The Avengers (2012) *spoilers from post 1181*

Rabies

Liamario wrote: »

It's a movie about super heroes; let's not over analyse it.

Def in the wrong forum then.
Some people here break movies down to such a small level the fun must be gone from the majority of them.

People should enjoy a movie for what it is, not for what they wanted it to be if it was written by Shakespeare and Nolan.

what the hell!

Contemplating going for the third time tonight...

don ramo

Corholio wrote: »

I just thought it took away some of the unexpectedness of Hulk with the whole eureka control moment after the fall. It felt like it was a bat it out of the park moment, it had so much set up.

did you even bother reading the first paragraph of my post:rolleyes:,

johnny_ultimate

Rabies wrote: »

Def in the wrong forum then.
Some people here break movies down to such a small level the fun must be gone from the majority of them.

People should enjoy a movie for what it is, not for what they wanted it to be if it was written by Shakespeare and Nolan.

While I certainly agree that over-analysis can be a negative thing (I usually don't pay much heed to plot-holes and the like unless for me they're immersion breaking, like Thor's arrival here IMO) I also think that analysis of film is something that makes cinema so much fun, and just helps reaffirm my love and enthusiasm for it as a medium. Even when I don't enjoy a film, I always love the opportunity to break it down afterwards and figure out why. There's both a film-maker and a critic in me, and both sides demand that I understand my response to any given film, summer blockbuster and ambiguous experimental film alike.

That's why I can very rarely indulge in 'turning off my brain' anymore. Even a dumb blockbuster (I don't consider The Avengers particularly dumb, actually - it's very well made in most practical and creative aspects, and despite my disappointed response to it, there are a few spine-tingling moments in there) is something I feel should be discussed afterwards. Heck, there are plenty of films entirely devoid of insight or subtext that are still masterpieces.

A personal indulgence of mine, perhaps, is this fondness for analysis. But I also think as an audience it's our duty to figure out why we loved / liked / disliked / hated a film. It's all well and good saying not every film can be a Christopher Nolan film (I personally feel Hollywood cinema would be a much more entertaining place for all if every blockbuster had the ambition of Chris Nolan's works, but that's a utopian dream of mine), but we're also doing ourselves a profound disservice demanding anything less than greatness from any genre or filmmaking style. And the only way we can recognise greatness is to watch, discuss and dissect cinema. Perhaps that isn't for everyone: many just want a few hours of fun. But I know as a cinema obsessive, I simply can't stop analysing even when I'm loving every second of what's on-screen. I think you'll find there are a plethora of people on here who are the same, and frankly I wouldn't be posting here if it wasn't for them.

DM_7

Hi,

That was awesome,
saw it on day of release, enjoyed reading through this thread since finding it.

Bye,

Corholio

don ramo wrote: »

did you even bother reading the first paragraph of my post:rolleyes:,

What? Yes I did. I was talking about the context within the Avengers film, what happened in the previous Hulk has nothing to do with the pacing of this one.

What's your problem anyway, just because I have a different opinion.

Turtyturd

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

While I certainly agree that over-analysis can be a negative thing (I usually don't pay much heed to plot-holes and the like unless for me they're immersion breaking, like Thor's arrival here IMO)

I just assumed Thor had found some of the other passages that Loki had talked about in the Thor film.

Edit: Read a few things online saying that there is a line of dialogue which explains it, with Loki asking Thor how much Dark Matter did Odin have to use to send him back.

Cantona's Collars

Turtyturd wrote: »

I just assumed Thor had found some of the other passages that Loki had talked about in the Thor film.

Edit: Read a few things online saying that there is a line of dialogue which explains it, with Loki asking Thor how much Dark Matter did Odin have to use to send him back.

Loki did mention how Thor made it to Earth using dark matter.On the subject of the brothers,I found this pic.

Galvasean

Turtyturd wrote: »

I just assumed Thor had found some of the other passages that Loki had talked about in the Thor film.

Edit: Read a few things online saying that there is a line of dialogue which explains it, with Loki asking Thor how much Dark Matter did Odin have to use to send him back.

