AVENGERS 2: Age of Ultron (5/1/15) - Final Trailer

Well, you know, if they wanted to beat Avatar, all they'd have to do is pull the bullshit cameron did, and rerelease it in theaters with "new scenes"
 
Box office totals don't mean jack unless they're adjusted for inflation. Once you do that Gone With the Wind is the unbeatable champ, never to be touched. If you really want get accurate, then the count should be of total ticket sales, regardless of the price. That's the best barometer.
 
[quote name='Gden']Well, you know, if they wanted to beat Avatar, all they'd have to do is pull the bullshit cameron did, and rerelease it in theaters with "new scenes"[/QUOTE]

Did the rerelease even make that much?

I forgot that happened until you brought it up. Even if they did do a re-release of Avengers it would never hit the worldwide numbers Avatar did.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Did the rerelease even make that much?

I forgot that happened until you brought it up. Even if they did do a re-release of Avengers it would never hit the worldwide numbers Avatar did.[/QUOTE]

makes me think of the Big Bang Theory episode, where they add 2 seconds to the movie and it completely changes the film lol
 
Seriously what would happen if the Baxter Building, Oscorp and whatever Marvel universe building in NYC was inserted into the Avengers RR/BR release? The studios can't sue each other because Marvel owns the rights to those properties. It's funny how Stan Lee can have an unquestionable cameo from one movie to the next but no movie can mention things like mutants or "that web head in NYC..."
 
[quote name='ITDEFX']Seriously what would happen if the Baxter Building, Oscorp and whatever Marvel universe building in NYC was inserted into the Avengers RR/BR release? The studios can't sue each other because Marvel owns the rights to those properties. It's funny how Stan Lee can have an unquestionable cameo from one movie to the next but no movie can mention things like mutants or "that web head in NYC..."[/QUOTE]

They can sue each other. You're flat out wrong. It doesn't matter that Marvel is the "licensor" so to speak. Sony, Paramount, and FOX are like "licensees" who have agreed to certain contractual terms with Marvel to make films based on Marvel's comic ideas. If that contract says "Anything related to the following characters of X,Y, Z and the Osborn family is the exclusive film property of Sony for the duration of this contract and licensing agreement" then Marvel Studios can't turn around and put the Oscorp building in their own movie without clearing with with Sony first. Sony could most definitely sue. It would appear to be a stupid lawsuit, but they have every right to sue because Marvel would have breached the contract with them, and they would likely be successful in said lawsuit. Sony has to protect their film rights if they're going to continue profiting off them, and in no way does Marvel have free reign to do whatever they want just because the comic book division came up with certain ideas in the past. Otherwise what is the point of the contracts?

Stan Lee is not property of Marvel. Stan Lee is a human being who can agree to appear in whatever films he wants unless he's signed some contract to the contrary. Marvel as a company certainly isn't going to stop him from appearing in any of the films based on their properties. And the only way they could prevent him from appearing in something like The Dark Knight Rises is if he has a contract with Marvel that says he won't appear in competing film properties.
 
[quote name='batman1939']So no chance of this?
[/QUOTE]

There is a chance. The studios could all work together. But is it likely? No.
 
If only Marvel hadn't sold the rights. It's obvious they do better with their own properties than these other studios.
 
[quote name='neocisco']Box office totals don't mean jack unless they're adjusted for inflation. Once you do that Gone With the Wind is the unbeatable champ, never to be touched. If you really want get accurate, then the count should be of total ticket sales, regardless of the price. That's the best barometer.[/QUOTE]
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/?pagenum=1&sort=gross&order=DESC&adjust_yr=1&p=.htm

The Avengers ranks #12 all time in est Tickets Sold at about 75.8 million and still counting.
 
[quote name='Clak']If only Marvel hadn't sold the rights. It's obvious they do better with their own properties than these other studios.[/QUOTE]
Sucks but they had to. Unlike DC who was owned by Warner Bros, Marvel didn't have their own studio.

Marvel had to sell character rights to different studios to fund and jump start their own movie studio a decade later.

