Is Marvel Still Up For Cinematic Continuity?

Is Marvel Still Up For Cinematic Continuity?

Is Marvel too tight on the purse strings to give us the cinematic continuity they promised?

Editorial Opinion
By CraptainAmerica - Feb 07, 2011 11:02 AM EST
Filed Under: Other

When Iron Man exploded onto the big screen I, as well as many millions worldwide, smiled with excitemnet. Not only was it a flawless translation of the pages of a comic book adored the world over but it was also the start of a plan we could only have hoped for. Marvel were about to turn superhero comic continuity into a Marvel cinematic universe that echoes just that. There has been an Incredible Hulk movie that teased not only future installments of this universe but also what we could expect from Marvel in regards to how Hulk will be depicted within the future of their franchises. Iron Man 2 was yet another springboard between a stand alone adventure and the start of weaving these, and future Marvel movies, together.

I have enjoyed all three of what is to be the subsiquent brickwork that will pave the way towards The Avengers outing in 2012. I find it very difficult to be critical of the characters and elements within the movies as I am being given exactly what I want from a movie...my favourite characters brought to life infront of my very eyes. I can sympathise with people who dislike particular changes to the source material but we all have such varied tastes I don't think you will please everybody all of the time. Changes, at times, are neccessary.

Having viewed the Thor and Captain America TV spots from last nights Superbowl I was ecstatic. Not just for seeing them finally start the ball rolling until their inevitable release dates. Nor the waterfall of info, pictures and footage that is about to rain down on us. But for the fact the plan laid out for us years ago is finally coming together...more than nicely!

But why did I have a niggling in the back of my mind? One that has been growing over the last year. After reading comments on here regarding particular stories I could see that it is a reservation that a majority of you relate to...

Marvel's reluctance to loosen the purse strings on occassion or to negotiate reasonably when it comes to the crunch.

I don't mean this disrespectfully or mean to offend Marvel and their good work. I'm still loving every minute of what they are putting out but what we were promised in the begining has started to dwindle, on occassion, as time has passed. For instance, Terrence Howard moving on. Edward Norton (my favourite Marvel casting decision so far) leaving the Hulk franchise. Favreau moving on from completing Iron Man's epic journey to facing, hopefully, The Mandarin in the third installment.

I know the blame cannot be put solely on Marvel. They shouldn't be held to ransom by any actor when they are the employer. But with almost all that they do resulting in mass profit I would assume they were able to keep whoever they wished for on board. I, at first, was skeptical of them handing over joint responsibility to Disney. In time I have come to see that they need another market savey titan to aid in allowing them to hold down any ground they wish to cover when it comes to the big market and the big screen.

It is possible to keep the same feel running through each character on screen but that translation becomes either different or diluted with every directural, productional and actor change that occurs. I refuse to dismiss Ruffolo for stepping into the Hulk hotseat. I welcome whatever he brings to the plate. But it doesn't smokescreen the fact that IF Marvel really wanted to keep Norton in the picture they could and would have. It is the same as Favreau moving on from Iron Man. Two outstanding outings produced and directed by Jon was surely proof enough that he was what was needed to remain to keep this run successful. Terrence Howard was, maybe, not as much an integral part of Iron Man. Cheadle did a better job in the part. But then that begs the question that they must have seen something in him in the first place to cast him. And that is the worry, for me, for future outings throughout this cinematic universe.


If this plan is to work and continue, as they mean to go on, then should Marvel loosen the purse strings and keep hold of what has been a flawless start in my opinion. Should they continue to play hardball, for the sake of profit, and risk undoing an outstanding ideal. Or should they give in to what we have all longed for, as comic fans, and give us the perfect continuity within a Marvel movie world?

That's what I hope for. It's what a majority can only hope for. And hopefully, even more so, it's what Marvel will continue to strive for....at the right price no doubt.
About The Author:
CraptainAmerica
Member Since 5/10/2010
Magic the Gathering Just Leaked Four Epic Marvel Super Heroes Cards
Related:

Magic the Gathering Just Leaked Four Epic Marvel Super Heroes Cards

Warner Bros. Discovery Shareholders Approve Paramount Merger - But Reject David Zaslav's Massive Payday
Recommended For You:

Warner Bros. Discovery Shareholders Approve Paramount Merger - But Reject David Zaslav's Massive Payday

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

superotherside
superotherside - 2/7/2011, 12:03 PM
@Craptainamerica good article hope they continue to do a good job with all the CBMs too, but no Mandarin for Iron Man 3! armor wars!

