I fall into this same camp as Kahotep. I have not read any of the Marvel universe either but found the movies highly entertaining. I have however, read a good bit of the Star Wars EU and am still not worried about Disney's "Marvel Method" being put onto Star Wars.

I like how characters are fleshed-out in stand-alone films then were brought together for Avengers. For me, it made the ensemble more personable.

As for Avengers being non-original and formulaic... That is what the masses want to see. They want to see formulaic good Vs evil where the hero(es) beat incredibly overwhelming odds and personal adversity to overcome the deadly threat and save the world.

It doesn't matter if you like that or not, the world did to the tune of over $1 billion and they are begging for more. Disney has found a method for success and I don't blame them one bit for wanting to apply it to one of the most well-loved IPs in existence.

Its his opinion, let him have it. Just like pretty much everything else, with movies.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but that does not mean some people's opinions are not laughable. He may not have enjoyed the movie, he may not have liked the movie, but any intelligent person with a degree of maturity can tell the difference between something which is not to their taste and something which is badly made and of low quality.

If somebody was saying that they didn't like Iron Man 2, I'd say fine. It's not to everyone's taste.

If someone says its a bad movie, that a totally different thing. When someone comes on this forum and says its the worst film he's ever seen, then my opinion is that their opinion is an utter joke.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but that does not mean some people's opinions are not laughable. He may not have enjoyed the movie, he may not have liked the movie, but any intelligent person with a degree of maturity can tell the difference between something which is not to their taste and something which is badly made and of low quality.

 

If somebody was saying that they didn't like Iron Man 2, I'd say fine. It's not to everyone's taste.

If someone says its a bad movie, that a totally different thing. When someone comes on this forum and says its the worst film he's ever seen, then my opinion is that their opinion is an utter joke.

Just like the PT, even when it did well in theaters and got mixed reviews.

I like the PT.

Or am I not supposed to as a "REAL" Star Wars fan?

Just like the PT, even when it did well in theaters and got mixed reviews.

Did any of those reviews say it was the worst film they'd ever seen? Thought not.the reviews ranged from so so to good. I didn't see any professional reviewers say it was the worst film they'd ever seen. That's because professional reviewers know what they are talking about, have opinions based on experiencing a huge range of movies of varying quality and are not the kind of whiny teenagers who classify everything in existence as either awesome or sucks.

Did any of those reviews say it was the worst film they'd ever seen? Thought not.the reviews ranged from so so to good. I didn't see any professional reviewers say it was the worst film they'd ever seen. That's because professional reviewers know what they are talking about, have opinions based on experiencing a huge range of movies of varying quality and are not the kind of whiny teenagers who classify everything in existence as either awesome or sucks.

Well I was more pertaining to those out there, who say its all a travesty and the worse things ever made and so on and so forth. Like it was the end of the *********** world or something.

If you think Transformers is better than The Avengers then I'd seriously question your judgement. Yes, it's true that the plot of the Avengers is not original, but was that the point of the movie?

 

The Avengers is really a character piece. Classic ensemble cast stuff. Beyond the plot and action, what makes the story interesting is the characters, the way they interact and riff of off each other.

 

It that regard, I'd say Avengers has a lot in common with Star Wars. A New Hope's plot is hardly what I would call original. What makes A New Hope a seriously good film in my book, is the characters.

 

Seriously dude, if Iron Man 2 is the worst film you have ever seen then either you have not seen many films, you have only ever watched absolute classic or you are some Marvel fanboy who is sulking cos they didn't do Iron Man the way you would have done it.

 

Worse film you have ever seen? Really? That's just laughable.

A Marvel fanboy? Wow, never heard that one before. This is coming from the guy who launches himself into an aggresive, personal attack because I said Avengers was substandard and Iron Man 2 a terrible film. *Searching mind* Nope, can't think of a worse film I've seen other than Iron Man. Well, perhaps Transformers 3. Probably because I tend not to watch bad films, given the fact you can tell a bad film by its trailer. However Iron Man was a good film and I enjoyed, Iron Man 2 suffered from a terrible story line consisting of mindless, pointless action. And this is coming from someone who's a sucker for fights and explosions.

But perhaps its just me and I'm tired of all that hero stuff and comic book movies don't appeal to me. But I know somebody who loves Marvel to bits and he wasn't impressed either, and unlike you agreed with my conclusions. But what it indicates is a rushed performance. They got loads of great actors together and great visuals together, likely because of a big budget, but the story felt rushed and was unoriginal because of it. Just because its a 'character piece' isn't an excuse for poor story. If Star Wars is rushed it may very well turn out the same way.

