overlap there, but anywhere there isn't, they're covered) and the novelty of being a big "team-up movie", which hasn't really been done before...not on this scale, at least.

 

Imagine someone made a movie that teamed up...let's say....Jason Bourne, Riddick, Lara Croft, and the Antonio Banderas Zorro. You can argue that only one of them is a real A-lister, but the others certainly have their followings, and presumably the effect would be cumulative, right?

That's getting a little too close to the old pizza ice cream logic for me. After all, I like ice cream, I like pizza, so I should like ice cream on a pizza, right?

Depends on the ice cream.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherman Davies 

This seems like a pretty good ballpark guess to me. Aside from 3D ticket premiums, I'd say continued interest in RDJ's Tony Stark and the sheer novelty of the film will be factors.
 

That's exactly how they will sell it. RDJ's star power hasn't dimmed since IM2. I honestly wouldn't blame Marvel if they tried to sell this as Iron Man and Friends (though I'd have words with Whedon if that was the film he made). I imagine at least a part of the marketing campaign will target the casual fans of Iron Man with some well chosen Stark quips etc.

Regarding the novelty; Damn right. This is a unique film that's coming out, it's the culmination of years of preparation and what Marvel are doing hasn't gone unnoticed. I work with a girl who doesn't know Spider-Man from Stilt-Man but she is aware of The Avengers (though she did say "Iron Man, Captain America and Batman are all going to be in one film next year!" but still!)

At this stage it's the marketing that Marvel need to think about, I imagine Whedon's script is solid and I hope he is given the tools to go as big as he needs. This isn't going to shatter Box Office records but I would be astonished if it doesn't make enough to justify the effort...

Sherman Davies, Well next year when...The Avengers...Assemble, they will be joined by numerous other comic book hero films.

1) The Avengers

2) The Wolverine (might be 2013)

3) Dredd

4) Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance

5) The Amazing Spider-Man

6) The Dark Knight Rises

Other heroic films will include

G.I. Joe 2

John Carter

James Bond

Sherman Davies, For me, TDKR might be...10 on next years Best Film Of list!

This is where I think I will diverge from other... geeks? film fans? comic book people? (I don't know what the primary qualifying element is here). The idea of Avengers even getting within spitting distance of a TDK total is laughable. Again, I by no means see it underperforming, but I don't see an exceptionally cumulative box office effect coming from cramming all of these heroes together. Iron Man will be the draw and probably a big one, but two heroes that made less than $200m domestic are not going to contribute to the phenomenon in any significant way, nor is the The Hurt Locker guy with a bow.

None of this I consider a bad thing. Obviously doing Iron Man 2 numbers would be lovely, but I think the expectation that this has to be one of the biggest hero movies of all time is there just by nature of years and years of buildup, and when it casually falls somewhere among all the other Marvel movies it will seem a bit anticlimactic.

Perhaps the trailers will sell something extraordinary though, and the match will strike properly. It's as I said elsewhere though-- even if it does exceptionally well, there's a false perception that WB has some obligation to be mirroring Marvel in some way. But when their big dick property shows up and again teaches everyone the meaning of phenomenon (as Potter did this year), it will be weird pretending like they should have been expending resources to make half a dozen smaller movies about more obscure characters that will make $150m or so in the states. They can just do the one, make as much or more money (with a greater guarantee in the first place), and in all likelihood have the better movie anyway.

There's a lot of months between now and then for some of this to change, but that's how I see it from here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renn Brown 

This is where I think I will diverge from other... geeks? film fans? comic book people? (I don't know what the primary qualifying element is here). The idea of Avengers even getting within spitting distance of a TDK total is laughable.

Just out of curiosity, do you consider that $700 million prediction to be "spitting distance" of TDK's $1 billion? Because I don't. I'm backing it based partly on Iron Man 2's $600+ million gross. In terms of box office, sequels often outperform the originals in this genre and Avengers is essentially a sequel to four different franchises, so I don't see why it can't at least equal or slightly surpass Iron Man 2's take. Will it hit $1 billion? I seriously doubt it. (Then again, I thought the same about Avatar.)
 

There's also the quality factor. I hope it's not nerdily optimistic, but I honestly think Joss Whedon is the most talented and best-fitting choice to take on a Marvel film (and no, I am not a Whedonite or Browncoat or whatever), and there's no reason "The Avengers" shouldn't be far better than the last few Marvel movies. I think $700 million with 3D inflation suggests the core goes and a few stragglers get curious as well. The layman who hears this is by far the best of the Marvel films (fingers crossed) will be intrigued to push it over that ledge and into Potter territory ($900 million).

I'm going $900 million MINIMUM. "Pirates 4" did over a billion, and that was a shitty third sequel that not very many people wanted. The Avengers is not only the anticipated culmination of a series of box office hits (even softballs like Hulk, Thor and Cap, which, 3D excluded, all performed pretty much the same), but it's bound to be one of the better summer blockbusters. Also, it's got the primo first weekend of May. Cannot be understated how that slot almost guarantees an opening in the neighborhood of $100 million+.

Mind you, I hold some stake here. I was the one who said the latest Potter would easily be the highest grossing movie of the series and the year and lap a billion without a problem, when others were saying it would do numbers in line with the rest of that franchise*. So I'm Nostradamusing this shit.

*Exclude 3D, and it did worse. But... shhh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

There's also the quality factor. I hope it's not nerdily optimistic, but I honestly think Joss Whedon is the most talented and smartest guy to take on a Marvel film (and no, I am not a Whedonite or Browncoat or whatever)

I am a somewhat of a Whedonite, but I'd say this is a bit of a slap in the face to Kenneth Branagh. I see your broader point, though - for the material, Whedon is absolutely the best Marvel have gotten their hands on so far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

I am a somewhat of a Whedonite, but I'd say this is a bit of a slap in the face to Kenneth Branagh. I see your broader point, though - for the material, Whedon is absolutely the best Marvel have gotten their hands on so far.

Yes, I do forget Branagh. Clarifying - I think Whedon is the most exciting and appropriate Marvel writer and director so far. At least until Shane Black gets his mitts on Iron Man 3.

I might be the only one, but does anyone feel like there's a chance of this absolutely failing?  That isn't even a slight against Joss Whedon (the man is amazing), it's just I don't really see how something like "The Avengers" could actually work in a film medium.  Part of the appeal of a comic-book is that story arcs can play out through multiple issues, lasting months, even years.  Obviously, a film doesn't have that luxury.  I'm just afraid that this movie will turn out to be like The Expendables: a film hyped on the fact that its a massive team-up film, yet only the A-listers (in this case, RDJ and Chris Evans) get most of the screen time, while everyone else gets what amounts to a guest appearance.

I dunno, I think it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to avoid having Hawkeye saving the day. It's probably the ONLY way to keep the public from asking what an archer is doing hanging out with a green giant, robot man and god. If that happens, considering the heat around Renner, at least he will have some significant screen time.

There's a few pics floating around of Chris Evans in Cleveland sporting the new Cap outfit; not crazy about it. Helmet is kinda goofy - liked the Cap movie version much better.