The Avengers (2012) spoilers from post 1181

Fysh · 27-04-2012 12:47pm

Pter wrote: »

Lads - i dont think its that type of film (character dev, emotional payoff).

Its a popcorn eating blockbuster not designed, IMO, to redefine the superhero genre. If anything, Joss has given us the amalgam movie that at least I have been wanting for ages.

I think you are all just dissapointed its not TDK, except with Marvel; which says more about your expectations than it does about the movie.

Well, no.

Marvel Studios showed, with Iron Man, that they could up the bar for superhero films substantially compared to most previous offerings featuring Marvel characters. They've built consistently on each film with well-received if unrevolutionary films (I say this having not seen most of them, but critical reception has been pretty good across the board). The Avengers has been presented as what they were all building towards.

"I'd have liked it more if I hadn't seen TDK" isn't really a convincing argument, because TDK came out, what, four years ago? If in that time Marvel Studios didn't opt to try and raise the bar again, then that's a valid criticism of the film.

There are tons of films out there that might be far more entertaining if you don't now that some other film did the same idea in a much more clever/entertaining/imaginative way X years beforehand. That doesn't excuse the later films for failing to keep up with the current paradigm in their particular genre.

Bullseye1 · 27-04-2012 12:48pm

The Dark Knight was a great movie but it's more a triller/action movie than a comic book movie. Avengers is a comic book movie. And a damn fine one at that.

Doctor DooM · 27-04-2012 12:49pm

Ok, well, this film is basically a love song to 1960's style team up comics, you're never, ever going to get massive character development. It's not what it's supposed to be. It's a romp and it's supposed to be a romp. I personally don't see how anyone could watch this film and not come out loving the character of the Hulk/ Banner though.

If you're looking for a marvel film to be annoyed because it didn't delve deeply enough into character or plot- well, I can give you 2 straight off the bat, Daredevil and Elektra, 2 characters dying out to be Marvel's answer to the Dark Knight films, who instead were destroyed.

Fysh · 27-04-2012 12:50pm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The Dark Knight was a great movie but it's more a triller/action movie than a comic ook movie. Avengers is a comic book movie. And a damn fine one at that.

What is a comic book movie that allows you to differentiate between one film based on a character and setting created in US superhero comics and a another film based on characters and settings created in (different) US superhero comics?

Doctor DooM · 27-04-2012 12:52pm

Fysh wrote: »

Well, no.

Marvel Studios showed, with Iron Man, that they could up the bar for superhero films substantially compared to most previous offerings featuring Marvel characters. They've built consistently on each film with well-received if unrevolutionary films (I say this having not seen most of them, but critical reception has been pretty good across the board). The Avengers has been presented as what they were all building towards.

"I'd have liked it more if I hadn't seen TDK" isn't really a convincing argument, because TDK came out, what, four years ago? If in that time Marvel Studios didn't opt to try and raise the bar again, then that's a valid criticism of the film.

There are tons of films out there that might be far more entertaining if you don't now that some other film did the same idea in a much more clever/entertaining/imaginative way X years beforehand. That doesn't excuse the later films for failing to keep up with the current paradigm in their particular genre.

Well, if/when the Justice League film gets made, I would bet considerable money Warner/ Dc will in fact be following the paradigm Marvel have just created with their first team film.

The Batman you usually see on his own can be very, very different to the Batman who appears in JLA- I think a lot of people are missing that Avengers shouldn't be trying to emulate TDK, because that's not and never has been what the Avengers are about.

Baggly · 27-04-2012 12:52pm

Handsome Bob wrote: »

I'll give you an example, Terminator 2, arguably the best action flick ever. But it also had great heart and developed characters, with one of the most memorable and iconic endings ever.

But, you are also suggesting that it doesn't try to be anything more than a popcirn eating blockbuster when it clearly does,
they completely missed the mark on the Coulson death scene for example.

I dont understand how its trying to 'be' anything. What it 'is' is defined by the viewing public. It 'is' just a movie, not a sentient being - so its doesnt 'try to be anything more' than anything.

Yeah, i can point out movies too. Titanic, great character development, iconic ending, nothing at all to do with the marvel run of movies.

Terminator 2 was SO different to T1 that i dont see how you can compare it to a continuation of a series of movies such as this.

I mean, look at it - is this movie majorly different to the other marvel movies, imo - no.

Is it promising interaction of characters and those characters squaring off against a single enemy, yes.

Does it deliver on the above, imo - yes.

I mean did anyone actually hear JW say we are doing a Serenity, Buffy, TDK on this one; or did you hear him say he was delivering a marvel team up movie with good action scenes?