As for originality, there is a difference between traditional and cliche. Star Wars is traditional, its the Hero's Journey, its playing on mythology and fantasy that's at that underpins the whole saga. Avengers is cliche. The notion of 'Avenger's Assemble' is not cliche, thats traditional. But aliens coming to the planet and using a high tech device to invade the planet is overdone and unoriginal, and it brought the movie down. But anyway I'm not going to continue this debate because its likely going to descend (if it has not already) into an exchange of personal insults.

A Marvel fanboy? Wow, never heard that one before. This is coming from the guy who launches himself into an aggresive, personal attack because I said Avengers was substandard and Iron Man 2 a terrible film. *Searching mind* Nope, can't think of a worse film I've seen other than Iron Man. Well, perhaps Transformers 3. Probably because I tend not to watch bad films, given the fact you can tell a bad film by its trailer. However Iron Man was a good film and I enjoyed, Iron Man 2 suffered from a terrible story line consisting of mindless, pointless action. And this is coming from someone who's a sucker for fights and explosions.

 

But perhaps its just me and I'm tired of all that hero stuff and comic book movies don't appeal to me. But I know somebody who loves Marvel to bits and he wasn't impressed either, and unlike you agreed with my conclusions. But what it indicates is a rushed performance. They got loads of great actors together and great visuals together, likely because of a big budget, but the story felt rushed and was unoriginal because of it. Just because its a 'character piece' isn't an excuse for poor story. If Star Wars is rushed it may very well turn out the same way.

 

As for originality, there is a difference between traditional and cliche. Star Wars is traditional, its the Hero's Journey, its playing on mythology and fantasy that's at that underpins the whole saga. Avengers is cliche. The notion of 'Avenger's Assemble' is not cliche, thats traditional. But aliens coming to the planet and using a high tech device to invade the planet is overdone and unoriginal, and it brought the movie down. But anyway I'm not going to continue this debate because its likely going to descend (if it has not already) into an exchange of personal insults.

I'm genuinely sorry if you took my post as a personal attack. I'm not attacking you as a person, I'm simply questioning your judgement when it comes to objectively judging the quality of movies. For example, I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to music. I know what I like, but because music is not a field I know anything about, I would not begin to think I can tell a good piece of music from a bad one. I might listen to a song and say, "I didn't like that one", but I would never say "that is the worst song I have ever heard", because I am not qualified to judge.

I totally disagree with you when you say that you can tell a bad film by its trailer. Movies and trailers are very different beasts. Its actually surprisingly common for trailers to be made by a totally different team of people from the ones who made the movie. A good trailer editor can make an excellent trailer out of a very mediocre film and vice versa.

I also apologise if you think I was calling you a Marvel fanboy. I actually didn't. I said that either you have seen a limited range of movies OR you could be a Marvel fanboy. Turns out, by your own admission, that the former is the case, not the latter.

My post WAS questioning your judgement when it comes to movie criticism, it WAS NOT intended as a personal attack. I'm sorry that you took it that way.

Edit - btw, you didn't say Iron Man 2 was a terrible film. If you had, we wouldn't be having this debate. You are perfectly entitled to think Iron Man 2 is a terrible film. I disagree. I think it is a pretty good film. Not amazing, but very enjoyable. That's not the point though. I'm sure lots of people don't like it.

We had this argument because you said it was the worst film you had ever seen. That's very different from saying its a terrible film. Very different indeed.

I can recognised bad singing when I hear it, just as I can recongise poor quality films when I watch them. Iron Man 2 was simply poor quality, even Downey Jr. admitted as much. But I feel this discussion has lost relevance with the purpose of this thread, so perhaps we should just drop it.

In other news previous installments in the saga have been released with three year gaps. Is one year really enough to make a decent film? Unless of course they produce them simultaneously with multiple directors. But if that happens won't each film have a different feel?

possibly what every star wars fan is looking for.

That is unlikely, you will always anger some of the fans

Guarantee you will see some complaint about Jar Jar's storyline not be concluded if he does not make an appearance

Good help us all if they change the actor that was inside Artoo or 3PO

I can recognised bad singing when I hear it, just as I can recongise poor quality films when I watch them. Iron Man 2 was simply poor quality, even Downey Jr. admitted as much. But I feel this discussion has lost relevance with the purpose of this thread, so perhaps we should just drop it.

