Time magazine: Marvel heroes all really boring, other than maybe Iron Man

Time magazine, part of the Time Warner media empire along with DC Entertainment and Warner Bros., says the Marvel heroes sux balls other than maybe Iron Man. Like, wasn't that Avengers movie totally awful? That's how Time remembers it.


Iron Man is currently the only Marvel movie superhero who is really worth watching on screen — and throwing the other heroes in a movie with him just dilutes his appeal.

Even the most ardent fan of either Captain America or Thor has to admit that those movies were superficially stirring and oddly hollow.

On paper, they seemed to have everything audiences expect from a superhero summer movie — High stakes! Action! Romance! (But not too much of the latter, because, you know, superheroes!) — but in actual execution, there was something missing. You found yourself leaving the movie theater exhilarated, only to have trouble remembering later what it was that you were quite so excited about. ...

Downey Jr.’s Stark is just so damn cool.

By contrast, you have Chris Hemsworth’s Thor and Chris Evans’ Captain America, two men who could hardly seem more wooden and emotionally uninvested.

Hemsworth’s Thor seems the complete opposite of Downey Jr.’s Iron Man, sucking the air out of every scene with every glower and deep-voiced murmur of dialogue. Similarly, Evans’ performance as the star-spangled Avenger looks as if he misread “upright hero” as “uptight hero” in his script, and it stuck. ...

How long can underwritten heroes really hold our attentions, no matter how elaborate the visuals? Perhaps we should enjoy Iron Man 3 as much as we can. It could be all downhill from here.

The paragraphs you quote are about Captain America and Thor's individual movies. They don't say anything about "Avengers."

In other words "Waaaah! Marvel are kicking the crap out of us at the box office!"

Geez don't like, actually make any effort to get in the game. Just cry about it.

Here's a funny thought: Marvel and DC are famous for copying each others ideas, why is it suddenly taboo when it comes to film? DC should have been copying Marvel's formula the moment Iron Man was released.

DC doesn't have a billionaire playboy/industrialist/scientist who also puts on a goofy suit, duh.

If only they had a nerdy reporter whose noble secret identity dressed in red and blue!

Well, their may be some sour snark involved, but he's not entirely wrong.

Take Robert Downey Jr out of the equation.

You have a bunch of movies as good as the second Hulk. Fun for some. Great fun for fanboys. But ultimately as forgettable as Daredevil, Ghostrider 1&2, and FF 1&2...

I did like Loki he was a fun villain.

But with Robert Downey Jr, you have four great fun Iron Man films, IM 1-3 and Avengers starring Ironman and enough momentum to make all the crossover films a decent substitute event until the next Iron Man appearance

If Robert Downey Jr, is not along for the ride in Avengers 2, Whedon might be able to pull it off, with a bit of effort, but it'll take the wind out of the sails of some of these other film series, like Thor and Cap and Ant-man

If they are smart they will do more cross promotional stuff. Like the Hulk or other characters showing up in some of these movies, make each one an Avengers lite, bring in more second tier characters for background characters like Fury to populate the films.

We're in "Phase Two" of The Avengers Initiative. They have taken our petty complaints into account.

ChrisW wrote:

The paragraphs you quote are about Captain America and Thor's individual movies. They don't say anything about "Avengers."

Follow the linky link.

For example:

If you’re excited to see Marvel Studios’ Iron Man 3 this weekend, you’re not alone; early estimates suggest that it might have moviegoers even more excited than they were for last year’s Marvel’s The Avengers. That might seem counter-intuitive: Wouldn’t people be more excited about seeing a bunch of their favorite heroes joining forces,than the third installment of Tony Stark’s solo adventures? There is, however, a very good reason for this: Iron Man is currently the only Marvel movie superhero who is really worth watching on screen — and throwing the other heroes in a movie with him just dilutes his appeal.

Read more: http://entertainment.time.com/2013/05/03/is-iron-man-the-only-interesting-marvel-superhero/#ixzz2Sho4jncA

If the "Avengers" commentary is as pointless as the paragraph you cite, I don't think I'll click on the link. I am nothing short of impressed how Iron Man appears in the movie - nothing to do with Robert Downey Jr; Iron Man himself looks awesome as he flies, shoots out energy beams, does other stuff with his cybernetics - but it's easy to see that he isn't diluted by the other characters. He enlarges them and, in so doing, enlarges his own character. He bonds with Banner because they both speak English, he chafes against Cap's authority, he had no better plan with Thor than to attack. By the end, he's trusted Banner to show up where he's needed, submits immediately to Cap's orders and when he faces Loki and fails, realizes it's time for Plan B.