Would you have preferred he cut the action and left in the character dev?

johnny_ultimate · 27-04-2012 12:52pm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The Dark Knight was a great movie but it's more a triller/action movie than a comic ook movie. Avengers is a comic book movie. And a damn fine one at that.

Even if we're to limit our comparisons to Marvel films, I think it fails to build upon or acknowledge many of the strengths of the preceding films. I don't think any of them are 'great' films in a traditional sense, but I think Thor had more verve, humour and interesting story strands than the Avengers. Similarly, Iron Man was much more aware of its ludicrous limitations, and played that up successfully. Avengers struggles to match the tonal consistency of what comes before.

And everyone knows The Incredibles is the best traditionally superhero film anyway

Would you have preferred he cut the action and left in the character dev?

God yes. The final action sequence is at least ten minutes too repetitive.

Baggly · 27-04-2012 12:54pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

We could say the exact same thing, which I think puts us at an impasse that will never be adequately resolved

Im not sure i understand your point fully.

johnny_ultimate · 27-04-2012 12:58pm

Pter wrote: »

Im not sure i understand your point fully.

You're saying that our expectations are too high for expecting anything other than a mindless action romp with good action scenes.

Utilising the same logic, we could say that your expectations were too low for not expecting character development and a bit more individuality.

That's not the kind of argument I like proposing, though, as I don't think it'll get us anywhere fast

Baggly · 27-04-2012 12:59pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

God yes. The final action sequence is at least ten minutes too repetitive.

Id have to disagree with you on that one, and from what i read, the action in the last third has been the best received part of the movie.

I think if JW had delivered any less action in this movie, he would have had a much worse reaction than the current reaction.

Ive said my piece at this stage, but i honestly dont know what people were expecting. This film did nothing if not continue the trend of the buildup movies, while at the same time, breaking ground in terms of team up movies.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You're saying that our expectations are too high for expecting anything other than a mindless action romp with good action scenes.

Utilising the same logic, we could say that your expectations were too low for not expecting character development and a bit more individuality.

That's not the kind of argument I like proposing, though, as I don't think it'll get us anywhere fast

Yes, but then i am not extolling its virtues or knocking it down, am I - so the same logic doesnt apply if i am not, converse to you, saying how amazeballs it is.

I'm merely pointing out that your disappointment may be correlated to your expectations.

Also - individuality in a team up movie? The point has been made by someone else - character dev and individuality abound in the previous movies (and forthcoming movies). So again - what were you expecting from this movie, and why?

Fysh · 27-04-2012 1:04pm

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Well, if/when the Justice League film gets made, I would bet considerable money Warner/ Dc will in fact be following the paradigm Marvel have just created with their first team film.

How about we wait and see if that happens before making statements about whether Marvel have redefined the paradigm or not?

There was talk of a SuperBat film a few years back before Returns made studios realise that Superman's not as easy a sell as they may have thought, and if they can't sell Superman (or Green Lantern) for that matter then Justice League as a film is hard proposal.

I think WB do a pretty good job with the DC Animated Universe in that regard, and TBH I don't really think it's possible to create a good film that stands alone and yet also works as a big superhero team-up - the former requires character arcs & development, the latter requires us to pretty much know all the characters going in and watch them all hit each other and then the villain(s).

Doctor DooM wrote: »

The Batman you usually see on his own can be very, very different to the Batman who appears in JLA- I think a lot of people are missing that Avengers shouldn't be trying to emulate TDK, because that's not and never has been what the Avengers are about.

I'm not saying the Avengers should have tried to be The Dark Knight feat. Captain America & His Merry Men. I'm saying that even with its various flaws (such as not featuring a female character worth a damn, and the infamous Gravelvoice Of Doom) it wasn't constrained in the way that superhero films usually are - it didn't take itself all Super SRS BSNS like Daredevil did, but it still managed to present a grounded and non-jokey take on its central concepts (which, given what they are, is damned impressive).

Nothing I've read suggests that the Avengers has done this, or even acknowledged that it's possible. The Ultimates comic series offered an example of a more grounded, cynical and nasty take on the Avengers, but that's been at best a minor influence here. The Avengers film will probably turn out to be a very lucrative and successful big-screen use of Marvel Studios IP, but that's a fairly boring bar to set.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

God yes. The final action sequence is at least ten minutes too repetitive.

Hasn't that been a general complaint about most of the Marvel Studios films? I certainly remember being frustrated at the way IM1 wrapped up like that (not least because they showed pretty much every big action scene in one or another of the ads/trailers). Everything I've read about the rest of the films seems to indicate this is an issue with the structure they're aiming for.

Handsome Bob · 27-04-2012 1:08pm

Pter wrote: »

I dont understand how its trying to 'be' anything. What it 'is' is defined by the viewing public. It 'is' just a movie, not a sentient being - so its doesnt 'try to be anything more' than anything.

