Iron Man 2, Thor announced for 2010

[Mouseferatu]

I'm mystified as to how folks found that entertaining month after month.

I wouldn't know. I read them as graphic novels.

Millar's thing is going for the shock value--that step or two across the line that separates "edgy" from "tasteless". I like the idea of an ultimate Captain America that's got John Wayne's sense of morality and directness. I don't like a guy who's eager to smash a jack boot into people's faces.

Other people have said this, and I just don't see it. There are a lot of lines crossed, such as your Hulk example. But my read on Cap was as a guy right up on the line, but not crossing it.

Maybe that changed in one of the crossovers you mentioned.

Have to say though, his ultimate Thor was actually the coolest of the bunch. He was the closest to having a regard for human life (an "unrealistic" trait of superheroes that I think is pretty vital to being worthy of the term) that Millar gave us.

Agreed. Thor (Ragna)rocks.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Heh. I'm only a fan of the Ultimates, and then only the first two series. (The third took a nosedive like you wouldn't believe.) And that's partly because they lacked a lot--not all, but a lot--of the goofiness that pervades comic books in general.

It's funny, but while I mostly enjoyed The Ultimates, I find that I tend to enjoy comics more when they don't hide from their inherent goofiness. It just seems that the more seriously superhero comics take themselves, the harder time I have overlooking how ridiculous the inherent concept is in the first place. So while I enjoy reading The Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns and The Ultimates, I still need some Spidey foiling jewel thieves and cracking wise every now and then too.

For Cap's villain, it would be cool to see Baron Strucker and Hydra, even though they are more of a Nick Fury villain. Then again, maybe Fury and SHIELD could play a big role in the Cap movie...

 

[Darth Shoju]

M.O.D.O.K, baby!

Don't forget M.O.D.A.M.!

 

[Mouseferatu]

It's funny, but while I mostly enjoyed The Ultimates, I find that I tend to enjoy comics more when they don't hide from their inherent goofiness.

Well, to an extent, I agree, but there are limits.

Let me give you an example. In Ultimates 3, Nick Fury is absent because he's in one of Marvel's multiple parallel dimensions--specifically the one with the Squadron Supreme.

I hate this. Hate it with the burning fire of a thousand suns. That sort of thing was appropriate for the original Marvel universe, but not for the (somewhat) more real-world feel of the Ultimates line. It's one of the major aspects that turned me off U3.

Or the fact that Thor, for no good reason, went back to his pseudo-old-fashioned Shakespeare-speak.

There's nothing wrong with the Avengers as a comic book title. But if I wanted to read the Avengers, I'd read the Avengers. I read the Ultimates for the Ultimates. The two may be analogs of each other, but they are different--sometimes in major ways. If they're going to turn the Ultimates into the Avengers, what's the point?

 

[bento]

Big turn-offs for me with Ultimates line:

* Ultimate X-Men: Wolverine leaving Cyclops to die while exploring the Savage Lands in Antarctica 'cause he wants to get closer to Jean Grey
* Ultimates 1: How Hank Pym was handled. He was too much of a cowardly punk, and while I'll admit the 1960's HP wasn't known for having a strong personality, I think the character deserved better than this in his Ultimates re-vision.

I remained somewhat a fan of the Spider-Man book as I saw it as an updated retelling of the original ASM series. But even there I gave up when they introduced the Sinister Six story line.

As for a villain for Cap, how's about Batroc & his band of mercenaries? (kidding!) I'd agree that weaving in Col. Fury & SHIELD to the plot would be cool.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Well, to an extent, I agree, but there are limits.

Let me give you an example. In Ultimates 3, Nick Fury is absent because he's in one of Marvel's multiple parallel dimensions--specifically the one with the Squadron Supreme.

I hate this. Hate it with the burning fire of a thousand suns. That sort of thing was appropriate for the original Marvel universe, but not for the (somewhat) more real-world feel of the Ultimates line. It's one of the major aspects that turned me off U3.

Or the fact that Thor, for no good reason, went back to his pseudo-old-fashioned Shakespeare-speak.

There's nothing wrong with the Avengers as a comic book title. But if I wanted to read the Avengers, I'd read the Avengers. I read the Ultimates for the Ultimates. The two may be analogs of each other, but they are different--sometimes in major ways. If they're going to turn the Ultimates into the Avengers, what's the point?

I agree with you here. Luckily a friend warned me off U3 and so I've avoided it. Looks like I was wise to heed his advice.

Frankly, I like the concept of having separate comic lines (like the Ultimate verse). It makes it easier for me to know what kind of stories I'm getting into ahead of time, so that when I feel in the mood for some more modern-style comic stories, I can pick up an Ultimate title, but when I want something old school, I can pick up something from the other line. Unfortunately, it seems like most comics are told in that "Ultimate" style now. There's still a few titles that go for that old-school story telling, but they are getting few and far between.