 

In other news previous installments in the saga have been released with three year gaps. Is one year really enough to make a decent film? Unless of course they produce them simultaneously with multiple directors. But if that happens won't each film have a different feel?

I agree, lets drop it....

... But on your second point, the reason people keep mentioning Marvel in this thread is because what we are seeing Disney want to do with Star Wars is exactly what they are doing with Marvel ie multiple films in simultaneous production, with different directors.

Will this lead to the films having a different feel? Not if Kathleen Kennedy does her job. I'm assuming that as the new head honcho at Lucasfilm, it will be her role to oversee the whole thing and ensure consistency in both quality and tone. This is what Kevin Feige does at Marvel, controls everything and makes sure that each individual film fits into the bigger scheme that Marvel Studios has for its movies.

I agree, lets drop it....

 

... But on your second point, the reason people keep mentioning Marvel in this thread is because what we are seeing Disney want to do with Star Wars is exactly what they are doing with Marvel ie multiple films in simultaneous production, with different directors.

 

Will this lead to the films having a different feel? Not if Kathleen Kennedy does her job. I'm assuming that as the new head honcho at Lucasfilm, it will be her role to oversee the whole thing and ensure consistency in both quality and tone. This is what Kevin Feige does at Marvel, controls everything and makes sure that each individual film fits into the bigger scheme that Marvel Studios has for its movies.

If by "damage" you mean, "make it more popular than ever and open it up to an audience far wider than its core fanbase, like they did with Marvel", then yes.

Yes! Once more Star Wars shall rule popular culture!

Yes! Once more Star Wars shall rule popular culture!

 

As for originality, there is a difference between traditional and cliche. Star Wars is traditional, its the Hero's Journey, its playing on mythology and fantasy that's at that underpins the whole saga. Avengers is cliche. The notion of 'Avenger's Assemble' is not cliche, thats traditional. But aliens coming to the planet and using a high tech device to invade the planet is overdone and unoriginal, and it brought the movie down. But anyway I'm not going to continue this debate because its likely going to descend (if it has not already) into an exchange of personal insults.

Alright, you're literally arguing over a razor thin semantic line between what you feel was an acceptable use of tired old cliches versus a nod to traditional plot elements.

The Avengers had a neat concept with the dimensional portal and the invading swarms. It wasn't a complicated plot device, merely a "MacGuffin" to facilitate the real plot, which was the character drama. Loki was a superb villain, and everyone else played their parts marvelously with great dialogue constructions that fit within the established dimensions of their personalities.

The original Star Wars film is also a classic, linear plot (even more linear than Avengers) with equally inexplicable motives for the Empire as those of the Chi-tari (or whatever those aliens were; again, I don't care since they were ancillary to the primary entertainment value of the film). It was a well-executed plot, with vibrant characters that carried the film along. Pretty much just like Star Wars when you get down to it.

...and we shall have peace.

Well, more like Disney shall have monies. But that's ok, because if they're cashing in on sweet new Star Wars films, I'm totally fine with coughing up my moderately hard-earned dollars.

Alright, you're literally arguing over a razor thin semantic line between what you feel was an acceptable use of tired old cliches versus a nod to traditional plot elements.

 

The Avengers had a neat concept with the dimensional portal and the invading swarms. It wasn't a complicated plot device, merely a "MacGuffin" to facilitate the real plot, which was the character drama. Loki was a superb villain, and everyone else played their parts marvelously with great dialogue constructions that fit within the established dimensions of their personalities.

 

The original Star Wars film is also a classic, linear plot (even more linear than Avengers) with equally inexplicable motives for the Empire as those of the Chi-tari (or whatever those aliens were; again, I don't care since they were ancillary to the primary entertainment value of the film). It was a well-executed plot, with vibrant characters that carried the film along. Pretty much just like Star Wars when you get down to it.

Star Wars borrows motifs from fairytales, mythology and other traditional stories. The hero's journey and tragedy, the prince rescuing the princess, the lovable rogue, the megalomanical villain, the wise mentor, magic, knights etc. these are simple, basic but effective motifs often used and respected in literature, and seen as the underpinning characteristics of a fairytale. Star Wars is essentially a fairytale, and it draws on these very basic concepts and develops them massively. The hero's journey becomes a rebel revolution against an evil Empire, the tradegy becomes the fall of a Jedi Knight to the dark side, the prince becomes a farmboy turned Jedi and the princess a noble from Alderaan on a mission to aid the Rebel Alliance, the lovable rogue becomes a sci-fi smuggler, the megalomanical villain becomes an Emperor and Sith Lord, the wise mentor an old Jedi, magic becomes the force, swords become lightsabers. By this point the original motifs become almost unrecognizable, yet their effects on the audience remain. The result is a fairytale for the modern day, that is what carried the saga along, the vibrant characters were only a boon to its success.