You suggested that all it wants to be is a good mindless popcorn flick when it doesn't, they tried to pack the great emotional punches that the likes of T2 and TDK had.

Two examples of this would be

Coulson's death and Stark nearly killing himself to get rid of the nuke. But both scenes fell flat, especially Coulson's death (the latter being devoid of any proper build up or adequate drama in the aftermath). Why did we see Cap's, a guy who barely knew Coulson, reaction to his death but not Thor's, a character that did know Coulson and what kind of person he was?

Yeah, i can point out movies too. Titanic, great character development, iconic ending, nothing at all to do with the marvel run of movies.

Terminator 2 was SO different to T1 that i dont see how you can compare it to a continuation of a series of movies such as this.

I mean, look at it - is this movie majorly different to the other marvel movies, imo - no.

I would argue that this film did fail where previous Marvel films succeeded with dramatic moments. Thor sacrificing himself to get rid of The Destroyer was an amazing scene and it also had a great pay off. The last conversation between Steve Rodgers and Peggy also packed a good emotional punch. Both of these films had soul, something that I think The Avengers lacked.

Is it promising interaction of characters and those characters squaring off against a single enemy, yes.

Does it deliver on the above, imo - yes.

The interactions were good, nothing amazing. RDJ and Ruffalo had great chemistry, ditto Hemsworth and Hiddleston. Other than that, I was disappointed with the interactions given who was directing. I thought that scene where they were all bitching at each other was awful.

Would you have preferred he cut the action and left in the character dev?

Good action scenes don't have to be 40 minutes long to be good. I didn't think the final battle was any use until the second half of it. A tighter film action wise could have definitely been made.

Bullseye1 · 27-04-2012 1:12pm

Fysh I see your in London. I'll be there over the weekend and would love to see this in IMAX. I'll be staying close to Euston Station. Where is the best place to see his in IMAX in London?

Conbhar · 27-04-2012 1:14pm

Rite folks, is this worth going to see? Iv a feeling this is just gona be a pure actionfest but i dont mind that at all now and then. Iv seen one or two dodgy reviews but the vast majority of em have been kind.

[Deleted User] · 27-04-2012 1:16pm

Arrghhhh this thread is now getting way too deep for this movie. Its just a good fun movie i had a great time, it was everything i expected and more.

Tefral · 27-04-2012 1:17pm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Fysh I see your in London. I'll be there over the weekend and would love to see this in IMAX. I'll be staying close to Euston Station. Where is the best place to see his in IMAX in London?

Where will you be? Imax in Kingston and Uxbridge are showing it

syklops · 27-04-2012 1:20pm

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Ok, well, this film is basically a love song to 1960's style team up comics, you're never, ever going to get massive character development. It's not what it's supposed to be. It's a romp and it's supposed to be a romp. I personally don't see how anyone could watch this film and not come out loving the character of the Hulk/ Banner though.

I say this having not seen the movie yet, but from the trailers, I have to say Hulk comes across very well, and I have surprised myself as I am really looking forward to seeing him. I think the reason for this is I never found him that interesting in any of his previous incarnations on the screen, and the only comics I enjoyed where he made an appearance have been team ups. Hulk himself has little in the way of personality, and so he fits well into a team up type romp.

My main criticism of the movies leading up to this is that neither Thor nor Cap came across as having much personality either, but they still made decent popcorn movies. IMO Iron Man is the exception, giving a terrific performance, and demonstrating tremendous character and personality

("I'm a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist")

.

This however, I think will be for the good of the movie, as it would be hard to have 3+ egos on screen and not lose pace.

johnny_ultimate · 27-04-2012 1:22pm

Pter wrote: »

Ive said my piece at this stage, but i honestly dont know what people were expecting. This film did nothing if not continue the trend of the buildup movies, while at the same time, breaking ground in terms of team up movies.

It breaks new ground by merely existing: indeed, many people who loved the film seemed to do so due to the presence of many Marvel characters on screen. I know in the screening I was in there were a few costumed viewers who would likely have loved it no matter what was put on screen, as long as all the characters were there. But while there hasn't been a film on the scale of the Avengers, it's depressingly reminiscent of many other blockbusters (including, in its final act onslaught of a

grey extra-terrestrial

menace, unfavourable likes of Transformers, even if Whedon has the decency to keep the action basically coherent). That follows up on your next point of lacking individuality.