In some ways that's good, but in other ways it's kind of sad.

 

[Darth Shoju]

As for a villain for Cap, how's about Batroc & his band of mercenaries? (kidding!) I'd agree that weaving in Col. Fury & SHIELD to the plot would be cool.

Lol Batroc. Batroc the Leaper - Master of Savate! Whatta maroon...

Reminds me of the issue of Cap I have where he infiltrates some super-villain fight club incognito and ends up fighting guys like Batroc and Tiger Shark and Flying Tiger (and Stilt Man I think). That issue also features Shang-ti and freakin Modam.

Still better than Capwolf though...

 

[Fallen Seraph]

You know all this villain talk has got me wondering. How well would a traditional superhero (thus excluding The Watchmen) film do without a "main villain"?

Could it rake in the bucks with simply the interplay between the superhero and the world, or does there need to be that main antagonist?

I state this to considering with Iron Man, while there is conflict there, the main "villain" in the form of Iron Monger didn't add much it was simply in my eyes a combat set-piece and could have been gone from the movie without harming it.

 

[Michael R. Proteau]

Since the Marvel announcemnt implied Iron Man 2, Thor, and The First Avenger: Captain America are all leading into the Avengers film, it seems there will be some sort of link to all three of them. There are also reports that Downey did a Stark cameo in Incredible Hulk during filming of Iron Man lending some credence that thye are linking all these as a semi series of sequels. (no clue if it shows up int he main body of the film or as another post credit snippet to tease things to come). There have been reports that Thor will be set up in Iron Man 2 as well.

Looking at the 2 comic origins for the Avengers and the Ultimates, you have Loki tricking Thor, Iron Man, and the Pyms into fighting the Hulk and Fury gathering the Ultimates after finding Cap on ice.

My guess and speculation is that the Avengers movie will open with the discovery of Cap on Ice, and that the Cap movie will be set in WWII and end with Cap being frozen in the ice after stopping the Rocket fired by Zemo.

Setting the Cap solo flick in WWII also addresses some of the concerns that have been reported about how well such a blatantly patriotic character will fare in international box office receipts when public perception of the US internationally is so iffy in places (part of the reason they titled it First Avenger: Captain America and not just Captain America). WWII provides a cleaner backdrop separated from concerns brought about by current affairs.

Using Loki as a foil in the Thor movie and then having him mastermind a plot to get revenge on Thor in the Avengers movie also provides another link. Having Loki behind the scenes maniulating things and having the Hulk be the physical foil for Cap, Thor, Iron Man, (and maybe the Pyms) provides a menace they can cut loose with and provide plenty of screen time for all the heroes (and the stars with desire to have face time) to shine.

Using that train of thought, a Thor movie by a director known for his fantasty themed genre films (like Stardust) could very well be set in Asgard, not Midgard, with Loki as the main foil using mythological creaturs (say giants and trolls) as the main fodder for fight scenes, and have it climax with Thor foiling Loki's scheme but being just a tad too arrogant in his victory and being sent to Midgard to learn humility, setting up his sojourn on Earth and his role in the Avengers.

It also allows each film to have its own identity with release dats so close, but all build as part of a much larger story.

I am also guesing that Iron Man 2 will largely be based on the Demon In a Bottle storyline dealing with Tony Stark's battle with alcoholism, since that aspect of the character is one of the things that drew Downey to the role, and he has so much personal experience in that to invest into the role it would make a powerful performance. The first Iron Man movie also took a lot of time to highlight Tony getting and consuming alcohol (from our opening scene in the military caravan to the scene at the bar at his party, and others) that it was obvious they were setting this up for later usage. If Fury's character plays a larger role in Iron Man 2, they could also introduce the Pym's as SHIELD scientists and part of the Avengers Initiative, setting up for the later Avengers movie.

It would be fun if they used little post credit snippets like the introduction of Fury to keep tying these together and building towards Avengers.

 

[Felon]

Well, to an extent, I agree, but there are limits.

Let me give you an example. In Ultimates 3, Nick Fury is absent because he's in one of Marvel's multiple parallel dimensions--specifically the one with the Squadron Supreme.

I hate this. Hate it with the burning fire of a thousand suns. That sort of thing was appropriate for the original Marvel universe, but not for the (somewhat) more real-world feel of the Ultimates line. It's one of the major aspects that turned me off U3.

As I recall, the seemingly neverending Marvel Zombies nonsense got started in Ultimate Fantastic Four. I regard that series as the "Lobo" of this decade: the equivalent of a baby-in-a-microwave joke that is maybe cute and shocking the first time you heard it, but not the tenth or twentieth time.