I really don't see why anyone is hung up about Thor's arrival. Between the hints in the Thor movie and the other hint by Loki in Avengers I think it's fair enough to let that one slide. It's pretty much that or insert a scene with Thor begging his Dad to use dark energy to send him to Earth and another one of Odin using said energy. The film is long enough without it to be honest, and I think such scenes would do the film more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.

Mickeroo

Galvasean wrote: »

I really don't see why anyone is hung up about Thor's arrival. Between the hints in the Thor movie and the other hint by Loki in Avengers I think it's fair enough to let that one slide. It's pretty much that or insert a scene with Thor begging his Dad to use dark energy to send him to Earth and another one of Odin using said energy. The film is long enough without it to be honest, and I think such scenes would do the film more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.

Yep it would have been needless exposition imo, something that is usually complained about in most blockbusters funnily enough. Plus it was much better for the character to make a bad ass intro showing his power like the one he got in the movie.

Nervous Wreck

Mickeroo wrote: »

Yep it would have been needless exposition imo, something that is usually complained about in most blockbusters funnily enough. Plus it was much better for the character to make a bad ass intro showing his power like the one he got in the movie.

Agreed. It was also a great way of establishing him as easily more powerful than Loki through Loki's obvious fear of his big bro.

filmbuffboy

Saw this today. Felt like I was watching a transformers film: lots of explosions and very little storyline.

johnny_ultimate

Galvasean wrote: »

I really don't see why anyone is hung up about Thor's arrival. Between the hints in the Thor movie and the other hint by Loki in Avengers I think it's fair enough to let that one slide. It's pretty much that or insert a scene with Thor begging his Dad to use dark energy to send him to Earth and another one of Odin using said energy. The film is long enough without it to be honest, and I think such scenes would do the film more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.

I don't want to repeat the argument again, having had it way how many posts again :pac: But to me it just felt like the first draft of an arrival: the potentially interesting cliffhanger of Thor explained away with an unconvincing line of dialogue. To me it wasn't bad ass enough: I kept waiting for Thor to show up, and when he just fell out of the sky I just felt 'Oh. There he is'. Oh. I'm repeating myself :pac:

The 'long enough' point is interesting though. I'm not one to say a director should have done this and that: their film at the end of the day. But I genuinely thought there was actually quite a bit of flab in the film: whether it's the messy first act or the (subjectively) overlong action sequences. I know not everyone agrees, but I genuinely think quite a bit could have been cut out of all the major action - 'base collapse' opening, flying fortress, city - sequences to significant effect. I was really disappointed when I came on here and read the posts about Captain's scenes with Peggy winding up on the cutting room floor: that seems like the kind of moment that for me would have made a stronger, more rounded film. I wouldn't even have had a problem with fifteen more minutes if it gave the characters a bit more room to breathe on their own terms - would have liked more scenes with the wit of Black Widows' intro, for example. I think I'm that weird guy who wants less rather than more action

Saw this earlier tonight, having never read the comics and only seeing the Iron Man movies beforehand. It was excellent, just the movie I was expecting it to be from what I saw in the trailers. I've been meaning to watch Thor for ages now and will definitely check it out in the next few days.

Having not seen Thor previously, his ability to reach Earth was not an issue for me, but like some posters from a few pages back I did have a gripe like 'Why the fúck is Hulk a compliant member of the team all of a sudden?' Not seeing the Hulk movie might have been my own fault, but every movie should stand on its own merits and his transformation in Avengers wasn't resonant enough for me, I shouldn't need to have it spelt out to me in a forum, but thanks to the poster(s) who did:p

Aside from that, none of the other plotholes that occured to me during the movie ruined my enjoyment of what is essentially a popcorn 'leave your brain by the Ben and Jerry's stand' summer blockbuster. I was blown away, I got goosebumps, I laughed hard several times (ie. the scene with Loki trying to 'infect' Stark and most of all the Hulk/Loki 'fight', fúck I did not see that coming!) and I never once looked at my watch which doesn't happen all that often with a 2.5 hour movie. Because me and the OH were saying something to each other we missed what I now know was another hilarious moment courtesy of a gif from a few pages back (Hulk punching Thor, we knew we missed something special when the people were erupting around us!) All the more reason to watch it again, and by watching Thor beforehand also, this will add to my enjoyment.