Based on Joss Whedon's previous work, I was expecting a film that distorted and played with the rules while retaining a deep affection for the source material. I was expecting fully formed characters that interacted in a way that wasn't just some enjoyable banter (

compare the Poulson scene to Wash's scene in Serenity: similar, but the latter has a far emotional greater punch)

. I expected a real sense of threat and danger that would act as a start contrast to the light-hearted ribbing on show elsewhere (the finale of Serenity remains a damn fine example of how to make an action scene where the stakes are actually high). From the previous Marvel movies, I was expecting a team up in which all the characters had to overcome their previously established adversity and experiences in order to kick some ass.

I was expecting Thor to arrive in some sort of exciting, unexpected fashion rather than merely dropping from the sky for poorly described reasons

. Perhaps I was wrong expecting these things, but I didn't get them. All I got was a so-so superhero film with some funny bits.

Mindkiller · 27-04-2012 1:25pm

Conbhar wrote: »

Rite folks, is this worth going to see? Iv a feeling this is just gona be a pure actionfest but i dont mind that at all now and then. Iv seen one or two dodgy reviews but the vast majority of em have been kind.

Having not seen it myself I'm going to go on a limb and say that you'll love it if you love comics. If not, it might just be alright.

Bullseye1 · 27-04-2012 1:26pm

cronin_j wrote: »

Where will you be? Imax in Kingston and Uxbridge are showing it

On Euston Road close to Euston Station. Are both of these far from there, subway I assume?

Fysh · 27-04-2012 1:30pm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Fysh I see your in London. I'll be there over the weekend and would love to see this in IMAX. I'll be staying close to Euston Station. Where is the best place to see his in IMAX in London?

The recently revamped IMAX Odeon in Swiss Cottage is probably your closest screen showing it (see here for info). You can get from Euston to Swiss Cottage pretty easily by getting the Metropolitan line from Euston Square to Baker Street, then changing for the Jubilee line and getting off at the Swiss Cottage stop. (You could also go from Euston Square to Finchley road and walk back to Swiss Cottage - it's about a 5-minute walk away).

Doctor DooM · 27-04-2012 1:36pm

Fysh wrote: »

(1)How about we wait and see if that happens before making statements about whether Marvel have redefined the paradigm or not? There was talk of a SuperBat film a few years back before Returns made studios realise that Superman's not as easy a sell as they may have thought, and if they can't sell Superman (or Green Lantern) for that matter then Justice League as a film is hard proposal.

I think WB do a pretty good job with the DC Animated Universe in that regard, and TBH I don't really think it's possible to create a good film that stands alone and yet also works as a big superhero team-up - the former requires character arcs & development, the latter requires us to pretty much know all the characters going in and watch them all hit each other and then the villain(s).

I'm not saying the Avengers should have tried to be The Dark Knight feat. Captain America & His Merry Men. I'm saying that even with its various flaws (such as not featuring a female character worth a damn, and the infamous Gravelvoice Of Doom) it wasn't constrained in the way that superhero films usually are - it didn't take itself all Super SRS BSNS like Daredevil did, but it still managed to present a grounded and non-jokey take on its central concepts (which, given what they are, is damned impressive).

Nothing I've read suggests that the Avengers has done this, or even acknowledged that it's possible. The Ultimates comic series offered an example of a more grounded, cynical and nasty take on the Avengers, but that's been at best a minor influence here. The Avengers film will probably turn out to be a very lucrative and successful big-screen use of Marvel Studios IP, but that's a fairly boring bar to set.

Hasn't that been a general complaint about most of the Marvel Studios films? I certainly remember being frustrated at the way IM1 wrapped up like that (not least because they showed pretty much every big action scene in one or another of the ads/trailers). Everything I've read about the rest of the films seems to indicate this is an issue with the structure they're aiming for.

Why in your head does WB get a free ride because the Justice League (which has way more recognisable characters than the Avengers in their big 7) is a hard proposal, and the Avengers do not?

I'm no Marvel fanboy, but what they've achieved is something both companies have been trying to do for decades. IF WB gets there act together at this point I don't see how anyone could argue that it's only been possible because Marvel did it first.

You're probably correct about a team movie standalone being impossible- good thing the Avengers was never designed to be that, though. *shrug*

By the way, have you actually seen the film? The Black Widow is a very strong female character.

She's hugely integral to the plot, it's resolution and is shown to emotionally manipulate those around her with ease.

I would reject the statement that there's no strong women in this film.

Also, on the Ultimates not having an influence on this film...er...

Original Nick Fury:

Ultimate Nick Fury:

Original Hawkeye:

Ultimate:

Also,

The Chatauri, the villains of this piece, and their allegience with Loki is all from the Ultimates.

but then, I think the entire Ultimates influence is almost irrelevant. I still think you're missing the point of the entire film: It's not supposed to be grounded, or cynical, or nasty; it's supposed to be a romp, a meeting of fantastical characters rarely seen together, and how things play out when they do meet. It's very, very obviously a love song to the wonderfully whimsical bickering humourous heroes of the 60's, and I for one would be very bored if they'd done what you seem to want- Michael Bay turned Optimus Prime into a murdering badass in Transformers and look how that turned out.

