You guys are probably right in that The Avengers will be informally Iron Man 3 if Favreau is hired on to direct bringing on the same production team that developed the first two Iron Man movies.

It would be harder to get all those headlining actors to return for another ensemble film despite how successful since they each would have already appeared in multiple Marvel films.

The Avengers will probably be huge financially, but so will Iron Man 2. As far as box office returns, they're likely to be comparably close to each other. No one who enjoys the future Avengers film would skip Iron Man 3 simply because it wasn't a team-up movie.

I do hope sequels are made to The Avengers but I wouldn't count on an end to the solo franchises which require fewer leading actors (and, as the case with Iron Man, will already be a successful franchise). In any event, I expect the interlinking cameos to continue.

Presumably the team (The Avengers) would come together to take on massive or cosmic threats, for example, an alien invasion a la 'The Ultimates', Otherwise, the individual members of the Avengers would be able to take on small incidents on their own and in their particular geographical area.

In a recent interview at Latino Review (http://www.latinoreview.com/news/ryan-reynolds-ta... Ryan Reynolds indicates that he does not consider his character to be Deadpool, at least not at the time when the film is set. Instead, he understands his character to be who Wade Wilson was prior to becoming the Deadpool depicted in the comics.

I don't understand why studios and screenwriters feel the need to take such liberties. If the rumors are true, the changes do not improve the character but bastardize him and everything the fans like.

These delays should be interpreted positively. It's an effort to do things right, get the people they want lined up (actors, directors), the screenplays rewritten. It's not a negative, "oh we fucked up - over extended ourselves" delay. It's not an indefinite maybe as Justice League apparently was over at WB.

Setting dates is part of a movie getting the green light and studios competing with other studios over particular weekends. In Nov. WB moved Harry Potter to this summer and Sony moved 007 back a week. Release dates are announced and shifted around all the time at every studio, we're only noticing because it's a film we're interested in. It's a normal part of getting movies made at a studio.

Of course something could go wrong, but Marvel has a lot invested (and not much else to offer as far as diversity of genre is concerned) and a much greater desire than normal to produce their material well. It's in good hands.

I think the initial date offerings were provided mainly as a means to get audiences and stock holders excited about the newly minted Marvel Studios. It was a posturing more than anything.

The date shift simply reflects a more realistic schedule logistically considering 'Captain America' and 'The Avengers' would have to film at the same time with some of the same actors. With this change, it also allows for the possibility of Jon Favearu directing 'The Avengers', which, according to a recent scooper on AICN, is what Marvel is hoping.

These movies will certainly not be canceled. Now that Marvel is its own studio it has to put out such superhero films to exist. It seems they want to do things right, lining up actors for multiple appearances, developing screen plays, etc. It's too early to despair.

Maybe take a year off. Skip 'Captain American' and 'Thor' when they're in theaters, and catch them on DVD in 2012 the week 'The Avengers' hits.

I'll grant that real-world type enemies and/or political situations might bring greater resonance for audiences who watch films like Iron Man, but just as I don't find those real-worldish parallels to have made the film successful, I don't think that that their absence would have necessarily stunted Iron Man's financial and critical success.

In order words, there's no reason for any "appeal" (if by this you mean a mixture of financial success and/or audience satisfaction) to be lost with the introduction of mythical and/or sci-fi villains. For example, Transformers didn't bank $700 million two years ago because it presented a plausible or real-world scenario. I think it's safe to assume the sequel this summer will be comparable successful. Other examples would include the Pirates of the Caribbean films.

This is not to say that "realism" or "real-world" type parallels are not important, however, I think that has become over emphasized in comic book films so that everything has to be explained (e.g., the origins of all Batman's gadgets) and exist within a closed-universe (i.e., without other intelligent life elsewhere and cosmic superpowers like Apocalypse). I think the X-Men films have done a relatively good job of grounding the stories within a sociopolitical context which mirrors our own as well as integrating characters with extraordinary powers into such a world. However, I do not think that X3 gained anything (as far as credibility is concerned) by altering the Dark Phoenix saga to make it more "realistic" (i.e., making the Phoenix a suppressed part of Jean Grey's psyche rather than the possession of an alien entity).

It seems what you're saying is that real-world parallels help an audience suspend disbelief easier and give the world depicted in the film more credibility (which is certainly true). I guess what I'm getting at is that I think credibility can be found in realistic characterization and a coherently depicted filmic universe. If these factors are present, then the audience can except a movie's universe on its own terms even if it involves mythical or scifi characters.

All this to say, I think the Avengers could work on screen without having to sacrifice the more implausible (as far as real-world is concerned) aspects. I think "The Ultimates" series by Mark Millar strikes a good balance of the classical Avengers and real-world contextualization.

Superheroes by definition exist in semi-realistic worlds which allow for the possibility of fantasy and sci-fi. As much as I have loved Nolan's Batman films, I think their greatest weakness is that they've created a world in which there's no room for the superhero. Batman becomes a semi-grounded," realist" adventure hero who could never coexist with other members of the Justice League (i.e., those with actual super powers). Here's hoping that the upcoming Marvel movies take advantage of their super-heroic potential in a satisfying and successful way.