Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
vb68

The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

Recommended Posts

It bothered me that pre-Extremis treatment he was basically Lee Evans' character from There's Something About Mary. This is not a good foundation upon which to build a master villain.

 

The Avengers is my favorite of the MCU movies, followed by Captain America: The First Avenger and Age of Ultron. But I'd happily spend a weekend afternoon re-watching any of them except Iron Man 2, for which I want a refund of the 2 wasted hours of my life.

Edited by Bruinsfan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Thinking of  the planned Inhumans movie, I think since John Krasinski(The Office) was thought not to be right for Steve Rogers when he auditioned for it, he would make a great Black Bolt! He has proven he can say more with just a look to the camera than actual words!

Do you really want a Black Bolt who is smirking at the camera every time someone else says something?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
But I'd happily spend a weekend afternoon re-watching any of them except Iron Man 2, for which I want a refund of the 2 wasted hours of my life.

IA that Iron Man 2 is the weakest of the Marvel movies, but ngl, I still always turn on the scene where Natasha takes out like 10 of Sam Rockwell's goons in 2 minutes. That scene is worth the price of admission! Actually, all the Nick Fury and Natasha (not Natalie but Natasha) scenes are decent. Those, like, 10 total minutes are pretty much the highlight of the film.

 

I haven't seen Ant Man, but I have to agree that Marvel has yet to put out a truly bad movie. Iron Man 2, Thor 2, and Iron Man 3 are all weak, but they don't even register on the badness scale compared to a lot of the crap that's out there. They're hot messes that ought to have been much better, but they're not bad.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Well this is certainly interesting.  Feige found a way to get rid of the cheapskate head above him.

 

I wonder if they start paying more to the actors, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Is Black Widow's name Natalia or Natasha? I keep seeing both.

 

Both, kind of. Natasha is the diminutive of Natalya/Natalia - like Mike for Michael in English. She's also used Natalie as a cover.

Share this post


Link to post

Well this is certainly interesting.  Feige found a way to get rid of the cheapskate head above him.

 

I wonder if they start paying more to the actors, etc.

 

Are the actors not paid well? I mean other than RDJ who gets a ridiculous amount of money.

 

I was re-watching AoU the other day and as much as I liked it some of the CGI in the opening sequence was just sloppy. The actors heads were not matching their computer generated bodies and all I could think was "This is one of the biggest movies of the year?". 

 

Onto another topic entirely, since we have confirmation that the new Spider-Man movie won't be another reboot, what do you guys think it should be about? Which story from his catalogue should they pull from? And No Green Goblin. In fact I don't think they should touch any of the villains in the previous movies. But I would like to see both Gwen and MJ in the movies, together, a true love triangle (with MJ "winning" in the end and Gwen not dying because I'm tired of seeing her die).

Edited by JessePinkman

Share this post


Link to post

 

Are the actors not paid well? I mean other than RDJ who gets a ridiculous amount of money.

They are paid pretty well. Scarjo got a ton of money. RDJ didn't actually get that much money for Iron Man 1. Terrance Howard got way more and got a lot of extra content because he thought he was the bigger more important character. He didn't want to accept he was meant to be the sidekick. Don Cheadle gets the role and has a sense of humour if you watch the skits where he was Captain Planet . http://www.funnyordie.com/topic/captain-planet-don-cheadle

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think Terrence got more because he was coming off of an Oscar nomination and RDJ was rebuilding his reputation. Marvel was kind of dirty to cut his salary for the sequel but I get why, Rhodey is pretty inessential, even as War Machine he's always just been sort of there.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Are the actors not paid well? I mean other than RDJ who gets a ridiculous amount of money.

 

"Well" is a relative term.  They do have a reputation for being very cheap.

Edited by vb68
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Well this is certainly interesting.  Feige found a way to get rid of the cheapskate head above him.

 

I wonder if they start paying more to the actors, etc.

That's surprising, i think i read somewhere once that the marvel boss is the biggest single holder of disney stock. Wonder if he was sort of pushed out or wanted out?

Share this post


Link to post

As I understand it, the two biggest stockholders in Disney are the family of Steve Jobs and George Lucas himself.

