Good stories are about character. (And remember kids: Guns don't kill people, Joss Whedon kills people.)

Here's what I noticed at the theater when the Avengers played. We had younger dads (mid, late-twenties) with their 6, 8, 10 age, whatever boys all wearing (even Dad) Avenger's t-shirts. The little boys had their avenger stuff, e.g. Capt America shield. It was all very adorable. It's kind of like a Pixar film, only in reverse -- an adult movie that appeals to the senses of kids. There's some wicked smart cross-promotion and merchandising going on.

The key for these kinds of movies is to have a writer who truly understands the genre. Bear in mind that Joss Whedon has written comic books both from his own properties (Buffy, Serenity) and a great run with Astonishing X-Men. As this genre's only "auteur" he's uniquely qualified to create this kind of movie (there would be no Avengers without Firefly, imho). What that means is that rival studios seeking to cash in on the coattails of Whedon's success can't simply throw a bunch of characters together in a movie, but actually have to write a decent ensemble piece. In the absence of Whedon's services, if I were a studio executive charged with responding to Avengers, I'd make sure to call J.M. Straczynski, Grant Morrison, Mark Millar, Ron Moore and the handful of tv/comic book writers proven to be capable of handling this kind of material and pair them up with a director and producer sympathetic to the specifics of the genre while being mindful of the need for broad appeal.

We just witnessed the return of THE roaringly magical Cinema Industry and they still have much more than Hulk. :D

Chris, I think that is a really observant point: "The Avengers" as a reverse Pixar film, yet still four quadrant.

Steve, that's my #1 takeaway. The crucial difference for me in terms of almost all these superhero movies is characters. If they are compelling, identifiable, and have something interesting going on psychologically, then the action takes on meaning. If not, it's just noise and bombast.

Agree, the PG13 rating didn't stop mom and dad from bringing the kids at all.

I agree Whedon did a phenomenal job here and it was a top shelf juggling act. But I think a little (wee) bit should go to the source material(s). I mean come on we had origin stories, already movies, for most of the main characters.

I would never have guessed Alvin Sergeant would have pulled off what he did with Spider-Man 2. Whether he knew the genre or not is beyond me - the guy knows writing and character. I wasn't keen on seeing the reboot until I saw he has a writing credit it on it as well. The guy is 85 years young and still working. Talk superheroes all we want - but this guy is a true hero! To aspire to be doing what you love and still be relevant at that age... that's amazing. :)

Oops, that's Sargent. Damn auto-correct.

Two words: Green Lantern. You can have all the origin stories, mythology and characters you want. But if you talk down to your audience and write a crappy script, the movie will fail.

I forgot about Alvin, although I guess you could say he truly understands the genre. btw, I wasn't making an ageist remark. All the writers I mentioned are well into their 40s or older. And Stan Lee is older than dirt and still writing.

I think along with Whedon, huge credit should be given to Kevin Feige, at Marvel, who brought this thing together and saw it through to the end. This is one of the most creative franchise-building strategies I've ever seen, and it's paying off big-time.

I think this script would make for a great Dialogue study. Even cheesy lines were made entertaining because they were perfectly suited to the characters that spoke them. One more lesson: Know your Marx/Stooges/Chaplain/Bugs Bunny - there was some great slapstick in there that made the audience really lose it.