It was a good idea to make Stark the most interesting, dynamic character. Being around him makes the other characters more interesting and he gets to go through his own character arc, as part of a team. The Avengers!

ChrisW wrote:

If the "Avengers" commentary is as pointless as the paragraph you cite ...

Well, yes, I'm not in agreement with this essay.

ChrisW wrote:

It was a good idea to make Stark the most interesting, dynamic character. Being around him makes the other characters more interesting and he gets to go through his own character arc, as part of a team. The Avengers!

I think Stark's popularity was just luck. Lightning in a bottle. And Whedon knew a good thing when he saw it so he wrote to the character. You don't spit into the wind.

I'm sure Marvel would prefer all it's characters were that well liked.

No doubt, but they also have decades of research about what makes the most interesting character in a group, from pop psychology, movies, tv shows, boy bands, comics, personal experience and more.

Tony Stark as the dominant character was planned and unplanned. Unplanned in the sense that they had no idea how the movie would work out. Planned in the sense that they could devote everything to making this character interesting [billionaire/playboy/genius/philanthropist] if he had a superhero aspect. If that worked, they could build the group movie around him, which they did. If one of the Hulk movies had worked, they would have written to *that* character, making the other Avengers interesting by comparison with the incredible characterization of the Hulk. I'm sure some people at the studios spent enormous amounts of time and energy working out "The Avengers" franchise if Thor or Cap happened to have awesome movies that everybody wanted to see.

Obviously Marvel wants all its characters to be well-liked. I'm much more tempted to see the new Thor or Cap movies because I enjoyed them so much in "Avengers." They were that likeable, and why should I cheat myself of an awesome Captain America just because I'm not a fan of the character? [Of course I'm also not a fan of Iron Man, and I have yet to see a single one of his movies. C'est la vie.] Hell, check out the responses from women who've seen "Avengers." They like Cap, or they like Thor, or they like Tony, or they like Barton, or even Fury or Coulson. Some women like Natasha, but they're sick freaks whom we can obviously disregard.

By the way, I assume "Phase Two" is another meta-reference that we'll only understand after another dozen movies. They've finally figured out how to bring comic-book values to movies, in ways I'm still striving to describe.

Well, so far they have one character with the appeal of Ironman/Robert Downey Jr., not so sure that's not a trend yet.

And the Avengers was a great combination of their lightning in a bottle with a skilled specialist/technician. Robert Downey Jr and Whedon's great abilities to understand group dynamics, to write a witty fun dialog, among other skills.

Who else is gonna pull off Iron Man if RD leaves?

Who's going to do a good "Hulk" if the guy from the Ang Lee movie leaves? Or if the guy from the reboot leaves?

One thing cgi has done for movies is remove the importance of individual actors. The studios have also worked out how to distribute movies worldwide to turn a profit, which will help them work out new movies. "Captain America" and "Thor" turned a profit, as has the new "Spider-Man" reboot.

It's how the long-range thinking works. Movie-makers have had to think out how to do movie franchises over time. [How many years will anyone want to see Scarlett Johansen in the Black Widow outfit?] They have to think about how actors age, and how audiences age. Gwen Stacey was given a cameo in "Spider-Man 3". Safe to assume she'll be the central female figure in the new movies. So far, three movies seems to be the limit of the audience's interest in a franchise, but that may change with technology, or social mores. Pretty much everyone reading this still thinks Christopher Reeve *is* Superman.

I don't think it's out of bounds that the audience could accept a new "Iron Man" that isn't Robert Downey Jr. We got over the loss of George Reeves, didn't we?

ChrisW wrote:

Who's going to do a good "Hulk" if the guy from the Ang Lee movie leaves? Or if the guy from the reboot leaves?

Neither of those gentlemen were as strongly identified with their characters, as Robert Disney Jr and their movies not as popular as Ironman .

I'm not sure i'm following you here.

Ironman without Robert Downey Jr, isn't the same thing as Ghost Rider without Nick Cage.

You mentioned George Reeves also, yes he was beloved as Superman. Exactly my point, it took decades before another live-action Superman, and it took an amazing portrayal to succeed. And as far as replacing Christopher Reeve, the sequel films took care of that, the franchise withered. Ironman is still riding high.

Its the perfect combination of actor to roll. Sure it will eventually happen but in the near future it'll be damn tough. Time will need to pass.

If "Ghost Rider" had been a huge hit, Nick Cage would be identified with Ghost Rider. If "Iron Man" hadn't been a huge hit, Downey Jr. wouldn't be so identified with Iron Man. I brought up the Hulk for that same reason. I never saw the last Hulk movie, but the Ang Lee version sucked. The new guy [never bothered to find his name] takes the prize, 'owning' the role in ways that make even Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno look like Adam West and Burt Ward.