 

I recall hearing around the time ScarJo signed her nine-picture deal that insiders were surprised with how little they were paying her for it.

Edited by benteen

Share this post


Link to post

See to me, Iron Man 3 was the closest Marvel got to a bad movie. I thought the humor was too self-indulgent and the Mandarin was done terribly. What happened to the Ten Rings that were mentioned in the first Iron Man movie?

One of the Hydra representatives in Ant-Man had a Ten Rings tattoo. And the Return of the King one shot supposes a real Mandarin and Ten Rings are still out there.

opps it's all hail the king.

Edited by Raja

Share this post


Link to post

I think Terrence got more because he was coming off of an Oscar nomination and RDJ was rebuilding his reputation. Marvel was kind of dirty to cut his salary for the sequel but I get why, Rhodey is pretty inessential, even as War Machine he's always just been sort of there.

Terrence was pissed because they wanted to cut him to make room for RDJ more inflated (deserved) new salary for the second movie. But Terrence was the bigger star for the 1st Iron Man and made more than RDJ, and with a great agent negotiated that they would increase his pay for the second movie.  Terrence was also pissed because according to him he had a lot to do with RDJ getting the Iron Man role and really stood up for him with the producers. Terrence felt that RDJ didn't return the favor for the second movie.  They are no longer friends.

Share this post


Link to post

Marvel released this picture of Thor and Vision a little while ago.  Any thoughts?

 

And what is the "Return of the King" one-shot?

 

Edit:  It's "All Hail the King".

Edited by lion10

Share this post


Link to post

Terrence was pissed because they wanted to cut him to make room for RDJ more inflated (deserved) new salary for the second movie. But Terrence was the bigger star for the 1st Iron Man and made more than RDJ, and with a great agent negotiated that they would increase his pay for the second movie.  Terrence was also pissed because according to him he had a lot to do with RDJ getting the Iron Man role and really stood up for him with the producers. Terrence felt that RDJ didn't return the favor for the second movie.  They are no longer friends.

That doesn't jive with others have said. Namely that RDJ was perfect for Tony and suggested who they base Tony's character off of. Namely Elon Musk. Iron Man was thought to be a huge risk at the time and RDJ showed he had the talent and that Iron Man and the Marvel movie universe would be a huge hit. So they didn't need Terrance Howard who a lot of people in his role as Rhodey thought Don Cheadle was playing him again rather then as the new guy. 

Share this post


Link to post

As I understand it, the two biggest stockholders in Disney are the family of Steve Jobs and George Lucas himself.

 

Your probably right. I found the article I was thinking of and it just lists him as "one of the biggest individual share holders". 

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/how-marvel-became-envy-scourge-720363

 

That said if you read the article, it sounds like the guy had a ton of power and influence, so I wonder if this kind of thing was his choice or not.

Share this post


Link to post

That doesn't jive with others have said. Namely that RDJ was perfect for Tony and suggested who they base Tony's character off of. Namely Elon Musk. Iron Man was thought to be a huge risk at the time and RDJ showed he had the talent and that Iron Man and the Marvel movie universe would be a huge hit. So they didn't need Terrance Howard who a lot of people in his role as Rhodey thought Don Cheadle was playing him again rather then as the new guy. 

 

The issue wasn't whether or not RDJ could play Tony, but whether RDJ would be sober and out of trouble enough not to sink the film. A number of people went to bat for him. Howard was one of the people who fought for RDJ, and was annoyed when his salary didn't keep pace with Downey's. He was replaced by (the far superior, IMO) Cheadle, but not without some issues.

 

RDJ has stood by just about everyone else in the MCU, though. Not long after the Avengers came out, the actors had some serious negotiations with Marvel to amp up their salaries a bit. Despite having a contract that guarantees him more money than God, RDJ threw his weight behind his coworkers in the negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post

But the issues seem to have been the creation of Terrance who didn't want to be the sidekick role. Man has a huge ego. 

 

RDJ in fan interactions seems more down to earth.