The Avengers on the other hand, draws on a cliche. Simply put an overused and rather uninteresting plot line. And little effort is made to expand on it. They give the device a name, give the aliens a context and choose a city, then shoe-horn it into the movie with oh so predictable results. The 'sacrifice' of Iron Man was an interesting twist, but fell short of success when he survived. The intervention of the megacorp-esque S.H.I.E.L.D directors was another interesting twist, but arrived to late and was a wasted plot device. The character interaction amounted to a few spats and exchange of humorous quips, nothing really came of it. Loki was a villain with all the stereotypes and none of the benefits, I tried to like him but found him pathetic.

But like you said, the vibrant characters and excellent dialogue, coupled with exciting visuals and well executed cinematography, rescued the film from being entirely underwhelming. Unfortunately if a little more effort had been put into the story, it could have been one hundred times better.

I'm talking about the not so fine line between a motif and a cliche.

 

Star Wars borrows motifs from fairytales, mythology and other traditional stories. The hero's journey and tragedy, the prince rescuing the princess, the lovable rogue, the megalomanical villain, the wise mentor, magic, knights etc. these are simple, basic but effective motifs often used and respected in literature, and seen as the underpinning characteristics of a fairytale. Star Wars is essentially a fairytale, and it draws on these very basic concepts and develops them massively. The hero's journey becomes a rebel revolution against an evil Empire, the tradegy becomes the fall of a Jedi Knight to the dark side, the prince becomes a farmboy turned Jedi and the princess a noble from Alderaan on a mission to aid the Rebel Alliance, the lovable rogue becomes a sci-fi smuggler, the megalomanical villain becomes an Emperor and Sith Lord, the wise mentor an old Jedi, magic becomes the force, swords become lightsabers. By this point the original motifs become almost unrecognizable, yet their effects on the audience remain. The result is a fairytale for the modern day, that is what carried the saga along, the vibrant characters were only a boon to its success.

 

The Avengers on the other hand, draws on a cliche. Simply put an overused and rather uninteresting plot line. And little effort is made to expand on it. They give the device a name, give the aliens a context and choose a city, then shoe-horn it into the movie with oh so predictable results. The 'sacrifice' of Iron Man was an interesting twist, but fell short of success when he survived. The intervention of the megacorp-esque S.H.I.E.L.D directors was another interesting twist, but arrived to late and was a wasted plot device. The character interaction amounted to a few spats and exchange of humorous quips, nothing really came of it. Loki was a villain with all the stereotypes and none of the benefits, I tried to like him but found him pathetic.

didn't exactly help. Although I was mildly elated when a short clip revealed some perhaps more impressive villains who might return in the sequel.

 

But like you said, the vibrant characters and excellent dialogue, coupled with exciting visuals and well executed cinematography, rescued the film from being entirely underwhelming. Unfortunately if a little more effort had been put into the story, it could have been one hundred times better.

I totally understand where you are coming from. I understand, but disagree. I do feel that you are biased against the film. When Star Wars uses a well worn theme it is a "motif", but when Avengers uses one it is a "cliche"

Yes, there are well worn themes in Avengers, but that is true of the vast majority of movies released every years, However, the "cliches" in the Avengers are done with such panache that they create moments of genuine delight.

To quote from the review in Empire magazine;

Moments that feel as though they might be clichéd are upended with grace and style, either through dialogue or action. Witness a captive Loki’s (Tom Hiddleston) glimpse into the dark heart of Black Widow, full of apparent perception and old wound-opening menace, which suddenly turns into something quite different. It’s a fine flourish and one that Whedon uses sparingly so it never loses its impact, ... The various plotlines stitch together nearly seamlessly, adding layers to our heroes’ interactions and finally hinting at much deeper, darker depth

 

...

 

With Earth’s Mightiest Heroes™ gathered, they needed a good villain to fight, and Loki certainly fills that void. He’s even more devious and devilish than his introduction in Thor and Hiddleston thoroughly owns the role, imbuing it with pure, malicious delight. Not only does he get one or two distinctly Whedonesque lines, he also provides one of the film’s biggest comic moments during an unfortunate run in with The Hulk.

