Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
May 11, 2010
Jason Lee: Just to save me from the threat of nerd violence, when I said "second-tier," I was referring to their marketability. Captain America is boring in the way that Superman is boring -- totally clean cut, well-groomed and un-edgy. They're the type of safe superhero (no swearing, dark edges, ominous pasts) that you parents or Congressman would like you to admire and emulate. Especially in this media environment of "patriotism as proof of citizenship," Captain America is just too squeaky-clean for me.
As for Thor and the Hulk, I think it's obvious that their mainstream appeal and marketability is always going to be limited in comparison to some of the other more brand-name superheroes.
David Mumpower: I agree with Michael that all of the titles have to stand on their own, which is something Iron Man did while The Hulk did not. Twice. I also agree with Reagen that in terms of domestic appeal, Captain America is iconic, particularly to those who serve/have served in the military. He represents an ideal and I think that movie’s box office has the potential to be Iron Man-ish, at least domestically. Worldwide receipts for that one are not a foregone conclusion. Marvel will need to take a page out of G.I. Joe’s playbook there.
Thor, on the other hard, has its work cut out for it in terms of building the brand quickly, which is why I suspect the post-credits scene of Iron Man 2 focuses upon him rather than Captain America. I actually think that Thor is a fun character who is larger than life since he’s this ridiculous person who claims to be an immortal Norse god. People think he is crazy, he has muscles in places where most people don’t even have places and he loves to hammer down a stein of mead. I think there is a lot that can be done with him. People need to be willing to give Marvel the benefit of the doubt first, though.
Overall, I believe that they have succeeded in making Iron Man bankable. As long as Captain America and Thor match up in relative terms of quality, The Avengers strikes me as a movie that has a chance to do something spectacular at the box office. I’m thinking waaaaaay big. $200 million opening weekend big. They have to be mistake-free over the next two years to get there. Whether they can do that remains to be seen.
Pete Kilmer: I agree with most of what has been said here, the individual movies MUST stand on their own before they can be brought together. Otherwise it just won't work to see characters together that the mainstream audience doesn't care about. So far, Marvel Studios has done a terrific job in putting quality actors together with quality directors and producers. Thor's pedigree is pretty strong, with Anthony Hopkins, Kenneth Branagh, Rene Russo, and Natalie Portman, among others. Captain America is solid as well with Hugo Weaving as the Red Skull and Joe Johnston directing. They have smart people attached to smart and fun projects. If the individual films work, the Avengers with a hope-to-be-signed-soon director in Joss Whedon could really have something special here.
Matthew Huntley: On one level, the references to other superheroes make me giddy and excited because I know there's so much more to come. Still, on another, it sort of cheapens the movie and turns it into one big commercial. It's like Marvel is using their own product for, well, product placement. I guess it works because Iron Man, Captain America and Thor all exist in the same universe, but I think Marvel should cease with the blatant advertising and instead write real scenes into the script that actually discuss these other heroes out in the open (I know there are some, but they all seem to be wink winks instead of full-fledged scenes with real dialogue). Instead of waiting through the end credits of Iron Man 2 or The Incredible Hulk, how about these "bonus" scenes take place during the actual movie? For me, this would indicate the other heroes are being viewed as characters and not as advertisements.
Continued:
1
2
3
4
|
|
|
|
Print this column