Now that was the great side of the movie, the shíte side of the movie has nothing to with the director, actors, writers, any of the crew. Those greedy bastard big studios and their penchant for forcing 3D down our throats. I went to see the movie in Swords and there was no 2D option at all. WTF?? I'm not a fan of 3D in the cinema. For much-discussed reasons already listed by others in this thread, I'd just rather the normal 2D experience thanks. For example, the scenes where Fury was talking with the council on videocalls, I couldn't see the faces of the characters on the videocall. I know one of them was Noah Daniels because of that unique voice and frame of his. Both me and the gf ended up just wearing the glasses when the screen went blurry and watching the rest with the shades rested on or foreheads. And I had to pay 23 bucks for this pleasure??

So considering the 3D wrecked my head and I still came out thinking the movie was a very enjoyable experience speaks wonders for the movie itself. No wonder there are directors who insist (when they have the power to insist) on not using 3D. As a musician I wouldn't want to put my heart and soul into making an album only to have the studio come along and swamp it in reverb because it makes the listener think they are in the room with you. IDK, maybe Whedon wanted the 3D in it, in which case it should have been done a bit better. Anyway, fúck this 3D 'revolution'.

Looking forward to seeing this again if I can find a 2D showing near by.

Overheal

I was perfectly fine with Thor's arrival. It was explained with one line of dialog that actually said a few things. It explained how he got there without the Bifrost, it explained why he didn't just go there with an army from Asgard to just grab Loki.

Kind of a silly thing to get hung up on.

I assume the snipped Captain scenes will make it into his own film. This film wasn't about their individual stories, and I'm glad they didn't spend a lot of time trying to give each of the many characters in this film a bunch of "me" time, thats what they have their own films for. It's like in the damn comics. Go find a good mashup comic where each character gets to go on for pages and pages about their own Woe is Me issues. Doesn't happen - you will sooner see a tie-in issue published concurrently alongside it. Want a good example? Avengers vs. X-Men has kicked off this summer and in the 2nd issue there's a fight between Magneto and Iron Man. Fun, right? Except in the actual issue, it's shown in 2 frames. 2 ****ing frames. So go buy the tie-in, where those 2 go at it for - pages and pages! Huzzah! Wasn't a bad fight, either. You'd think it would have been a no-brainer, but it wasn't. Then the Thing and Namor go at it, but I wasn't that interested.

Point being all that crap would have killed the pacing of this movie, which was pretty spot on. Wasn't like say, Revenge of the Fallen, which had a bunch of shyte in it. Oh you're going to college here are your embarrasing parents; now here's the part where you get captured, and optimus dies - but EPIC BATTLE SCENE; slow ****; slow ****; hey a desert!; slow ****; BATTLE that goes on for what seems like 45 minutes that wasn't very interesting to begin with; Optimus is back, movie proceeds to end about 2 minutes later, abruptly. Linkin Park!

A good explanatory line here or there can help a lot. Especially if it's done well. Go watch A Few Good Men again. Pick up on all those little lines where they subtly fill the audience in on things that they need to know about the military to follow the plot, without being completely retarded about it. So again, Dark Matter. Deal with it I guess.

Mickeroo

Hadn't realised there was a scene with Peggy & Cap cut out. That is dissappointing, was kind of expecting it since I thought this was going to be Cap's adjusting to modern life movie rather than covering that in his own next movie. I remember they managed to fit that sdtuff into Ultimate Avengers Vol. 1 without any problems. Would have been good for the character but I guess they decided not to focus too much on one character in the end.

