I’m sure we can all agree with Robert Downey Jr.’s asssertion that ‘If We Don’t Get It Right, It’s Really Going To Suck’ in reference to the forthcoming Avengers movie that should be dropping in around 2011. Not a lot of insight there, but I agree that it will be difficult to fold an Asgardian Thunder God in with a cocky billionaire scientist that dresses in a titanium tin can. As for the difficulty of putting the Hulk and Iron Man together – I fully disagree when Downey suggests that they won’t mix if one is founded on believable science and the other is simply implausible.
I think Downey Jr. might have spent a little too much time on the set if he’s saying that “nothing that happened in Iron Man is really outside the realm of possibility.” I think they did a great job on crossing the T’s and dotting the I’s to create an impression of “plausibility”, but that’s a far cry away from being inside the realm of possibility. It would do a serious disservice to say that both of the Hulk movies didn’t take a great deal of care to come up with their own pseudo-science to back-up the green guy’s existence. As far as being firmly planted in the comic book world, I’d say that both of these “products of science” carry equal mass on the plausibility scale.
As far as bringing Thor into this, that will be all down to the writer – and to a much lesser extent to the director. If you try to explain too much it will actually make things even less believable. George Lucas made the mistake of trying to explain why things in Star Wars were the way they were, and it nearly destroyed the entire galaxy. As far as trying to explain why Thor is palling around with Tony Stark and Bruce Banner, I think that less is definitely more.