People scream blue murder when books stray too far from the source material in order to meet the current paradigm, I don't see why this should be any different.

Bullseye1 · 27-04-2012 1:47pm

Fysh wrote: »

The recently revamped IMAX Odeon in Swiss Cottage is probably your closest screen showing it (see here for info). You can get from Euston to Swiss Cottage pretty easily by getting the Metropolitan line from Euston Square to Baker Street, then changing for the Jubilee line and getting off at the Swiss Cottage stop. (You could also go from Euston Square to Finchley road and walk back to Swiss Cottage - it's about a 5-minute walk away).

Looks like the center tickets are sold out for the Saturday night shows. Kingston has more available in center seating. Thanks for your help.

Fysh · 27-04-2012 1:54pm

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Why in your head does WB get a free ride because the Justice League (which has way more recognisable characters than the Avengers in their big 7) is a hard proposal, and the Avengers do not?

They don't get a free ride, they just get acknowledgement from me that a modern Justice League film would be a hard proposal (given that both Superman Returns and Green Lantern are core properties related to such a title, which seriously underperformed against their expectations) and so a recognition that it's probably the right move not to have done it. And, well, a lot of their "recognisable" characters are "recognisable if you remember shoddy tv shows from way back in the stone age, or if you watch the animated series" rather than "known to everyone and their ma". Wonder Woman may be as well known as Batman & Superman, but the Martian Manhunter? Green Lantern? The Flash? Not a hope. Hell, even Aquaman is mostly known as a joke rather than a viable character. And that's before you get into the second stringers.

If we're going to nerd it up, though, I'll remind you that the DC superheroes have already had a feature length live action appearance in the form of Legends Of The Superheroes. Though I have to say I'm glad that's not the bar anyone's aiming for in terms of modern superhero stories.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I'm no Marvel fanboy, but what they've achieved is something both companies have been trying to do for decades. IF WB gets there act together at this point I don't see how anyone could argue that it's only been possible because Marvel did it first.

You're probably correct about a team movie standalone being impossible- good thing the Avengers was never designed to be that, though. *shrug*

By the way, have you actually seen the film? The Black Widow is a very strong female character.
She's hugely integral to the plot, it's resolution and is shown to emotionally manipulate those around her with ease.
I would reject the statement that there's no strong women in this film.

My comment about the lack of decent female characters was aimed at TDK, not Avengers. I haven't seen Avengers yet, and probably won't for a good while (I'm not hugely interested in seeing it, tbh, and especially not at a screening where people are doing that ridiculous clapping/cheering idiocy that passes for "the cinema experience").

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Also, on the Ultimates not having an influence on this film...er...

Original Nick Fury:

Ultimate Nick Fury:

Original Hawkeye:

Ultimate:

Also,
The Chatauri, the villains of this piece, and their allegience with Loki is all from the Ultimates.

but then, I think the entire Ultimates influence is almost irrelevant. I still think you're missing the point of the entire film: It's not supposed to be grounded, or cynical, or nasty; it's supposed to be a romp, a meeting of fantastical characters rarely seen together, and how things play out when they do meet. It's very, very obviously a love song to the wonderfully whimsical bickering humourous heroes of the 60's, and I for one would be very bored if they'd done what you seem to want- Michael Bay turned Optimus Prime into a murdering badass in Transformers and look how that turned out.

People scream blue murder when books stray too far from the source material in order to meet the current paradigm, I don't see why this should be any different.

It's all very well saying "Oh, this is meant to be a romp". But that's the paradigm established by the post-Wertham comics and, outside of comics, by the 60s Batman TV show & film.

Batman Begins & TDK showed an alternative way of treating the subject matter (as, I'd argue, did the Millar/Hitch Ultimates run for the most part, at least up until the Grand Theft America segment kind of unravelled), by not having to treat it with the same blend of camp and tongue-in-cheekness yet avoiding the OTT "I'M SUPER CEREAL! ANGST ANGST ANGST" nonsense of the likes of Daredevil.

Marvel Studios may not want to change the game, but that's kind of irrelevant if other people do it. It's not like people watching this are going to ignore that there are films like TDK out there.

Suggesting that the two options for this film are "what's on offer now" or Michael-Bay-grade Crappiness is pretty disingenuous, TBH. Most reviews I've seen acknowledge that considering Whedon is involved in the film, it feels restrained in ways that probably don't benefit it.

