Next summer is going to be a gigantic, epic, CBM filled season. Everyone's speculating about their favorite movies: What's going to happen with Avengers? How's The Amazing Spider-man going to fit into the Raimi trilogy? Is The Dark Knight Rises going to be the big winner at next year's box office?
I have to admit, I don't care about any of those questions. What really bothers me...What tears at the very foundations of my geekhood is...MARVEL'S CONTINUITY
I know this seems like a really weird and arbitrary concern, but I think it's valid. I don't see how all of Marvel's characters will fit in the same film. I simply cannot envision a future Avengers movie that will convincingly combine all the heavyweights, and in a way that won't suck, or at least disappoint.
How can all these heroes convincingly exist in the same Marvelverse? How can Tony Stark, a character whose so intricately involved with a realistic and relatable world, be on a superhero team? More than that, how the hell does Thor, the God of Thunder, belong in the tech savy world of Tony Stark? And the same question goes out to Joe Johnston's Captain America?
In all fairness, most of these questions will be addressed in the upcoming Avengers film. But since Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger belong to the Marvel Filmverse, and share crossover characters with the Iron Man franchise, I think a little analysis between the three properties will reveal some of my concerns.
Iron Man was Marvel Studios's first film. Through Joh Favreau's genius, we were introduced to Tony Stark, a crazy, fatalistic, billionaire who owes his wealth and opulent lifestyle to war profiteering. Portrayed brilliantly by Robert Downey Jr., Stark shamelessly indulges his vices in very public and controversial displays.
As the film's protagonist, he doesn't seem very heroic, but after a near-death incident in the Middle-East, Stark has a change of heart. His convoy was attacked, and he was mortally wounded by one of his own missiles. Stark realizes that his weapons are used by evil men...true villains.
After escaping captivity, Tony Stark renounces weapon manufacturing, and turns his attention to viable, alternative energy. He reinvigorates Arc Reactor research, the same technology that mantains Stark's health, and in turn powers the Iron Man suit. Mix in a few villains, an attempted corporate takeover, and a few romantic interests.... and voila, we have IRON MAN.
Joh Favreau was really great at capturing the right tone for this movie. Tony Stark never appears in any situation that seems overtly contrived or beyond the borders of the real world.
The film begins with a gritty, semi-realistic portrayal of combat in the Middle-East. Tony's convoy is attacked and his security escort, comprised of a few very young soldiers, are killed in the ensuing firefight. In a very dark form of irony, a missile labeled with Stark's name explodes at point blank range, cutting straight through Tony's body armor. My thoughts at this point...WOW, this shit just got real. Favreau then cuts to a few days earlier, whereTony receives an award, but blows off the ceremony so he can play craps with some sexy Vixens...great juxtaposition of Stark's frivolous life and his current life/death situation.
The movie continues in this same style: drawing a humorous, but dark line between Tony Stark's eccentric, over-consumptive lifestyle and his heroic struggle which eventually culminates in his Iron Man persona. All the while, the viewer is subtly urged to consider Stark's role in the real world: he's is a weapon manufacturer in a post 9/11 world. The United States was, and remains, quagmired in two unconventional, devastating wars. For for all the technological advantages the United States military possesses, it remains unable to defeat its enemy. In the midst of all this uncertainty, we have Tony Stark. He is the main weapons manufacturer for the US. He makes all the greatest and latest gadgets that will win the wars...or does he?
The tone of the movie, both visually and emotionally, is woven into the real world. The film is neither overly violent or morbid. And it doesn't bore the audience with blatant, unemotional dialogue concerning social philosophy (I'm looking at you The Dark Knight), but instead presents situations that organically and subtly address the subject . Everything in the movie seems like it truly could happen, like a slice out of Tony Stark's life...just a normal guy, with extraordinary means, who accepts his responsibility for the state of the world.
I thought Thor was a great stand-alone film. Chris Hemsworth and the rest of the cast nailed their roles, but given the opportunity, I would have removed some of the more campy elements. Overall, though, the film was a successful interpretation of the Thor comics. BUT... I don't think it relates to the Iron Man films very well. I know, I know...I should accept that Thor is an alien, misinterpreted as a god by Earth's more primitive societies...but that simply doesn't work for me.