I quote these two particular sections because they directly contradict your points. You are, of course, entitled to think what you like about this movie. What you cannot do is say "I didn't like and neither did my friend, therefore it is crap". Well, you can say that, but the majority of professional reviews (32 out of 43 favorable reviews on Metacritic, 10 mixed and only 1 negative) and $1.5 billion world wide gross disagree.

I totally understand where you are coming from. I understand, but disagree. I do feel that you are biased against the film. When Star Wars uses a well worn theme it is a "motif", but when Avengers uses one it is a "cliche"

 

Yes, there are well worn themes in Avengers, but that is true of the vast majority of movies released every years, However, the "cliches" in the Avengers are done with such panache that they create moments of genuine delight.

 

To quote from the review in Empire magazine;

 

I quote these two particular sections because they directly contradict your points. You are, of course, entitled to think what you like about this movie. What you cannot do is say "I didn't like and neither did my friend, therefore it is crap". Well, you can say that, but the majority of professional reviews (32 out of 43 favorable reviews on Metacritic, 10 mixed and only 1 negative) and $1.5 billion world wide gross disagree.

However I would be sorely disappointed if the motifs in Star Wars were sloppily done and became cliches. The Avengers also does not give me high hopes for story quality producible in such a short time. However I'd therefore only refrain from using it as an argument for Disney, rather than using it as an argument against, as I realise there are many other factors involved.

Indeed, but it would be oh so very easy to be original. And while I partially agree that by excelling in all other fields Avengers rescued itself - it don't see why they were necessary in the first place. I see the cliches as a flaw, a well covered up one, but a flaw nonetheless. Whereas Star Wars draws on motifs in the most deliberate of ways to develop its mythical themes. I personally was extremely surprised by its positive reviews, and I have no idea where he got that opinion of Loki from, although Marvel fandom is pretty pervading in current society... And of course it sold well, its Marvel, its the Avengers. The end of every other Marvel film included a clumsily inserted advertisement for this production. Star Wars will sell just as well, if not better, but that won't make it good. After all you don't know if a film is poor until you go and watch it. But yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

However I would be sorely disappointed if the motifs in Star Wars were sloppily done and became cliches. The Avengers also does not give me high hopes for story quality producible in such a short time. However I'd therefore only refrain from using it as an argument for Disney, rather than using it as an argument against, as I realise there are many other factors involved.

Where exactly do you think that Marvel fandom, as you put it, comes from. Do you honestly think that Avengers took one and a half billion dollars, making it the third highest grossing film of all time because Marvel comic fans went to see it? Prior to the release of these movies Marvel comics measured their sale in thousands, and the company was close to bankruptcy.

The truth is that the Marvel Studios movies have built up their own fan base by producing entertaining films on a regular basis. If critics are giving these movies favourable reviews, it is because they think they are good movies.

Nobody is pretending for a moment that these movies are great art, but they are a cultural phenomenon.

As for the source material, Lucas may have drawn his inspiration from myth, but so did Stan Lee. The roots of the superhero genre lie in mythological heroes like Heracles and Achilles. Remarkable individuals capable of amazing feats.

What you are doing in post after post is deliberately putting the most positive spin possible on the film you like and the most negative spin possible on the one you don't. Star Wars and Marvel have far more in common than you would like to admit. Star Wars is basically space wizards, princesses and monsters. It would have been so easy to do something original (at least, you seem to think so) but Lucas drew on everything from Arthurian Myth to Flash Gordon to Kurosawa movies to create his movie.

Where exactly do you think that Marvel fandom, as you put it, comes from. Do you honestly think that Avengers took one and a half billion dollars, making it the third highest grossing film of all time because Marvel comic fans went to see it? Prior to the release of these movies Marvel comics measured their sale in thousands, and the company was close to bankruptcy.

 

The truth is that the Marvel Studios movies have built up their own fan base by producing entertaining films on a regular basis. If critics are giving these movies favourable reviews, it is because they think they are good movies.

 

Nobody is pretending for a moment that these movies are great art, but they are a cultural phenomenon.

 

As for the source material, Lucas may have drawn his inspiration from myth, but so did Stan Lee. The roots of the superhero genre lie in mythological heroes like Heracles and Achilles. Remarkable individuals capable of amazing feats.

 

What you are doing in post after post is deliberately putting the most positive spin possible on the film you like and the most negative spin possible on the one you don't. Star Wars and Marvel have far more in common than you would like to admit. Star Wars is basically space wizards, princesses and monsters. It would have been so easy to do something original (at least, you seem to think so) but Lucas drew on everything from Arthurian Myth to Flash Gordon to Kurosawa movies to create his movie.