The issue isn't that Terrence didn't want to be a sidekick.  When the first Iron Man was coming together Terrence was the "bigger, bankable" star and his pay was 4 million for the first movie.  He signed a 3 picture deal with Marvel where he would get a pay raise with every successful subsequent movie.  So when Iron Man 2 came around Terrence was supposed to be paid 8 million.  Marvel told Terrence that they wouldn't pay him the 8 million and offered him 1 million.  They needed the 7 million to pay RDJ, who was demanding a pay raise (rightfully so) since they didn't have a long standing contract with him and in order for RDJ to come back they needed to pay him what he asked. 

 

Terrence's issue was about Marvel not honoring his contract, his issue with RDJ was that RDJ didn't go to bat for him the same way he went to bat for RDJ.  Remember RDJ wasn't the Hollywood golden boy his is now.  This was when he was finally getting sober for a long period of time and was just getting back into acting.

 

This is a condensed version of the story. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.ew.com/article/2008/11/04/iron-man-2-why-terrence-howard-was-recast 

 

"Howard was the first actor signed to the film and, on top of that, was the highest-paid. That’s right: more than Gwyneth Paltrow. More than Jeff Bridges. More than Robert Downey Jr. And once the project fully came together, it was too late to renegotiate his deal. It didn’t help that, according to one source, Favreau and his producers were ultimately unhappy with Howard’s performance, and spent a lot of time cutting and reshooting his scenes."

 

Howard had ego and was difficult to work with. Guess what his contract had a clause in it for renegotiation of his salary for the other two films. So Marvel didn't break the contract they upheld the contract. He should never have been paid as much as he had been. 

Share this post


Link to post

Don't get me wrong, Howard I'm sure was a pain in the ass.  To me though that doesn't make Marvel the good guy in the scenario.  All contracts from a studio perspective have a loophole that says they can get rid of you anytime.  The problem is that there is a "good faith" component to studio contracts.  When you sign on to be in a franchise the idea is that the more successful the movies become the higher your pay for each movie, weather that is a salary increase or points on the back end.  Just like in any other profession, you are incentivized to do a good job and stay on the "team".

 

Studios, especially Marvel don't just "overpay" actors.  They paid Terrence 8 million because that is how much he was worth at the time.  Like I said I'm not Terrence Howard's biggest fan, but reducing his salary from 8 to 1 million after a successful record breaking first movie in a franchise is a slap in the face.  Also solving the problem of a difficult actor on set would not be to reduce their pay down to 1/8th.  Howard was difficult? Get rid of him, don't keep him on and then proceed to play a game of chicken by reducing his salary enough that he will be forced to walk away.

 

Can you imagine if Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth made public statements that there salaries were cut down to 1/8 for Mockingjay Part 2 because Lionsgate needed the money to increase Jennifer Lawrence's salary?

 

For me "right" and "wrong" doesn't change whether or not I like said person.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure Terrence Howard was a pain in the ass to work with as well, but personally I'm sad he ended up being replaced by Don Cheadle. I find Cheadle to be a better actor in general, but Howard was a better fit as Rhodey. Cheadle's Rhodey didn't convince me saw Tony as more than dung on his shoe, let alone as a lifelong friend, until maybe the last minute of Iron Man 2, and he's just kind of...there...in Iron Man 3 and Age of Ultron. Some of it's the writing, but not all of it.

 

Do think it's shitty of RDJ not to go to bat for Howard after Howard went to bat for him. I wonder what the story is there.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I wonder what the story is there.

 

I think it was money and the fact that Iron Many put RDJ back into the Hollywood's good graces as well as the mega-celebrity stratosphere, but probably it was money more than anything else.  Money has ruined many a good friendship.

Share this post


Link to post

I, personally, like Cheadle better than Howard as Rhodey.  Howard had no chemistry with RDJ and I didn't buy for a single second that they were friends.  Plus, he just wasn't any fun.  In a very fun movie, MCU always has some fun in their movies, he was just so dour.  Cheadle brought some life to him and made me like the character and want to see more of him.  I'm sure my opinion is partly colored by my dislike of Howard in general.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a Cheadle fan, too. I didn't dislike TH as Rhodey, but I wasn't upset with the replacement. 

