Jason *StDoodle* Wood wrote:

I *just now* realized that Whedon’s Marvelverse is basically a mash-up of traditional comics / action and a John Hughes movie…

Yep. It totally checks out:

Luke Maciak wrote:
Honestly, I think Whedon really nailed the dynamic in the Avengers. Steve is the boy scout, Tony is the bad boy, Thor is the stuck up rich kid, Banner is the nerd, Black Widow is 2 cool 4 school, Hawkeye is a bro, Coulson is the fan boi, etc.. It works.

I *just now* realized that Whedon’s Marvelverse is basically a mash-up of traditional comics / action and a John Hughes movie…

@ Travis McCrea:

Ah, this sentence is in some weird quantum state between:

“things that do work get referenced back, making the Marvel Cinematic universe feel large, complex and interconnected”

and

“while things that do work get referenced back, giving the Marvel Cinematic universe large, complex and interconnected feeling and texture”

@ StuartB:

They do have “normal” everyman characters, but in supporting roles rather than leads. For example that’s more or less the role of Darcy in Thor. So there is that.

As for the killing thing: it didn’t really bother me that much. I never really read Captain comics precisely because I found the concept of him a bit dull. As a result I’m not really familiar with his stance on killing, but I think the movies make it seem that he accepts that using deadly force is sometimes necessary though he personally prefers to avoid it at all cost (hence carrying a shield instead of a gun).

I think seeing Superman or Batman kill would bother me much more. After all Clark is supposed to be an all-American farm boy with wholesome upbringing on the Kent farm, and Batman’s whole reason for donning cape was to prevent senseless death like that of his parents. Refusal to take lives is part of their character concept. Steve on the other hand served in the army during WWII and was presumably trained to kill.

@ Dr. Azrael Tod:

To be honest, I never read Cap comics precisely because of this reason: he seemed dull. He was low powered (compared to a lot of other heroes) and morally superior and sometimes preachy. But I honestly think the movies make it work. I think part of it is that Chris Evans really sells it.

And I do agree that dark does work well in prose and comics but Holywood really lays it on thick in these movies. Nolan is undeniably the master of this sort of film, and he did very well with the first two Batman movies but it just did not work for the third one. I don’t know if it was because he totally just phoned it in, or because the audiences got overexposed to gritty realism got sick of it.

Hancock was great (well, up until the third act when it went of the rails) but it wasn’t really dark. Yes, he was a brooding anti-hero but the film was an action-comedy and his moodiness was played for laughs a lot. Similar thing happened to Hulk.

They tried going dark and gritty with Ed Norton’s movie, but it did not work. Then they re-invented him for Avengers. They made Banner quirky and jittery rather instead of being haunted and tortured. Instead of having the Hulk roar and behave like a wounded animal they gave him one liner quips and fun action sequences. And all of a sudden everyone fell in love with him.

Wolverine and Hellboy are way cooler than Captain just by definition. That said, I still am having post-traumatic flashbacks to that Origins movie. I’m really hoping Days of Future Past is going to redeem him a bit.

Daredevil and Catwoman are good characters, but they had some really awful movies so they are not really in the same league as Captain. I’ll take Christ Evan’s Steve Rogers over Ben Afflecks Daredevil (though I’m kinda looking forward to see what he does with Batman) or Haley Berry’s Catwoman (she is a perfect Storm though).

Rorschach is a bit different because Watchmen is basically a deconstruction of the super-hero story.

Honestly, I think Whedon really nailed the dynamic in the Avengers. Steve is the boy scout, Tony is the bad boy, Thor is the stuck up rich kid, Banner is the nerd, Black Widow is 2 cool 4 school, Hawkeye is a bro, Coulson is the fan boi, etc.. It works.

i don’t know… i cant stand him.
i prefer those dark characters with depth. And there ARE a whole lot of them, not just Batman. Most have one dominant aspect that is blown way out of proportion. But beeing a “superhero” already makes you the good one. You shouldn’t have beeing that you main character-definition or else you will just become a second superman. Noone really likes superman. He’s too perfect, too morally superior.
Oh he has the best toys when it comes to powers and he kinda defined the genre, but that doesn’t make him a well written character. For this he needs to lie to Lois about Clark!=Superman, miss every appointment and beeing overall imperfect. Clark is what makes Superman a character.
Captain America has no Clark.

other “darker” Chars:
* Hancock
* Hulk
* Wolverine
* Daredevil
* Rorschach
* cat woman
* even Hellboy seems deeper than Cap

if selling Weapons, sleeping with hundreds of women and beeing an overall asshole doesnt make you dark enogh for this list? Then you’re Iron Man.

@ StuartB:
Not to hijack this whole thread, but I found this on Escapist:

“Isn’t this kind of a ridiculous question? “Should” Superman kill villains? If Superman killed villains, he wouldn’t be Superman.”

Frankly, I think that kind of thinking is bullshit. But I’m curious what others think.

Have you ever noticed there is no every man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? There is no one character we as the audience can relate to. Do you think that may contribute to the success they are experiencing?

I thought it was fantastic and probably the best action movie I may see this year. In some ways, it reminded me of The Matrix in terms of action and fighting, but on a whole new level; he was truly superhuman at times, especially on the boat scene and “to your left”, but never not cartoony, if that makes sense. Looking forward to seeing it again.

A few other things stuck out to me after seeing it. I sort of agree that, so far, Steve Rogers has been a pretty dull character. He’s awesome, he’s funny, but at the same time, he’s still mourning the death of his family, friends, and basically entire world from the 40s, as craptastic as it had gotten. And that leaves him feeling one-note, always “on duty”, never able to truly switch off. Hence “dull”. If Marvel wants to really twist the knife before the potential death of Steve in Avengers 3, ramp up his happiness. New love interest. An increasing sense of feeling part of our modern world. Resolution with Bucky. And then heroic sacrifice.

Another thing I noticed: Steve Rogers kills in his movie. Perhaps this betrays my leanings in life, but it bugged me to no end when in Avengers when restarting the turbine, instead of acting like a trained soldier, Steve does pray and spray covering techniques that force the enemy to hide, rather than just take them out like a soldier would. It felt like both a modern liberal “superheroes don’t kill” message as well as Joss Whedon putting his own views into the film. Whenever Steve doesn’t act like a trained soldier, it pulls me out. Winter Soldier, on the other hand, seemed to just accept the fact that, yes, superheroes good or morally gray can and will take life if necessary. It’s not gratuitous, it’s not dwelt on, it’s just reality. And I appreciated it.

Overall, Winter Soldier was utterly fantastic. I’m one of the few who thought First Avenger was the best phase 1 film because it felt like a superheroes meets Indiana Jones period piece, and it worked. Until I see Guardians in August, I imagine Winter Soldier will be my favorite Phase 2 film…although damn but Thor was good, and I really appreciated the different take on the Mandarin in IM3.

“while things that do work get referenced back giving the Marvel Cinematic universe feel large, complex and interconnected.” That reads odd to me, maybe I am being dumb.

I haven’t been watching the movies as much, but I am really loving Agents of Shield.