tunguska

Hats off to the Hollywood marketing machine, they hook me in everytime, even though I should know better. Read some very favorable reviews and thought that maybe they actually pulled it off, a decent mainstream superhero movie. But it was the same old same old, an impersonal, intergallatic threat to the world. To be fair there were some positives: Scarlett johansen in a catsuit, Thor is great, chris helsmworth comes across as a very likeable guy. And probably the best moment of the film was the crewman playing space invaders on the ships bridge, while nobody was looking.
The negatives were, a ridiculous plot that was so impersonal I didnt care. Scarlett is unbelievably hot but I just couldnt take her seriously as an action hero. The bad guy Loci, wasnt scary in any way, I read a review that said he came across like an irate fashion designer, have to agree with that. I'd heard so much about the Hulk stealing the show, but I didnt see that at all. Mark Ruffalo is normally great and to be fair to him he does his best here, but he just looks a little embarressed to be sprouting some of those lines. And there seemed to be some sort of gaps in the plot too, like one minute the hulk is wrecking the gaff and trying to put the hurt on the other avengers, next minute he's helping out, fighting alongside everybody????? Thats just amateur hour stuff there, how can they expect people to buy that.
All in all the whole thing just came across as kind of pointless. I know its a popcorn movie and all, but I dont buy this crap that you have to turn off your brain. Thats just an excuse people use for making a poor film.
I took another look at Watchmen the next day and its in a way higher league to the avengers. Watchmen is about something that matters, theres a lot being said, but its also an entertaining film.

Turtwig

It is perhaps both sad and significant that I find myself offering this solution to people complaining about the 3D. 3D - 2D Glasses.

As for the 3D, initially I was under the impression that this film wasn't going to have 3D in it all. Then Disney came along . . .
If you can go see it in 2D. If you can't then the glasses might be something worth investing for in the further.

Slightly OT. The Hobbit which uses even more advanced 3D again supposedly leads to a brighter screen with better immersion wasn't really well received at all. The High Frame itself leads to new problems, these may be resolved or it may just simply be a case of our eyes requiring adjusting but I have to say the conversion process from 2D to 3D is no where near as straight forward to the consumer as SD to HD.

Chavways

tunguska wrote: »

I'd heard so much about the Hulk stealing the show, but I didnt see that at all. Mark Ruffalo is normally great and to be fair to him he does his best here, but he just looks a little embarressed to be sprouting some of those lines. And there seemed to be some sort of gaps in the plot too, like one minute the hulk is wrecking the gaff and trying to put the hurt on the other avengers, next minute he's helping out, fighting alongside everybody????? Thats just amateur hour stuff there, how can they expect people to buy that.

Have you seen the Incredible Hulk? The reasoning behind this is all explained a few pages back in the thread.

johnny_ultimate

Overheal wrote: »

Point being all that crap would have killed the pacing of this movie, which was pretty spot on. Wasn't like say, Revenge of the Fallen, which had a bunch of shyte in it. Oh you're going to college here are your embarrasing parents; now here's the part where you get captured, and optimus dies - but EPIC BATTLE SCENE; slow ****; slow ****; hey a desert!; slow ****; BATTLE that goes on for what seems like 45 minutes that wasn't very interesting to begin with; Optimus is back, movie proceeds to end about 2 minutes later, abruptly. Linkin Park!

Comparing it to the single worst blockbuster ever made by Hollywood isn't the most ideal comparison. Any film that doesn't feature rampant racial stereotyping is automatically superior to Revenge of the Fallen. 'Better than Transformers' is a quote rolled out a lot for blockbusters these days - and yeah, of course The Avengers is significantly better than Transformers - but it's kind of like trying to compare The Room to the Three Colours Trilogy.

tunguska wrote: »

I took another look at Watchmen the next day and its in a way higher league to the avengers. Watchmen is about something that matters, theres a lot being said, but its also an entertaining film.

The Avengers is a majestic masterpiece compared to the overblown pomp of the Watchmen adaptation. The graphic novel, sure, there's an argument for that. But I'd watch Joss Whedon direct traffic before I'd watch Zack Snyder direct a film again.

don ramo

Corholio wrote: »

What? Yes I did. I was talking about the context within the Avengers film, what happened in the previous Hulk has nothing to do with the pacing of this one.

What's your problem anyway, just because I have a different opinion.

im only explaining what your on about, The Incredible Hulk is a "lead-up" film to the avengers, if you haven't seen it then you will not understand one or two things about hulk, like if you haven't seen Thor or Iron Man or Captain America, there were things in The Avengers that would probably seem odd if you haven't seen the "lead-up" films,

this film has been years in the making and had 5 films made leading up to this film, the film makers do there best to help people that haven't seen any of the previous films, but there is only so much you can explain about 6 different main characters in 2.5 hrs and put on a good show,

Sad Professor

I finally got to see this - in 2D. It felt a bit long, but I enjoyed it. I thought Whedon did a good job balancing all the characters, with the exception of Thor who seemed shortchanged compared to the others.