 

I wonder if there's more to the RDJ/TH falling out. Just because RDJ has stood up for Mel Gibson, and if there's one guy Hollywood has pretty much turned their back on, it's MG. (Surprisingly, because Hollywood typically turns a blind eye to everything.)

Share this post


Link to post

I've read a few articles about the end of the Marvel creative committee, but other than there was a group of different people that gave notes on each phase from script to filming what is this going to mean from here on out?

 

My first thought is these are the some of the people that make sure the MCU is cohesive from film to film.

 

So do we know what this means w/ the committee essentially gone.

 

As for Ike being taken off this films i'm guessing this means that some of the cast is going to get some major pay raises for Avenger 3.1 & 3.2 .

Share this post


Link to post

Cutting Bendis and Quesada out of the story editing process suits me just fine—I have far more confidence in Feige's vision than theirs regarding just about everything except Daredevil.

Share this post


Link to post

Rumours are that the Creative Commitee was a bunch of nit pickers who were causing problems with the directors and writers of the films as well as slowing down development of the movies. Far more then the usual stuff that occurs when a company wants to make its products be cohesive. 

 

 

Over the years I've heard many stories of the Creative Committee giving notes that are pedestrian, motivated by 'save the cat' story logic and sometimes a drag on creativity. One Marvel creative talked to me about battles with the Creative Committee where they focused on details of nit-picky science that ignored the general tone of the script itself. The notes that drove Edgar Wright off Ant-Man came from the Creative Committee. What's more, the Creative Committee was often very tardy with their notes, making movie development a much slower process. All of the Committee members have other, very important jobs, so you understand why that would be the case, but it was a pain for filmmakers. And that's before taking into account the political divisions within Marvel that also created friction with the Creative Committee.

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/09/02/the-marvel-creative-committee-is-over 

 

Getting rid of the Creative Commitee could be a good thing or a bad thing. They may replace it with another group that gets rid of some of the issues namely the tardiness in the reports and suggestions. 

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I see a lot of rejoicing about the end of the committee but...the Marvel movies have been incredibly successful and universally praised with this group in tact. So who knows what effect this will really have on the movies?

 

And what exactly is wrong with "save the cat" or a "pet the dog" moments? I want to like these people! If Tony didn't have such a nice rapport with that kid in IM3 I don't think I would have liked him at all. 

 

And complaining about the science? That just makes it sound like they know their audience...we nitpick till there are no more nits to pick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

From what I've read - and this is really only from one source, so take it with a huge grain of salt - Marvel knew AOU was going to have heftier criticism lobbed at it before it was even out of the gate. No one behind the scenes was really happy with the film, particularly the forced changes from the committee, but there wasn't time to reshoot. It wouldn't surprise me if this was fallout from that situation.

 

I'm also not sure how much of a committee they really need, at this point. The "original" franchises have just about wound down, and none of them are particularly independent of one another anymore. It'll be interesting, though, to see how interwoven the newer franchises end up being without a committee behind the scenes.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know how to feel about this Civil War news to be honest....part of me is glad b/c I don't feel they have set up the MCU enough to where they could do the Civil War storyline justice, but the other part thinks they are picking and choosing from that storyline somewhat to where they couldn't do an actual Civil War storyline later on.  I think to do Civil War properly we need a ton of superheroes, which we will get eventually around the end of Phase 4 or 5.

 

I think CA3 really should have been more about Steve, Natasha, Falcon, and perhaps Sharon Carter going after Bucky.  I think a great setup would have been they get Bucky back after dealing with Zemo and Crossbones, throw in Black Panther I guess too.  He regains most of his memories about everything and that's when it comes out that he is responsible for the death of Tony's parents leading to Tony looking for them all and it ends on a cliffhanger as he is about to confront them all  This sets us up for the next film Avengers 3 and the tension of Tony and Cap building but having to work together b/c of Thanos.

Edited by CMH1981

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting read on Feige demanding his freedom from the head Marvel guy and the creative committee.   I still wonder what this really means for the movies themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post

An interesting article about Captain America: Civil War.  Apparently, the movie isn't about superhero registration.