@everyone be sure to check out my new article:
http://comicbookmovie.com/news/?a=29639

sorry I don't know how to put the link into a pic... if someone could help me with that it would be appreciated...
CraptainAmerica
CraptainAmerica - 2/7/2011, 12:13 PM
Gyar! This be my forst contribution to the site so ye must forgive the typos! Thanks for the feedback gents!
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 2/7/2011, 12:36 PM
Why does everyone automatically take Norton's side in this? No one knows what he was demanding, but its pretty obvious that its more than what he made on Incredible Hulk.

I hate that everyone automatically thinks Marvel wasn't willing to dish out money. How do you guys know that Norton wasn't asking some ridiculous amount? I'm mor prone to go in that direction, considering all the things we've heard about Norton being very hard to work with.

Also, during Incredible Hulk, Norton wanted all kinds of creative control. Sorry, but these are Marvel's movies, not the actors.
CraptainAmerica
CraptainAmerica - 2/7/2011, 12:49 PM
Norton already stated it wasn't just about money. It was well documented that he wanted a little more creative control. But the point is if Marvel want to keep this continuity then, regardless of creative control, they could do whatever in their power (fee wise) to keep him on board.

I did also say they shouldn't be held to ransom BUT surely these are decisions that could and should be made prior to casting an individual. Thus allowing them to maintain what it was they wanted to do when they started the Marvel cinematic universe
marvel72
marvel72 - 2/7/2011, 12:58 PM
norton wanted more control of the character,when he came on board he rewrote the script,changed the origin things like this pissed marvel off.

no wonder they got rid of him no actor is bigger than marvel/disney.

you piss them off your gone.
Exiles
Exiles - 2/7/2011, 1:19 PM
As good of of actor norton was he was causing more problems then he was solving the guys caused some serious tantrums during Incredible Hulk, his ego was too big and if you have stars with huge egos in one place it would have never worked yeah he was great I would have loved seeing him back. But no actor is bigger then the role if RDJ starts acting up then I am sorry but he should get kicked off. or any of the other actors.

And honestly fav did amazingly well with Iron Man but I am pretty sure the guy didn't want to be only known as the director behind Iron Man i am pretty sure he just wanted to broaden his horizon. Plus his next movie is a disney one and Honestly if it was about money then Disney would have payed up since they now own the Distribution rights to IM3. Yeah marvel might not exactly flash the money but there still a relatively new studio.

anyways nice write up but I think every one should go easy on marvel, there relatively new and lets be honest the current economic climate isn't exactly the ideal time to loosen purse
CraptainAmerica
CraptainAmerica - 2/7/2011, 3:24 PM
Trust me. I was going easy on them. Most of the article I think it was best to make clear I wasn't having a go at Marvel particularly. I just felt that after hearing the verbal tennis between actors that they have parted company with as well as Marvel's statements I got te vibe that it was an element of Marvel being tight and uncommited when it came to negotiations. They didn't take kindly to Norton exaggerating his involvement but I don't doubt that Downey Jnr has just as much input into how Stark is percieved on screen. As for Favreau...why couldn't he finish what he started...Nolan's doing the same with Batman across the hall. And with Howard, although Favreau didn't like what he brought to the table much, you can't give someone a wage, have your business do well then say "right, now we want you to do more work (war machine), more of your time of the success of your last job but we are gonna give you less money". It's just a lousy way to do business
Wadey09
Wadey09 - 2/7/2011, 6:14 PM
i agree with most everything said in this article. i understand why Marvel will sometimes be a little sensitive when it comes their money. after filing for their Chapter 11 back in the early-mid nineties, Marvel realized that they are not invulnerable to monetary troubles.

but @Tea, you do realize that Norton got screwed over Hulk right??? he didn't just perform in the film, he helped write it as well. but he didn't get credit because the Writer's Guild concluded that since Norton did not influence the plot of the film, he need not recieve credit. then what did contribute to the story? dialogue. he almost wrote the entirety of the script.
granted, a lot of the scenes he overhauled were cut. over forty minutes of deleted scenes. which would have developed key characters further and prepared the audience for the next installment.
what Norton was trying to negotiate with Marvel was that he was secure for the next film.
both parties had issues with the other and therfore both are to blame.
while i believe that Ruffalo will do a good job as Bruce, i cannot judge a performance i have not seen. which is why i will until further notice, claim that Norton was the quintessential Bruce Banner.
Orphix
Orphix - 2/8/2011, 1:19 AM
Tea @ Gotta be honest - I felt that TIH was as dull as [frick]!

Its really hard to make us worry about a character and get drawn into the story when you know he is pretty much invulnerable.