As for the Ultimates thing - the Ultimate line has been the inspiration for a good deal of the Marvel Studios film universe, which makes me think it's a shame not to have borrowed from the comics on a deeper level than just the visuals. And, well, given that a lot of the classic/616 Marvel universe has been changed to align it more with the films I think any suggestion that "aw, fanboys will scream about that" is unfounded. Aside from anything else, the paying fanboy audience is on a downward spiral in the comics sphere, whereas the film fanboy audience seems to be growing - so you follow the trends that make money, not the whims of people who contribute less and less each year to your bottom line.

johnny_ultimate · 27-04-2012 2:03pm

Fysh wrote: »

My comment about the lack of decent female characters was aimed at TDK, not Avengers. I haven't seen Avengers yet, and probably won't for a good while (I'm not hugely interested in seeing it, tbh, and especially not at a screening where people are doing that ridiculous clapping/cheering idiocy that passes for "the cinema experience").

This bothered me at the screening in Cineworld last night. There were a few jokes that either had painfully obvious punchlines or weren't all that funny

(like Captain America with the police captain)

but a sizeable minority of the audience were whooping and hollering out of all proportion with what was actually happening. I'm not one to deny that one person's hilarity is another's boredom, but to me these came across as the people I think were destined to like the film due to the very fact it existed. Almost insincere. Rest of the audience seemed underwhelmed, or at least not moved to hyperactive air-punching.

I can only compare it to my experiences at The Raid recently, where almost the entire audience (bar a very small minority) were absolutely loving the film's inspired brutality, and for once the whooping and clapping actually seemed like a consensual thing. Some are likely to hate such things point blank, but after such a giddy cinema-going experience The Avengers couldn't come close to comparing. I need to watch 99% of films in almost complete silence (I hate any sort of distractions in the cinema) but wouldn't have traded The Raid experience for anything. Frankly, I would have enjoyed The Avengers more in a completely empty cinema.

Baggly · 27-04-2012 2:05pm

@Fysh You put forward a very good argument which, IMO, is undermined by the fact you have not seen the film for yourself.

Fysh · 27-04-2012 2:10pm

Pter wrote: »

@Fysh You put forward a very good argument which, IMO, is undermined by the fact you have not seen the film for yourself.

Hey, I'm not claiming to have an absolute stance on the film - I'm going by primarily reviews from specific individuals whose reviews I've followed for years. It may turn out that my concerns are unfounded and I actually love it, but each of us makes a call based on the information at hand about whether we want to see a film, and the reviews I've read from particular reviewers who I've followed for long enough to have a context of how their tastes map to my own suggest that if I watch The Avengers, I'll think it's alright but not exactly the New Revolution In Cinematic Blowjob Technology that the marketing and anticipation in comic fan circles would have you expect.

Doctor DooM · 27-04-2012 2:19pm

Fysh wrote: »

They don't get a free ride, they just get acknowledgement from me that a modern Justice League film would be a hard proposal (given that both Superman Returns and Green Lantern are core properties related to such a title, which seriously underperformed against their expectations) and so a recognition that it's probably the right move not to have done it. And, well, a lot of their "recognisable" characters are "recognisable if you remember shoddy tv shows from way back in the stone age, or if you watch the animated series" rather than "known to everyone and their ma". Wonder Woman may be as well known as Batman & Superman, but the Martian Manhunter? Green Lantern? The Flash? Not a hope. Hell, even Aquaman is mostly known as a joke rather than a viable character. And that's before you get into the second stringers.

Are you really arguing that Superman and Batman on their own don't have more name value than every single character in the Avengers? I mean, maybe Iron Man now, but that's because Marvel did the ground work.

I take your point about Aquaman though!

If we're going to nerd it up, though, I'll remind you that the DC superheroes have already had a feature length live action appearance in the form of Legends Of The Superheroes. Though I have to say I'm glad that's not the bar anyone's aiming for in terms of modern superhero stories.

OOOOH we're in a nerd pissing match now. HUlk's team up movies! This isn't the first time he's met Thor!

My comment about the lack of decent female characters was aimed at TDK, not Avengers. I haven't seen Avengers yet, and probably won't for a good while (I'm not hugely interested in seeing it, tbh, and especially not at a screening where people are doing that ridiculous clapping/cheering idiocy that passes for "the cinema experience").

Oh ok sorry, picked you up wrong, although people were just laughing at the (genuinely funny) bits at my showing.

It's all very well saying "Oh, this is meant to be a romp". But that's the paradigm established by the post-Wertham comics and, outside of comics, by the 60s Batman TV show & film.

Which is 40 years ago now- I think if someone wants to tribute them and does it right, then that's what they're doing surely artistically and it's as valid as any other stylistic choice?