 

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/09/03/captain-america-civil-war-isnt-about-secret-identities

That makes me happy, since super hero registration seems like a really stupid storyline. Now exploring how far heroes go to keep the world safe, that could be crazy interesting, and something I have always thought should be explored more. I mean the Avengers taking out HYDRA or the Chatauri is a no brainer of course but does ISIS exist in the MCU? If so should the Avengers be involved there? And if Hulk and Tony did decide to take out ISIS who do they turn prisoners over to?

 

What about more challenging stuff. What if a super hero is upset about Russia and what they are doing in the Ukraine and decides to take a side? What happens then? Or what if a super hero wants Guantanamo Bay shut down or is upset about political prisoners in China. Whose to say they are right or wrong and how do you stop them? Now that could be fascinating.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

You know, I remember in Iron Man 2 it's mentioned that rogue nations like Iran and North Korea wanted to develop their own Iron Man technology.  But I thought they completely missed the boat on that.  No doubt rogue nations would want to develop that technology but the development of Iron Man technology in America would trigger an arms race with RUSSIA (always paranoid about their territory) and CHINA.  They really seemed not to grasp the true geo-political dynamics on that one.

Share this post


Link to post

That makes me happy, since super hero registration seems like a really stupid storyline. Now exploring how far heroes go to keep the world safe, that could be crazy interesting, and something I have always thought should be explored more. I mean the Avengers taking out HYDRA or the Chatauri is a no brainer of course but does ISIS exist in the MCU? If so should the Avengers be involved there? And if Hulk and Tony did decide to take out ISIS who do they turn prisoners over to?

 

What about more challenging stuff. What if a super hero is upset about Russia and what they are doing in the Ukraine and decides to take a side? What happens then? Or what if a super hero wants Guantanamo Bay shut down or is upset about political prisoners in China. Whose to say they are right or wrong and how do you stop them? Now that could be fascinating.

I think that is where they are going since the punted on the ideal after Ironman first went vigilante after the, not Taliban, Ten Rings in Afghanistan. There was a war going on which got Tony Stark captured in the first place and with great power he sits in his coastal estate. On Agents of SHIELD The Hub episode they played SHIELD quashing the introduction of ubertech in a conflict between Georgia and Russia.

Share this post


Link to post

I watched Winter Soldier again this weekend. I'm still wondering- who is the high school valedictorian from Iowa City that project Insight is monitoring? The only superhero I'm aware of who is from Iowa is Hawkeye (and that may not be the case in his movie background).

Share this post


Link to post

I watched Winter Soldier again this weekend. I'm still wondering- who is the high school valedictorian from Iowa City that project Insight is monitoring? The only superhero I'm aware of who is from Iowa is Hawkeye (and that may not be the case in his movie background).

Wouldn't have to be a super hero would it? Project Insight was just keeping tabs on anyone who could have the potential to speak out or rise up against the Hydra backed government as they do their take over the world thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Good point, Kel. I assumed because the reference was in a list with Steven Strange, Bruce Banner, and a possible reference to Moon Knight (?), that the valedictorian reference was a superhero too. But it could be a supporting player (or no one at all). I'm from Iowa, so the mention catches my attention every time.

Share this post


Link to post

Good point, Kel. I assumed because the reference was in a list with Steven Strange, Bruce Banner, and a possible reference to Moon Knight (?), that the valedictorian reference was a superhero too. But it could be a supporting player (or no one at all). I'm from Iowa, so the mention catches my attention every time.

There were plenty of non super powered beings on the Insight target list.  http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Project_Insight 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I read that the Iowa City target on Insight was in reference to Jack Monroe / Nomad, as he is someone the directors were looking at using some point in the future in Captain America films.  I guess Nomad was originally from Iowa.

 

The directors said though they wanted to use him as the villain in CA3, but as we all know that didn't happen.  I doubt Marvel would sign off on that as it would just be a rehash of Bucky/Winter Soldier, or at least I would think it would be a rehash since he was Cap's sidekick for a time as well.

Edited by CMH1981
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the link, nobodyyoucare! Interesting that so many of the targets are not Marvel characters.

CMH1981, I'm heading back to wiki to find out who that is. Thanks for the info!

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size