And saying I'm conducting my argument in a manner distasteful to you isn't exactly an argument itself. Yes Star Wars is basically about space wizards, princesses and monsters. The key word being basically, he made it original by taking that concept and expanding upon it. Without those basic concepts Star Wars would have been just another sci-fi film. So in fact by taking traditional motifs, and transforming them into something different, he made the saga compellingly unique. Also remember I'm not downplaying Marvel as a whole, Cpt. America and Iron Man are great films, and the concept of Athenian heroes etc. are good ones. I'm criticising a specific part which I found disappointing.

Marvel and Disney are obviously very good at drawing in viewers. The entire set up has been a gradual build up to this film, every film had a teaser for the upcoming Avengers.. Every film played on what the audience wanted: action, excitement, character, famous actors- Robert Downey Jr. alone rakes in millions of viewers. Does this necessarily mean its a good film? No. Avengers hold the record for the third highest grossing film in history. Guess whose fifth? Transformers 3. Popularity does not always equal quality. And I'm not disputing their popularity but their quality.

Good reviews? Yes. But this is all a matter of opinion I suppose anyway. And it did deserve good reviews for its superb acting and excellent visuals. It can't be brought down on substandard story alone.

But some people who agree with my opinion:

“The Avengers “almost works. It's funny and it's physical, but even at two and a half hours, it plays like it's on fast-forward. Forget character development — there's not even character explanation. ...

If such a thing can be said about a $220 million dollar blockbuster, “The Avengers” needs more ambition. Sure, it's fine for most films to host their battle royale in downtown Manhattan, but the superfriends deserve more. Prehistoric metal monsters smashing up skyscrapers? We’ve seen that before...

...His grand plan is to destroy his brother's beloved earth by finding a tall building, opening a hole in the sky, and inviting in a metal army who will enslave humankind. Apparently, bootleg copies of Transformers 3 made it to Asgard."

"The Avengers isn’t terrible and fanboys will (at least tell you they) love it, but it’s all just so generic by now, just like just another whizz-bang Marvel superhero movie, it’s hard not to feel disappointed.”

"-a slow start, a single star performance surrounded by indifferent acting and an onslaught of computer effects that range from seen-it-all-in-"Transformers" to a whole sky full of spectacular stuff in the midtown Manhattan climax."

"...(I’m certainly not the first one to notice that the film’s climax bears many similarities to the climax of Transformers: Dark of the Moon, as both films feature an urban-set battle with snake-like robot monsters, and a sky portal to another planet; although to be fair, The Avengers does it a little bit better). By the time the 40-or-so-minute climax rolls around, wherein an army of faceless robot aliens are invading New York and our assembled Avengers are fighting them off, I began to sink deep into my seat, crushed and bored and assaulted by the usual swirling CGI mess I've seen in countless action blockbusters before."

I didn't even choose these reviews selectively, they were the first ones I could find and funnily enough they are all simply repeating what I've said - I'm not the only one who noticed is mundane originality and underwhelming performance.

So what? You don't have to watch that crap. I've never watched the Marvel cartoons. I've also never read a Star Wars book or a Star Wars comic. I'm only interested in the films.

 

So far Marvel Studios have released;

 

Iron Man (2008)

The Incredible Hulk

Iron Man 2

Thor

Captain America

The Avengers (2012)

 

6 movies in 4 years ans only one of them (Hulk) was so so. The rest were hugely entertaining and commercially successful. Clearly Disney is more than capable of presiding over a franchise, churning out quality entertainment on a regular basis.

 

A big part of this success has been Marvel/Disney's refusal to skimp on the quality if the talent. Look at the directors, writers and actors involved in the Marvel movies. They are clearly trying to replicate this by hiring JJ Abrams to direct the first film. This is a director with a proven track record of making successful genre movies.

 

I'd say Disney know exactly what they are doing and I'm looking forward to the results.

This. Of all the film companies that could have purchased Lucasfilm, Disney is the one I trust the most. I sure as hell don't trust Fox; in fact, if Fox had been the ones to outright purchase it, I would've been proclaiming doom just like they did to the original Star Wars. Reason? Fox is very good at ACTION films. Die Hard is a prime example of this. But what few science fiction (and I mean space opera style, not urban or future Earth style) they have done have, for the most part, sucked. So Disney has my support all the way. And a two year wait on each episode instead of a three year wait? I can get behind that. Stand-alone films to tide us over till the next episode? Even better.