[And deservedly, in my opinion. Leaving aside the fanboy drooling over finally having the giant green monster smashing stuff that we always dreamed of - the Hulk/Thor fight alone was worth the price of admission - I really like how Banner is handled. The movie's almost half over before we ever see the Hulk, and before that we only see Banner. He's quiet, kinda geeky but his shyness actually seems rooted in the fear of losing control that he clearly deals with every waking moment. Unless he's talking about science, his words are nervous, shaky, and he has to be pressed to even speak up for himself, as when Natasha convinced him to join up, Cap gently urging him to share his suspicions about Fury, the heated argument that ends with him holding the scepter.]

When Downey Jr. is too old or too bored to do the role any more, they'll reboot the series and whoever plays Iron Man will be compared, fairly or not, to Downey. Whoever's playing Spider-Man now is going to be compared to Tobey Maguire. It's not an exact analogy, but Todd McFarlane faced the same problems when he started penciling Spidey, and wound up 'owning' more of the character in the public eye than Ron Frenz or Mike Zeck.

Dude, I am not sure what point you are arguing.

When I made the statement, "Take Robert Downey Jr out of the equation." my point was, the appeal of Robert Downey Jr., was the reason for much of the successs of the Marvel Studios ptoductions. And without him as that charcter in the IM 1&2 and Avengers, things would have been much different. The momentum, the excitement behind them is largely due to the popularity of RDJ in the Stark role.

You seem to be using a lot of apples to oranges comparisons, focusing on replacing actors and reboots of films that were not as successful as somhow proving the film franchises are interchangeable. If thats the case, I'll just have to disagree.

I guarantee Ironman three would'nt have happened if Ironman one had starred Ben Affleck. And Captain America and Thor would have been left to their own merits.

I'm not sure what point you're arguing. Who decides what actor is "strongly identified" with a given character? The audience, which rejected "Ghost Rider" and previous "Hulk" movies, but likes "Iron Man", "Avengers" and the George Reeves "Superman." Your high school drama teacher isn't "strongly identified" with Hamlet for much the same reason.

The movie-makers are actively thinking about how to expand the franchise, and sure, a popular actor will be their first choice. "Superman IV" wouldn't have been made if they couldn't have brought back Christopher Reeve. The third Batman movie (previous franchise) was intended for Michael Keaton, who backed away when he learned Tim Burton wouldn't direct it.

I'm fine with the argument that "Iron Man" was the linchpin of the latest string of Marvel Movies success. But it also had to accommodate viewpoints up to and including the exact opposite - that it was a generic movie hoping to be a blockbuster - and pay for all the executives making those decisions. I can also see "Iron Man" being no more successful than "Thor" or "Captain America" and still leading to a worthwhile "Avengers" movie without taking anything away from Downey Jr.s performance.

[Arguably the Burton "Batman" movies prefigured "Iron Man" in letting Keaton make a significant addition to the character, where the latest franchise is more interested in setting up the basic atmosphere, plot, drama, etc. while leaving Bruce/Batman more as elements to be accounted for rather than starring characters who shape the overall stories. Your mileage may vary, but come on, Bruce walks around at his own charity affairs, unrecognized even by star reporters?]

ChrisW wrote:

...Who decides what actor is "strongly identified" with a given character? The audience, which rejected "Ghost Rider" and previous "Hulk" movies, but likes "Iron Man", "Avengers" and the George Reeves "Superman." Your high school drama teacher isn't "strongly identified" with Hamlet for much the same reason...

Again I'm not sure what you're saying. And I don't mean that to be mean or anything, I'm sure you're sincere in your belief here I'm just not following what it is you are trying to say.

But yes, I believe the general movie going public decides who and what is popular with the general movie going public.

Are you trying to make the argument that a movie can't be unpopular if one of the criteria is fewer people went to see it?

ChrisW wrote:

The movie-makers are actively thinking about how to expand the franchise, and sure, a popular actor will be their first choice. "Superman IV" wouldn't have been made if they couldn't have brought back Christopher Reeve. The third Batman movie (previous franchise) was intended for Michael Keaton, who backed away when he learned Tim Burton wouldn't direct it....

Again I'm not sure what you're saying. And what any of that has to do with anything. You seem to be agreeing with me here, Ironman 4 won't be made if they can't get RDJ.