Blade by New Line Cinema was the start, and the X-Men by Fox and Spider-man by Sony properties helped get Marvel their own studio later on.
 
don't see spiderman swinging into the avengers but i do see a new/improved/redesigned version of either silver surfer or warlock making a guest appearance due to the hint of thanos being shown at the end of the avengers movie.
 
[quote name='HanawayCoca']Sucks but they had to. Unlike DC who was owned by Warner Bros, Marvel didn't have their own studio.

Marvel had to sell character rights to different studios to fund and jump start their own movie studio a decade later.

Blade by New Line Cinema was the start, and the X-Men by Fox and Spider-man by Sony properties helped get Marvel their own studio later on.[/QUOTE]
Eh, assuming that Disney still bought Marvel, they would have had the same setup as DC.
 
[quote name='Clak']Eh, assuming that Disney still bought Marvel, they would have had the same setup as DC.[/QUOTE]
Disney wouldn't have bought Marvel if it wasn't for Marvel Studios' Iron Man profitability. Disney knew Marvel Studios long term film projection regarding the Avengers movie series would be so profitable and they were right. The Avengers is near making $1.5 BILLION dollars that's basically a third of Disney's investment already recouped in less than 2 years!

Marvel wouldn't have been able to make Iron Man if it wasn't for their copyrights in the X-Men and Spider-man films that gave them their big capital to making their own film venture.
 
You can't say that for sure, Disney has exploited Marvel's catalog of characters for animated shows as well. Nobody knew that far back if Avengers would be a hit. Hell, Disney bought Marvel in 2009, Iron Man had just come out the year before. They made a bet, a bet they could have made regardless.
 
"Could" have made...but probably wouldn't have. A company is not gonna invest in something they don't feel is profitable. Marvel became a profitable film entity because of everything that came before. Sucks that their IPs are spread out like that, but that's the reality of things.
 
Let the speculation begin!

Andrew Garfield spotted carrying a load of Avengers "Thanos" comicbooks

article-0-13D3474C000005DC-996_468x644.jpg


article-0-13D3477D000005DC-572_468x286.jpg
Click to expand...
Actor studying for a role in The Avengers 2, or probably just a guy who's a fan of the books?

:D
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']"Could" have made...but probably wouldn't have. A company is not gonna invest in something they don't feel is profitable. Marvel became a profitable film entity because of everything that came before. Sucks that their IPs are spread out like that, but that's the reality of things.[/QUOTE]
So Disney saw no profit in Marvel outside of these films, am I understanding your logic correctly? Without them Dinsey wouldn't have bought Marvel?
 
[quote name='kodave']They can sue each other. You're flat out wrong. It doesn't matter that Marvel is the "licensor" so to speak. Sony, Paramount, and FOX are like "licensees" who have agreed to certain contractual terms with Marvel to make films based on Marvel's comic ideas. If that contract says "Anything related to the following characters of X,Y, Z and the Osborn family is the exclusive film property of Sony for the duration of this contract and licensing agreement" then Marvel Studios can't turn around and put the Oscorp building in their own movie without clearing with with Sony first. Sony could most definitely sue. It would appear to be a stupid lawsuit, but they have every right to sue because Marvel would have breached the contract with them, and they would likely be successful in said lawsuit. Sony has to protect their film rights if they're going to continue profiting off them, and in no way does Marvel have free reign to do whatever they want just because the comic book division came up with certain ideas in the past. Otherwise what is the point of the contracts?

Stan Lee is not property of Marvel. Stan Lee is a human being who can agree to appear in whatever films he wants unless he's signed some contract to the contrary. Marvel as a company certainly isn't going to stop him from appearing in any of the films based on their properties. And the only way they could prevent him from appearing in something like The Dark Knight Rises is if he has a contract with Marvel that says he won't appear in competing film properties.[/QUOTE]

wow ...that's fucking un-real. Things shouldn't have to be so complex. I really don't see what they have to loose.... pleasing the fans=mega bucks.

I really am curious how DC is going to handle the JL movie with all the licenses all over the place as well.
 