What I doing is called debating. I'm not exactly going to criticise my own arguments, that's your job. Ironically I've actually made several favourable comments in relation to Avengers, so your stand point is incorrect either way and frankly quite frustrating as these debates always seem to end in a critiscims of style rather than argument itself. (See this thread.)

 

And saying I'm conducting my argument in a manner distasteful to you isn't exactly an argument itself. Yes Star Wars is basically about space wizards, princesses and monsters. The key word being basically, he made it original by taking that concept and expanding upon it. Without those basic concepts Star Wars would have been just another sci-fi film. So in fact by taking traditional motifs, and transforming them into something different, he made the saga compellingly unique. Also remember I'm not downplaying Marvel as a whole, Cpt. America and Iron Man are great films, and the concept of Athenian heroes etc. are good ones. I'm criticising a specific part which I found disappointing.

 

Marvel and Disney are obviously very good at drawing in viewers. The entire set up has been a gradual build up to this film, every film had a teaser for the upcoming Avengers.. Every film played on what the audience wanted: action, excitement, character, famous actors- Robert Downey Jr. alone rakes in millions of viewers. Does this necessarily mean its a good film? No. Avengers hold the record for the third highest grossing film in history. Guess whose fifth? Transformers 3. Popularity does not always equal quality. And I'm not disputing their popularity but their quality.

 

Good reviews? Yes. But this is all a matter of opinion I suppose anyway. And it did deserve good reviews for its superb acting and excellent visuals. It can't be brought down on substandard story alone.

 

But some people who agree with my opinion:

 

“The Avengers “almost works. It's funny and it's physical, but even at two and a half hours, it plays like it's on fast-forward. Forget character development — there's not even character explanation. ...

 

If such a thing can be said about a $220 million dollar blockbuster, “The Avengers” needs more ambition. Sure, it's fine for most films to host their battle royale in downtown Manhattan, but the superfriends deserve more. Prehistoric metal monsters smashing up skyscrapers? We’ve seen that before...

 

...His grand plan is to destroy his brother's beloved earth by finding a tall building, opening a hole in the sky, and inviting in a metal army who will enslave humankind. Apparently, bootleg copies of Transformers 3 made it to Asgard."

 

"The Avengers isn’t terrible and fanboys will (at least tell you they) love it, but it’s all just so generic by now, just like just another whizz-bang Marvel superhero movie, it’s hard not to feel disappointed.”

 

"-a slow start, a single star performance surrounded by indifferent acting and an onslaught of computer effects that range from seen-it-all-in-"Transformers" to a whole sky full of spectacular stuff in the midtown Manhattan climax."

 

"...(I’m certainly not the first one to notice that the film’s climax bears many similarities to the climax of Transformers: Dark of the Moon, as both films feature an urban-set battle with snake-like robot monsters, and a sky portal to another planet; although to be fair, The Avengers does it a little bit better). By the time the 40-or-so-minute climax rolls around, wherein an army of faceless robot aliens are invading New York and our assembled Avengers are fighting them off, I began to sink deep into my seat, crushed and bored and assaulted by the usual swirling CGI mess I've seen in countless action blockbusters before."

 

I didn't even choose these reviews selectively, they were the first ones I could find and funnily enough they are all simply repeating what I've said - I'm not the only one who noticed is mundane originality and underwhelming performance.

Hope your reviews didn't come from critic, because anyone who actually uses their brain knows critics are hardly trusted by people to say if a movie is good. What matters, my friend, is the numbers. You know, the money a film makes? And in a cinematic universe encompassing more than one film, such as with Star Wars or the Marvel CU, the amount each movie gets makes the following film that much more supported by not only fans, but the studios. See, the studios decide how much the films get budgeted with, and they're not going to back another film in a cinematic universe if it hasn't proven itself already.

Pretty much every Marvel Comics film has been a success in the new branch of films. Star Wars is a cinematic universe of its own, and what Disney is doing is taking two years to do the films after Episode VII. I'd guess they'll start pre-production (writing the script, finding actors/director/etc.) on the first stand-alone next year, in 2014, while they work on filming (production) of Episode VII, and be filming or preparing to film the first stand-alone while they wrap up and get ready to release Episode VII.