Batman Begins & TDK showed an alternative way of treating the subject matter (as, I'd argue, did the Millar/Hitch Ultimates run for the most part, at least up until the Grand Theft America segment kind of unravelled), by not having to treat it with the same blend of camp and tongue-in-cheekness yet avoiding the OTT "I'M SUPER CEREAL! ANGST ANGST ANGST" nonsense of the likes of Daredevil.

Well, tbh the film is not camp or tongue in cheek, it's just occasionally light hearted and very funny.

It has its serious side as well- a lot of people seem to be missing that

Banner has a redemption arc where he learns to stop hating the Hulk- which in turn brings the Hulk somewhat under his control

. But apparently I'm the only one who's noticed that, perhaps it's too subtle

Marvel Studios may not want to change the game, but that's kind of irrelevant if other people do it. It's not like people watching this are going to ignore that there are films like TDK out there.

Suggesting that the two options for this film are "what's on offer now" or Michael-Bay-grade Crappiness is pretty disingenuous, TBH. Most reviews I've seen acknowledge that considering Whedon is involved in the film, it feels restrained in ways that probably don't benefit it.

Sigh... if they made Ultimates the movie, Hulk would be a sex mad cannibal and Cap would be a sexist dick. (Hawkeye and Stark do resemble their ultimate versions way more IMO, though) I was not being disingenuous: I want the characters, not their gritty alternate versions... which is what happened to poor ol' Prime under the guidance of Bay.

As for the Ultimates thing - the Ultimate line has been the inspiration for a good deal of the Marvel Studios film universe, which makes me think it's a shame not to have borrowed from the comics on a deeper level than just the visuals. And, well, given that a lot of the classic/616 Marvel universe has been changed to align it more with the films I think any suggestion that "aw, fanboys will scream about that" is unfounded. Aside from anything else, the paying fanboy audience is on a downward spiral in the comics sphere, whereas the film fanboy audience seems to be growing - so you follow the trends that make money, not the whims of people who contribute less and less each year to your bottom line.

I think you should really think about the Ultimates as opposed to the Ultimate universe. Obviously, the ultimate line did loads of good for marvel: It modernised and brought fresh ideas to the table.

But in specific to the avengers, if they'd made ultimates the movie we'd have an 18's film about a wife beater, a raging alcohoic, an incestuous brother an sister, a thor who's possibly a loony environmentalist (actually, no, use this one), a cannibal randy hulk and so on. I'm not saying this would be a bad film: but realistically, not going to happen.

Whereas what we have is a kid friendly film which will no doubt shift toys and comics and will continue the prosperity of characters who were on life support a decade back.

Memnoch · 27-04-2012 2:48pm

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Good action scenes don't have to be 40 minutes long to be good. I didn't think the final battle was any use until the second half of it. A tighter film action wise could have definitely been made.

Did you see Kick-ass? The action scene with Big Daddy in the warehouse is only 30 seconds long. I've gone to youtube and watched it about 10 times. Easily one of the best action scene in years.

I think the final action scene in Avengers was good but not great. It was a little by the numbers and was spoiled by a number of things.

In bits it also looked like a rerun of the final battle in transformers 3. Also we saw the giant robotic python/snake in Transformers 3 as well. Shame on Whedon on shamelessly plagarising that idea. I agree with Johnny Ultimate's post a few pages ago about this Hollywood trend of faceless alien robotic enemy, it's gotten VERY old.

Black Widow was pathetic with her cheap pistols. Cringeworthy.

Hi-Tech Legolas was okayish but not much better. The independence day, nuke the mothership finish was lame also.

It was saved by some very genuine comedic moments but it could have been so much more.

Fysh · 27-04-2012 2:54pm

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Are you really arguing that Superman and Batman on their own don't have more name value than every single character in the Avengers? I mean, maybe Iron Man now, but that's because Marvel did the ground work.

Batman, yes. Superman, right now, is That Boring/Creepy Superhero Dad Won't Shut Up About. And given the underperformance of Superman Returns, I think any Justice League film that doesn't just reinvent the concept outright is going to depend on someone coming up with a New Direction for Batman post-Dark Knight Rises and on whatever the new Superman film is eventually called actually bringing in seriously good money at the box office.

And those are two of the three big players. The third of which can't even get a TV series off the ground, never mind a feature length film.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

OOOOH we're in a nerd pissing match now. HUlk's team up movies! This isn't the first time he's met Thor!

Heh, I see your Hulk Team-Up Films and raise you The Amazing Spider-Man (1977)

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Oh ok sorry, picked you up wrong, although people were just laughing at the (genuinely funny) bits at my showing.