ChrisW wrote:

I'm fine with the argument that "Iron Man" was the linchpin of the latest string of Marvel Movies success. But it also had to accommodate viewpoints up to and including the exact opposite - that it was a generic movie hoping to be a blockbuster - and pay for all the executives making those decisions. I can also see "Iron Man" being no more successful than "Thor" or "Captain America" and still leading to a worthwhile "Avengers" movie without taking anything away from Downey Jr.s performance.

But my question was , would Thor and Cap's movies have been as popular had it not been for their connection to and anticipation of the RDJ, Ironman/Avengers ramp up? Without, RDJ's Ironman, I think you'd have to scale everything back, just a little. It was the rising tide that raised all the ships in Marvel Studios.

ChrisW wrote:

[Arguably the Burton "Batman" movies prefigured "Iron Man" in letting Keaton make a significant addition to the character, where the latest franchise is more interested in setting up the basic atmosphere, plot, drama, etc. while leaving Bruce/Batman more as elements to be accounted for rather than starring characters who shape the overall stories. Your mileage may vary, but come on, Bruce walks around at his own charity affairs, unrecognized even by star reporters?]

Again I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. But I though the whole idea of the reporter's not recognizing Wayne at his own charity event, was to point out how reclusive secretive he was, even at his own events.

Quote :

Are you trying to make the argument that a movie can't be unpopular if one of the criteria is fewer people went to see it?

Um, no, if fewer people want to see a movie, it is less popular, and it can even be *unpopular*.

Quote :

Ironman 4 won't be made if they can't get RDJ.

Another Iron Man movie will be along before too long. It may be "Iron Man 4", it may be a reboot. It may star RDJ, or not. Iron Man is currently popular. RDJ as Iron Man is currently popular. A few decades ago, Sean Connery was popular as James Bond. Yet somehow, the franchise continues.

Quote :

But my question was , would Thor and Cap's movies have been as popular had it not been for their connection to and anticipation of the RDJ, Ironman/Avengers ramp up? Without, RDJ's Ironman, I think you'd have to scale everything back, just a little. It was the rising tide that raised all the ships in Marvel Studios.

Sure, rising tides can come from all sides. "X-Men" was a rising tide, both movie and Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne comic. "Swamp Thing" was a rising tide (at least in comics) which led to "Watchmen" and Vertigo. Iron Man managed to take a character that could be made interesting by pairing him up with an interesting actor and boost the other movies in the vicinity. I don't think there would have been any major scaling-back, just minor alterations to give us five blockbuster movies (which didn't work out) that led into "The Avengers" (which did.) It's not that difficult to think of an alternate universe (call it "Earth-2") where the world really needed a good "Captain America" movie and Tony Stark was just some playboy in a suit.

Quote :

Again I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. But I though the whole idea of the reporter's not recognizing Wayne at his own charity event, was to point out how reclusive secretive he was, even at his own events.

My point is that Michael Keaton was distinctive as Batman and, more importantly, as Bruce Wayne [Keaton was once quoted as saying that the later sequels failed because no one understood how central Wayne was to the concept.] The latest franchise, whatever its merits, doesn't give us a Bruce Wayne burning with rage to avenge his parents. We see Wayne's training to become a crimefighter, but it's all plot-directed, to ensure Ra's is seen as a real villain by the end, while giving Bruce an excuse to start the fight scene at the end [Page 1: "Batman saves Gotham." Page 18: "Drunken billionaire burns down his own mansion"] Michael Keaton's Batman shaped events, he created the Joker, he chased Vicky, there was an overarching plot which led him to fight the Joker in the church tower. And the follow-up movie was pretty good too, with its emphasis on orphans and leather-wearing perverts. The latest franchise submerges that for plot reasons, and even at its most excellent [party on, Wayne!] the characters fall into the background. Alfred sticks out entirely because he convincingly tells the story of men who want to burn down the world. A nice story (!) but not relevant to hunting down Heath Ledger's Joker, or finding out what happened to Harvey Dent, or saving Bruce's long-lost girlfriend. Even without seeing the Iron man movies, I can tell Tony Stark has far more going on in his life that would interest the audience, like Pepper Potts, his relationship with Fury, and SHIELD, and who's this Agent Coulson...?

ChrisW wrote:

Another Iron Man movie will be along before too long....

I never said it wouldn't have. Are you saying Iron man was and is destined to be the top Marvel franchise?

Quote :

I don't think there would have been any major scaling-back, just minor alterations to give us five...

I meant you'd scale back the box office figures.

I was saying IM gave the Cap and Thor movies extra wind in their sails (or literally sales). So in a hypothetical world with say Ben Affleck or that guy from Madmen, as Tony Stark, but everything else being the same, Ironman wouldnt quite have hit the same levels so therefore, Thor and Cap's movies are a similarly lesser performing without the boost the RDJ IM gave them.