Plus it's never scary when he changes. He should rip the heads off a few innocent bystanders then it would make the hulk far more terrifying and Banner would be absolutely desperate NOT to change. So when he does choose to toward the end then it must be a desperate last chance move.
Orphix
Orphix - 2/8/2011, 1:21 AM
Wadey @ Interesting information about Norton. Where did you hear that? You gotta any sources?
CraptainAmerica
CraptainAmerica - 2/8/2011, 3:18 AM
I'm unsure as to whether he contributed so little that he didn't warrant creditation for his work. Whedon has tweaked elements of Captain America but as far a I know he will be credited with writing contributions. I think it was more to do with the fact that what Norton brought to the plate writing-wise didn't make it into the movie.

The comment above I disagree with was that the character was impossible to relate to. I think Norton did enough as Banner to make his torment every but understandable. Hulk is an angry being who is the flipside of Banner that isn't meant to have people relating to his actions, that is the charm of the character as a whole. The movie clearly depicts the fact that Hulk has the side to him that warms to Betty because of Bruce's consciousness running through him is a great theme that build throughout the movie. Having him "rip the heads off bystanders" would have been completely inappropriate for this franchise.

Whatever the case was with why negotiations broke down will probably never be disclosed. Norton refused to play verbal tennis and Marvel made a flat single statement on the situation. It seemed to point the finger in Norton's direction but to what degree I personally don't have an answer to. My point in the article was that IF they wanted to keep him, for the sake of continuity, they could have.
Paulley
Paulley - 2/8/2011, 3:31 AM
See i dont worry about the changing of actors.. thats not really a continuity problem as long as there characterizations are not too different.

Im more worried about the design continuity especially with things like Captain America showing how the world looked in 1940.. first off you have these major advancements in technology from HYDRA that you would think would have some impact on todays society.. other things like how the Super-Soldier serum is portrayed in Cap and Incredible Hulk.. im hoping there is some sort of clear up regarding that
Wadey09
Wadey09 - 2/8/2011, 6:40 AM
@Orphix
no i dont have any sources. but i remember reading a slew of articles that created quite a stink here at CBM. these articles were never debunked so i take them as fact until someone tells me othewise.

@Tea
actually, i would have enjoyed TIH better if at least half of the scenes that were cut were in the film. they add just a bit more continuity to the film itself. like do you realize how many conversations were chopped up into little thirty second explanations? whenever Blonsky and Ross were having their first real discussion regarding Banner, Hulk, and WWII i didn't realize how big of a jumbled mess that was until i saw the extended scene. also i would have like to see more of Gen. Joe Greller, the friend of Ross who got him Blonsky. in the deleted scenes and novel, Ross answers to this man, and Greller tries to stick up for him but you can their once friendly relationship is now strained by Ross' Captain Ahab tendencies.
you call that a boring a mess. i call that character development. and that is something that Marvel has yet to find balance with when it comes to the Jolly Green Giant.
thunderforce
thunderforce - 2/8/2011, 9:09 AM
You guys make it seem as if Marvel is a bad guy here , the truth is they are trying something that has never been done before . What they are doing is not easy and could easily get very expensive very quickly , they have to sign on alot of people for cheap for alot of movies if we all want this to succeed live with it . They will do the best that they can and they will also learn from their mistakes as they go and they will have alot of turn over of actors if the stories are just going to continue it is just the way is is going to be . I will live with any decisions they make and I will be loving every minute of this first living breathing comic book universe they are creating .
Orphix
Orphix - 2/8/2011, 9:27 AM
CraptainAmerica @ It's not a question about whether you can relate to the hulk. But whether you can EMPATHISE with banner.

Hulk is the Marvel movies Frankenstein, the Jekyll and Hyde. Remember in the 193o's Frankenstein flick when he throws the little girl into the water by accident and killed her? We saw how dangerous he could be - how disastrous a force he was. A scientific experiment gone wrong (just like the Hulk)

Thats what any Hulk film needs to drive it. The essence of the Banners character is fear. Whenever we see him on the run it's not Gen. Ross and the army he is trying to escape but himself cos he knows conflict triggers his change. The fact he is indestructable makes this so important - otherwise nothing can hurt him.

And you can still show the hulk connection with Betty - it is absolutely essential to his character. And possibly a source for his redemption.
CraptainAmerica
CraptainAmerica - 2/8/2011, 12:13 PM
@Orphix. I confused as to where our view differs on your comment
above?!

@thunderforce. The article Specifically says it's not trying to hate on Marvel. It is addressing the fact that they promised continuity in the MCU and...

@Paulley...changing significant actors is breaking that continuity.

It isn't a dig. It's just questioning/addressing the break from their starting plan. I know these are real people and it was inevitable there would be some minor changes but such big changes so early on was a huge surprise to me
CraptainAmerica
CraptainAmerica - 2/8/2011, 12:14 PM
Either way, great discussion gents!
View Recorder