[quote name='Clak']So Disney saw no profit in Marvel outside of these films, am I understanding your logic correctly? Without them Dinsey wouldn't have bought Marvel?[/QUOTE]
Disney wanted all the Marvel characters brand of course. We're trying to get at is that the Marvel films were basically what pushed Disney over the edge to finally pull the trigger and purchase Marvel.

Disney has been tittering back and forth from acquiring Marvel and their characters since the early 2000's, but Iron Man's movie profitability and Marvel's long time movie goal really was what sealed the deal for Disney. It was the cherry on top.

Disney was actually going to wait to acquire Marvel in 2013 after their license with Paramount expired and to see how The Avengers would do first, but they realized it was best to acquire them now before the next phases of films came out from Thor, Captain America, to The Avengers.
 
[quote name='ITDEFX']wow ...that's fucking un-real. Things shouldn't have to be so complex. I really don't see what they have to loose.... pleasing the fans=mega bucks.

I really am curious how DC is going to handle the JL movie with all the licenses all over the place as well.[/QUOTE]

Warner Bros. has the rights to most of them, if not all of them.
 
[quote name='HanawayCoca']Disney wanted all the Marvel characters brand of course. We're trying to get at is that the Marvel films were basically what pushed Disney over the edge to finally pull the trigger and purchase Marvel.
[/QUOTE]
That isn't what he said. He basically said that the movies were the only reason Disney was interested, as if Disney only makes movies.
 
[quote name='HanawayCoca']Let the speculation begin!

Actor studying for a role in The Avengers 2, or probably just a guy who's a fan of the books?

:D[/QUOTE]

Looking at this, and seeing the recent rumor that Gaurdians of the Galaxy (with Nova!) would be at SDCC this year, gets me thinking. What if he is in the running to be Nova, or another member of the GotG, and that is why he is learning up on Thanos?
 
[quote name='Clak']That isn't what he said. He basically said that the movies were the only reason Disney was interested, as if Disney only makes movies.[/QUOTE]

Not at all what I said, but thanks for playing.

As I clearly said, they become a profitable film entity with all of the success that came before. That's what really pushed Disney over the edge. No where did I say there is nothing else interesting about the Marvel brand. But as was already said, Disney only flirted with the idea of purchasing it until the films became wildly success. That made the deal a no-brainer for them.

RIF.gif
 
[quote name='moon_knight']For someone who understands the material, Joss Whedon gave Hawkeye as little screen time as possible.[/QUOTE]

He's just not as important a character as others, and they only have so much screen time to work with. I wouldn't be surprised if he's in a deleted scene though.
 
[quote name='eastx']He's just not as important a character as others, and they only have so much screen time to work with. I wouldn't be surprised if he's in a deleted scene though.[/QUOTE]
The only reason he was unimportant was because the writers chose to make him that way
 
The average person doesn't know who Hawkeye is. A lot of people were Googling "Is Green Arrow in the Avengers?" There's only so much screen time to around, and the end of the day, you're going to give that time to your marquee names.
 
Why did marvel put his character in the cinematic universe if they aren't going to use him? Black Widow isn't that well known either.
 
[quote name='moon_knight']Why did marvel put his character in the cinematic universe if they aren't going to use him? Black Widow isn't that well known either.[/QUOTE]

We already explained it, dude. Hawkeye doesn't have his own movie and isn't as high up on the ladder as Nick Fury. Black Widow's in there so they have a decently prominent female character. Let it go.
 
[quote name='eastx']We already explained it, dude. Hawkeye doesn't have his own movie and isn't as high up on the ladder as Nick Fury. Black Widow's in there so they have a decently prominent female character. Let it go.[/QUOTE]
You're right. An underused character isn't an underused character if it's in this movie.
 
No movie is perfect in every way. But what you're doing is akin to angrily complaining that Tomb Bombadil isn't in the Fellowship of the Ring movie. The medium has inherent time limitations. Directors and writers have to make tough choices about what's most important to squeeze in. As a journalist, I make the same kind of decisions when trying to keep my reviews within a certain word count.

The important thing is the movie was a huge success in every way: critically, financially, and with fans. It's a shame the world's biggest Hawkeye fan felt underserved, but that doesn't undermine the film's other accomplishments.
 