Some speculation regarding RDJ's participation in IM4 and Avengers 2&3...

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2013/05/12/if-robert-downey-jr-is-tony-stark-where-does-that-leave-iron-man/

Joe Lee wrote:

ChrisW wrote:

Another Iron Man movie will be along before too long....

I never said it wouldn't have. Are you saying Iron man was and is destined to be the top Marvel franchise?

No, I think "The Avengers" is destined to be the top Marvel franchise, but I'm not omniscient and it may turn out to be "Spider-Man" or "X-Men." Or "Dazzler."

Joe Lee wrote:

I meant you'd scale back the box office figures.

I was saying IM gave the Cap and Thor movies extra wind in their sails (or literally sales). So in a hypothetical world with say Ben Affleck or that guy from Madmen, as Tony Stark, but everything else being the same, Ironman wouldnt quite have hit the same levels so therefore, Thor and Cap's movies are a similarly lesser performing without the boost the RDJ IM gave them.

There's no answer to that one unless you can solve Hollywood book-keeping. If you can do that, why are you wasting your time on a comic book messageboard? Don't you have astrophysical equations to solve?

A slightly longer answer is that Hollywood movies are budgeted, produced and marketed according to the studio's practice, based on years if-not-decades of lessons learned from making movies. The "Cap" and "Thor" movies came and went, but they were made in such a way that they were profitable. Not only that, but by helping make "Avengers", the *back issues* are now more valuable than when they first came out. Tax-exemptions, union regulations, filming costs, I think they all helped design the "Thor" and "Cap" movies to turn a profit as much as humanly-possible.

Beyond having a bigger name in the title role, I doubt "Iron Man" was much different. The audience reaction made the difference. Did X-Thousand people see a given Marvel Movie for the end-credits scene that set up the next movie? Or did they see it in hopes Scarlett Johansen would appear in a black leather jumpsuit [because she wasn't wearing underwear in that get-up, after all]? You'd have to ask the individual movie-goers and trust that their individual answers would lead you to the truth. Did they love Iron Man? Did they love RDJ *as* Iron Man? Did they love RDJ? Is there any way to discern that from the box-office?

Ok, the answer to that last question is probably "no", and if you disagree, I suggest the best place to look would be to check out rentals/downloads of "Thor" and "Cap" in this post-"Avengers" world. Maybe someone ignored the "Thor" movie when it was new but thought the godda thunda was so hunky compared to the puny Steve, Tony and Banner that they went back to check it out. I dunno.

ChrisW wrote:

There's no answer to that one unless you can solve Hollywood book-keeping. If you can do that, why are you wasting your time on a comic book messageboard? Don't you have astrophysical equations to solve?

A slightly longer answer is that Hollywood movies are budgeted, produced and marketed according to the studio's practice, based on years if-not-decades of lessons learned from making movies. The "Cap" and "Thor" movies came and went, but they were made in such a way that they were profitable. Not only that, but by helping make "Avengers", the *back issues* are now more valuable than when they first came out. Tax-exemptions, union regulations, filming costs, I think they all helped design the "Thor" and "Cap" movies to turn a profit as much as humanly-possible.

Beyond having a bigger name in the title role, I doubt "Iron Man" was much different. The audience reaction made the difference. Did X-Thousand people see a given Marvel Movie for the end-credits scene that set up the next movie? Or did they see it in hopes Scarlett Johansen would appear in a black leather jumpsuit [because she wasn't wearing underwear in that get-up, after all]? You'd have to ask the individual movie-goers and trust that their individual answers would lead you to the truth. Did they love Iron Man? Did they love RDJ *as* Iron Man? Did they love RDJ? Is there any way to discern that from the box-office?

Ok, the answer to that last question is probably "no", and if you disagree, I suggest the best place to look would be to check out rentals/downloads of "Thor" and "Cap" in this post-"Avengers" world. Maybe someone ignored the "Thor" movie when it was new but thought the godda thunda was so hunky compared to the puny Steve, Tony and Banner that they went back to check it out. I dunno.

WE can't "discern" anything from box office numbers, but rental figures are an accurate way to "discern" things?

And Hollywood has "decades old practices" that allow them to "make films in such a way that they are profitable?"

ChrisW wrote:

...Hollywood movies are budgeted, produced and marketed according to the studio's practice, based on years if-not-decades of lessons learned from making movies....

...Tax-exemptions, union regulations, filming costs, I think they all helped design the "Thor" and "Cap" movies to turn a profit as much as humanly-possible.

Okay then, why didn't Disney apply those decades old practices and tax exemptions to John Carter?