Now, is the Marvel Cinematic Universe the greatest 'marvel' of modern cinema? I think that depends on how you measure it. In terms of effects, character development/interaction, and the way the tales all connect and lead into Avengers, than absolutely. Each episode of Star Wars, from Phantom Menace to Return of the Jedi, connects and moves the story of Anakin Skywalker and his progeny forward. This new branch of films will not only show us what happens after the fall of the Emperor and the 'return of the Jedi', but also expand the Star Wars universe and give it new depth for those who refuse to watch cartoons, read books, or play video games. If this somehow harms your view of Star Wars, or you feel that the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe means doom for a series of films that have continued to be in the collections of pretty much every movie-goer since 1977, I've gotta wonder exactly where you fell off the shopping cart.

Put simply: they're two different cinematic universes, and quite frankly, with today's technology, two years is pretty much all the time that's needed to make a movie. Lucas only took three years because he did not cast big name stars or producers or whatever if he could help it. Disney, on the other hand, has no problem doing so and therefore don't need to take up to a year casting for the 'perfect unknown actor' to play various roles other than those already cast (by the previous stars).

If this somehow harms your view of Star Wars, or you feel that the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe means doom for a series of films that have continued to be in the collections of pretty much every movie-goer since 1977, I've gotta wonder exactly where you fell off the shopping cart.

...However I would be sorely disappointed if the motifs in Star Wars were sloppily done and became cliches. The Avengers also does not give me high hopes for story quality producible in such a short time. However I'd therefore only refrain from using it as an argument for Disney, rather than using it as an argument against, as I realise there are many other factors involved.

It does not spell doom for the series, but I'm not going to go and say to anyone: "Oh Star Wars will be great, I mean look what they did with Avengers" because I don't think Avengers is that great a film. Nor am I criticizing the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole, just the Avengers.

But back on topic, interesting summary of how you think the movie process will work. One criticism: big names - do we want them? Lucas spent large amounts of time choosing more obscure but better fitting actors because he knew that worked. However like you say Disney has no qualms over this and that's what worries me. Star Wars is simply no place for the likes of Robert Downey Jr. and (god forbid) 'The Rock' and I feel big names like that end up detracting from the movie itself. Case in point: Downey Jr. he basically stole the show in the Avengers to the point where it became Iron Man 3 with friends. This among other things is why am hesitant to rejoice when I hear Disney is churning out Star Wars every year. Which will surely only leave one year to create the rest of the films?

P.S. The Marvel movies aren't really held in that high regard, and are certainly not in the collections of every movie goer since 1977. They are fun distractions, generic action movies, not much more.

One criticism: big names - do we want them? Lucas spent large amounts of time choosing more obscure but better fitting actors because he knew that worked. However like you say Disney has no qualms over this and that's what worries me. Star Wars is simply no place for the likes of Robert Downey Jr. and (god forbid) 'The Rock' and I feel big names like that end up detracting from the movie itself. Case in point: Downey Jr. he basically stole the show in the Avengers to the point where it became Iron Man 3 with friends. This among other things is why am hesitant to rejoice when I hear Disney is churning out Star Wars every year. Which will surely only leave one year to create the rest of the films?

To address your second point first. Releasing one film every year means simultaneous production. Episode 7 is planned for release in 2015 with episode 8 to follow in 2017. Whatever film they have planned for 2016, they will not wait until the finish episode 7 before they start it. This is far more like how TV is made. You don't complete one whole episode before starting to make the next one. The process of making a film has three basic phases; preproduction, principal photography and post-production. It is actually conceivable that filming could begin on Episode 8 before Episode 7 is even released. To take a different film series, the Harry Potter movies were mostly released at a rate of one per year, with a 2 year gap between the 5th and 6th films. That doesn't mean each film was completed in just 1 year, start to finish.

Interesting question about big names though. The Original Trilogy mostly contained unknown actors, but not exclusively. Alec Guiness and Peter Cushing were well known and respected actors with well over a hundred films between them. The rest were unknown, but Lucas made the first movie on a very tight budget. He couldn't afford big names, but would he have had them if he could?

Well, in the prequel trilogy he did. It's packed with well known actors; Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Terence Stamp, Brian Blessed, Samuel L Jackson, Christopher Lee, Jimmy Smits, Temuera Morrison ... Whether they are better or worse films as a result is debatable, but George Lucas himself has set the precedent here. A Star Wars film packed with big names would not be anything new.

Edit - one thing I will say about RDjr in Avengers; I do agree with you that he stole every scene he was in, but I don't think it was because he was the most famous actor. I think the scene stealing was down to a combination of him being the most charismatic actor and having the most interesting character. Its the same reason that I think Harrison Ford steals every scene he is in in the original trilogy.