[quote name='eastx']No movie is perfect in every way. But what you're doing is akin to angrily complaining that Tomb Bombadil isn't in the Fellowship of the Ring movie. The medium has inherent time limitations. Directors and writers have to make tough choices about what's most important to squeeze in. As a journalist, I make the same kind of decisions when trying to keep my reviews within a certain word count.

The important thing is the movie was a huge success in every way: critically, financially, and with fans. It's a shame the world's biggest Hawkeye fan felt underserved, but that doesn't override the film's other accomplishments[/QUOTE]
People can say Joss Whedon handled every character perfectly, but I can't point out one was hardly in the movie? I would still have pointed it out if it was another character. I understand why it ended up that way and I still think the movie is good. I'm sorry the world's biggest Avengers defender can't handle someone else's gripe with the movie.
 
You can point out whatever you want. The problem is you're saying the same thing over and over. Most people, upon learning the reasoning behind a decision they disagree with, would eventually move on. Also, you have this accusatory tone that almost implies that we who understand and agree with the decision are somehow responsible for it. In reality, we just understand the limits of storytelling, moviemaking, etc. and don't get hung up with unrealistic expectations.
 
[quote name='eastx']You can point out whatever you want. The problem is you're saying the same thing over and over. Most people, upon learning the reasoning behind a decision they disagree with, would eventually move on. Also, you have this accusatory tone that almost implies that we who understand and agree with the decision are somehow responsible for it. In reality, we just understand the limits of storytelling, moviemaking, etc. and don't get hung up with unrealistic expectations.[/QUOTE]
People have complained about other movies not giving certain characters enough development, this is no different. Some of these responses sound like excuses, since when is wanting a character to show up a little more unrealistic? This has been going nowhere, so I'm going to shut up.

Edit: Vulture.com did a tally of each avenger's screentime a while ago. I'm just going to leave this here
Captain America 37:42
Ironman 37:01
Black Widow 33:35
Bruce Banner 28:03
Thor 25:52
Hawkeye 12:44
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For an Avengers movie to be a grandiose success, like it was, there has to be some common sense taken into consideration. Why would Hawkeye, a normal guy with no super powers, get more screen time than an Asgardian God of Thunder, a man in suit of armor with enough firepower to level a country, a supersoldier an entire nation adores, and a giant green monster of rage?

It would make absolutely no sense if you see Hawkeye get the same amount of screentime than the Avengers that really matter. And don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Hawkeye (in the movie and comics), but he is just really good with a bow. That's it, end of story. There is very little room for development there, and what Joss Whedon did with him in Avenger is really all you can ask for.
 
Allow me to paraphrase:

You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Let's just agree that Renner's second summer movie is going to blow the pants off of Hemsworth's second summer movie and call it a wash.
 
[quote name='GUNNM']What's this item 47 shit? Way to capitalize off of the avengers popularity?[/QUOTE]

It's a 10-15 minute short film with Lizzy Caplan (I was sold when she was said to be in it) that will be on the Avengers Blu-Ray disc. From what Marvel Studios has said on it, it appears to be what the events of the Avengers had on the more human side of the MCU.

Also, great to hear that Whedon is back aboard not only Avengers 2, but the entire MCU phase 2.
 
[quote name='GhostShark']It's a 10-15 minute short film with Lizzy Caplan (I was sold when she was said to be in it) that will be on the Avengers Blu-Ray disc. From what Marvel Studios has said on it, it appears to be what the events of the Avengers had on the more human side of the MCU.

Also, great to hear that Whedon is back aboard not only Avengers 2, but the entire MCU phase 2.[/QUOTE]
Oh I thought it was a full movie.
 
[quote name='GhostShark']It's a 10-15 minute short film with Lizzy Caplan (I was sold when she was said to be in it) that will be on the Avengers Blu-Ray disc. From what Marvel Studios has said on it, it appears to be what the events of the Avengers had on the more human side of the MCU.

Also, great to hear that Whedon is back aboard not only Avengers 2, but the entire MCU phase 2.[/QUOTE]
That Nova MvC2 like avatar of yours is sweet!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top