Ah, no worries - I could've worded that bit better. The cinema thing is weird - recently I find it bugs me more and more. Maybe I've just been unlucky with the screenings I've attended. Laughing at jokes is grand, but I honestly don't get the whooping/clapping thing. And let's not get into the kind of idiot I was stuck near at the Cabin In The Woods screening recently who repeatedly started chatting to her friend - even when the friend in question kept telling her to shut up :mad:

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Which is 40 years ago now- I think if someone wants to tribute them and does it right, then that's what they're doing surely artistically and it's as valid as any other stylistic choice?

Yeah, I suppose. It seems a bit weird to me to take a series of films which in other ways are very modern and then use them to pay homage to the origin of the material by ignoring recent developments in the medium. (It's probably a personal taste thing, though - I've had similar conversations when the same thing is done in comics, as I find that for me such attempts fail more often than they succeed...)

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Well, tbh the film is not camp or tongue in cheek, it's just occasionally light hearted and very funny.

It has its serious side as well- a lot of people seem to be missing that
Banner has a redemption arc where he learns to stop hating the Hulk- which in turn brings the Hulk somewhat under his control
. But apparently I'm the only one who's noticed that, perhaps it's too subtle

Ah, right. I'll be interested in seeing the concensus of opinion once things settle down in a week or two.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Sigh... if they made Ultimates the movie, Hulk would be a sex mad cannibal and Cap would be a sexist dick. (Hawkeye and Stark do resemble their ultimate versions way more IMO, though) I was not being disingenuous: I want the characters, not their gritty alternate versions... which is what happened to poor ol' Prime under the guidance of Bay.

Yeah, but when you say "The characters"...which characters? Or rather, which version of them? If you say the "real" ones...well, every single one of them has, in their pseudo-canonical-616 incarnation, been a whole bunch of contradictory things. So you have to pick and choose, and I figure you may as well pick and choose the versions that are likely to work better by today's paradigm - one of the big issues that superhero films have only recently started to overcome is over-simplistic characterisation, so you want the mor fleshed out versions, people with flaws and opinions and biases. I know the Ultimates went a bit overboard with the whole "make everyone a bellend" thing, but frankly it's the only time I've ever read Captain America after the age of about 13 and thought he seemed even remotely feasible as a character. Ditto the rest of them.

Again, personal taste, I guess.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I think you should really think about the Ultimates as opposed to the Ultimate universe. Obviously, the ultimate line did loads of good for marvel: It modernised and brought fresh ideas to the table.

But in specific to the avengers, if they'd made ultimates the movie we'd have an 18's film about a wife beater, a raging alcohoic, an incestuous brother an sister, a thor who's possibly a loony environmentalist (actually, no, use this one), a cannibal randy hulk and so on. I'm not saying this would be a bad film: but realistically, not going to happen.

Whereas what we have is a kid friendly film which will no doubt shift toys and comics and will continue the prosperity of characters who were on life support a decade back.

Well, I think that depends on who does the writing and how well they do it. The Incredibles was an awesome fun-for-the-whole-family superhero film (not to mention the best Fantastic Four film that will ever be made) but didn't shy away from at least hinting at some nastier stuff.

I just think it's a wasted opportunity to shy away from the more rounded (if nasty & cynical) versions of the characters given that they've shown to be popular and resonant.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I can only compare it to my experiences at The Raid recently, where almost the entire audience (bar a very small minority) were absolutely loving the film's inspired brutality, and for once the whooping and clapping actually seemed like a consensual thing. Some are likely to hate such things point blank, but after such a giddy cinema-going experience The Avengers couldn't come close to comparing. I need to watch 99% of films in almost complete silence (I hate any sort of distractions in the cinema) but wouldn't have traded The Raid experience for anything. Frankly, I would have enjoyed The Avengers more in a completely empty cinema.

I must admit, right now I'm more interested in seeing either Safe or The Raid (I was thrilled to discover my local arthouse cinema is getting The Raid in for a week in late May

) than The Avengers, because both films appear to at least get on with Doing What They Say On The Tin. I mean, yes, Safe is basically Jason Statham In Mercury Rising, but well, as long as it's one of the good Jason Statham Hitting People In Creative Ways films (ie not The Mechanic or Death Race) then it'll be another step on the road to eventually getting to see River Tam Beats Up Everyone (which reminds me, I should probably rewatch Ong Bak With AutismChocolate some time soon). I knew I'd want to watch The Raid as soon as a friend linked me to this review (which opens with "If you are looking for a film about the beauty of love or maybe the story of how there is an artist trapped within each of us, The Raid: Redemption isn’t the movie for you. If, however, you are interested in seeing a film where a guy kicks a drug dealer in the face so hard that he flies backwards off flight of stairs and nearly snaps in two when he hits a lower railing, then this is the film for you.")

The Avengers (2012) *spoilers from post 1181*

Comments

The Avengers (2012) spoilers from post 1181