Overheal

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Comparing it to the single worst blockbuster ever made by Hollywood isn't the most ideal comparison. Any film that doesn't feature rampant racial stereotyping is automatically superior to Revenge of the Fallen. 'Better than Transformers' is a quote rolled out a lot for blockbusters these days - and yeah, of course The Avengers is significantly better than Transformers - but it's kind of like trying to compare The Room to the Three Colours Trilogy.

Otacon

Sad Professor wrote: »

I finally got to see this - in 2D. It felt a bit long, but I enjoyed it. I thought Whedon did a good job balancing all the characters, with the exception of Thor who seemed shortchanged compared to the others.

I think Thor seemed short-changed because he had the smallest arc. He basically ends the movie as he starts, with little character progression.

Overheal

Sad Professor wrote: »

I finally got to see this - in 2D. It felt a bit long, but I enjoyed it. I thought Whedon did a good job balancing all the characters, with the exception of Thor who seemed shortchanged compared to the others.

I have to disagree there, especially with how he got to school Hulk on the helicarrier.

Waiting.... waiting.... *rawrrr!* .... waiting.... waiting.... *RAWR!* .... Hi Hammer! BOOOOM.

tunguska wrote: »

HAnd there seemed to be some sort of gaps in the plot too, like one minute the hulk is wrecking the gaff and trying to put the hurt on the other avengers, next minute he's helping out, fighting alongside everybody????? Thats just amateur hour stuff there, how can they expect people to buy that.

For one, they touched on this with the old man, the rubble, the naked Ruffalo, etc. and explaining that Hulk steered his landing site away from any nearby people. So he knew going into the next fight that he would probably be able to exercise some level of control over the id, whereas before Banner thought it was hopeless to try.

For the other, Hulk as an id will pick a fight with whatever is big and meanest. In the city fight, this was definitely the Chitauri. Or, when no other Chitauri are available, punch Thor.

Bullseye1

Mickeroo wrote: »

Hadn't realised there was a scene with Peggy & Cap cut out. That is dissappointing, was kind of expecting it since I thought this was going to be Cap's adjusting to modern life movie rather than covering that in his own next movie. I remember they managed to fit that sdtuff into Ultimate Avengers Vol. 1 without any problems. Would have been good for the character but I guess they decided not to focus too much on one character in the end.

Hopefully they releases an extended edition on blu ray.

paddy kerins

Saw it again yesterday. Much better in 2D, found it a lot easier to follow without the distraction of the 3D glasses. Unfortunately though there was a group of about 10 kids sitting behind me who copied everything the Hulk did and shouting every chance they could :mad:

Corholio

don ramo wrote: »

im only explaining what your on about, The Incredible Hulk is a "lead-up" film to the avengers, if you haven't seen it then you will not understand one or two things about hulk, like if you haven't seen Thor or Iron Man or Captain America, there were things in The Avengers that would probably seem odd if you haven't seen the "lead-up" films,

this film has been years in the making and had 5 films made leading up to this film, the film makers do there best to help people that haven't seen any of the previous films, but there is only so much you can explain about 6 different main characters in 2.5 hrs and put on a good show,

I have seen it. I felt the Hulk's character in the context of transformation in this film could have been done better.

Sad Professor

Oh and what was with the 1.85:1 aspect ratio? It was very unusual for such a big film. Serenity was 2.35:1. Maybe for whatever reason they wanted the taller frame, but it still strikes me as very strange. With all these fake IMAX/3D cinemas all over the place, it wouldn't surprise me if there's pressure put on directors to shoot in 16:9.

stuchyg

went to see it earlier in dundrum in 3-d, id have rathered normal-d but it wasnt an option. I had seen all previous Marvel movies barring iron man 2 and really enjoyed avengers, will be watching again when released on dvd