This is supposed to be the same universe as Favreau's Iron Man, right? Then why do so many elements of Thor look so artificial? I'll accept that mere mortals are too primitive to understand the immensely technologically advanced realm of Asgard. Still, all the weapons and structures in Asgard seem a little too Lord of the Rings-ish (especially since this film version of Asgard is founded in science, not magic). But the Earth scenes look particularly out of place when compared to the Iron Man films. That small town in New Mexico was constructed specifically for this movie, and it looks like it.
In Thor, we're just supposed to accept that these Asgardians are fantastic, scientifically advanced beings, and that seems like cheating. Favreau could have went a similar route with the production of Stark's exoskeletons, but instead the technology was really well considered and implemented. We witness the construction of the Iron Man suits, and even though they should seem really far fetched, they're much more believable after we've seen Tony Stark's late night tinkerings, with all his minor successes and failures. Thor should have displayed, at least in some small amount, how their science works.
Magic is a fundamental part of the comic book Thor...Mjolnir, Bifrost, Odinforse, and basically anything Asgardian is powered by Magic. In an attempt to remove Thor from edges of fantasy, and in order to relate the character to the Iron Man series, Kenneth Branagh simply replaced the term Magic with Science..but that doesn't solve the problem. That is simply Magic by another name. Marvel has tried to amend these inconsistencies, through the involvement of Jane Foster as a scientist. Odin's tesseract even appears in Captain America: The First Avenger, where it is insinuated as a component of Tony Stark's Arc Reactor. Still, I don't think Thor works in an Iron Man universe.
Onto Captain America: The First Avenger
Captain America: The First Avenger was brilliant film....or at least for the first hour. Johnston gracefully painted a portrait of Steve Rogers, a frail, but well-intending kid who struggles to enlist in the military. After a series of rejection, the wizened Doctor Erskine nominated Rogers for Project Rebirth, and the rest is history.
I have very few complaints about this movie. As expected, this film fits in the Marvel Filmverse much more easily than Thor. Honestly, after viewing The Incredible Hulk, Captain America seems like a necessary part of the Banner/Blonsky/Ross saga. However, I do have some issues with its presentation.
This is a period piece and Johnston's direction style, like his work with the Rocketeer, is very nostalgic and whimsical. This was all fine and dandy for the first hour, when we were introduced to Steve Rogers in Brooklyn. But it just doesn't work when Captain America arrives in Nazi-occupied Europe. The entire second half of the film is consumed by war, and it should have been dark, foreboding, and sprinkled with moments of true, candid despair. Instead, Johnston delivers a very Indiana Jones-esque portrayal of the war. We never see Nazi soldiers in combat, but are afforded wave after wave of uninspired Hydra flunkies, all sporting plasma rifles pulled straight from a B-list science fiction movie. I wasn't expecting Saving Private Ryan...but come on.
One of my biggest concerns was the general presentation of combat. Throughout the entire movie, the Howling Commandos and their fellow soldiers never take cover. They rush blindly into battle, accurately firing weapons from their hips, like an "Inglorious Bastard" tribute group. I would expect that sort of brazen courage from Captain America, but this is a war movie, and I'd like to see the soldiers behave like soldiers. Captain America should be the only hero lunging through the battlefield, staring down a haze of rifle fire, and coming out the other side unscathed. The first scene in Iron Man, when militants ambush Tony Stark's convoy, has more convincing combat than Captain America: The First Avenger. That's really, truly disappointing, considering that Captain America is a war-time hero and the SUPER-SOLDIER.
Hopefully, Avengers can convincingly mix all these heroes in the same universe. I enjoy Joss Whedon as a writer, but I don't see how any of his previous work as a director warrants his involvement in the Avengers film. I think he would have been great as a producer, and he would have made some fabulous re-writes, but he shouldn't have been hired as the director. An Avengers film is a spectacle. It's a ground shattering meeting of the Marvelverse heavyweights, and it needs to be directed by someone who can convey epic battles, organic character interaction, and heroic self-revelations...I just don't think Whedon's the guy for the job.
I will remain a hopeful fan, but I'm not sure if Marvel can pull this movie off.
What say you?
NOTE: The Incredible Hulk is another science based film, and I think it's gritty tone is entirely relatable to the Iron Man franchise, so I didn't think it presented a problem for an Avengers film.