The Avengers (2012) *spoilers from post 1181*

brianregan09

Exactly same as myself grew up reading about the Avengers and watching the comics, and im actually happy that Spiderman is at another studio same with X-men because they both have there own massive convaluted continuitys , spidey or wolverine weren;t original Avengers anyway :P

Also doubt Banner will be in IM3 as marvel has repeatedly said that Tony is gonna have to go it alone here (they learned from IM2)

Mickeroo

krudler wrote: »

outside Batman and Superman a lot of DC characters are...kinda sh1te tbh. Its prob why so few of them make it to movies, and the ones that do arent very good, like Green Lantern. the Marvel universe tends to be more movie friendly, just imo though

Can't say I agree with that, Green Lantern is a brilliant character as is the Flash. Don't judge GL on his crappy movie. Jesus, if they made a proper JLA movie I don't think I'd be able to contain myself.

krudler

brianregan09 wrote: »

Exactly same as myself grew up reading about the Avengers and watching the comics, and im actually happy that Spiderman is at another studio same with X-men because they both have there own massive convaluted continuitys , spidey or wolverine weren;t original Avengers anyway :P

Also doubt Banner will be in IM3 as marvel has repeatedly said that Tony is gonna have to go it alone here (they learned from IM2)

I'd say Banner will have a cameo or bit part at least, although Marvel prob wont want Banner in a movie without the Hulk appearing, since Hulk gets most of the big audience pleasing moments in Avengers it'd be silly to not have him go green at least once if he does make an appearance, but then they might want to keep the individual characters in their own movies and the team only in Avengers sequels, who knows.

krudler

Mickeroo wrote: »

Can't say I agree with that, Green Lantern is a brilliant character as is the Flash. Don't judge GL on his crappy movie. Jesus, if they made a proper JLA movie I don't think I'd be able to contain myself.

I meant more Aquaman and Wonder Woman :pac:

Mickeroo

krudler wrote: »

I meant more Aquaman and Wonder Woman :pac:

Haha, I get you! Having said that they've had some damn good storylines too!

Galvasean

pixelburp wrote: »

Impossible to figure out of course, but I'd be curious to know what the highest grossing movie is on a single view per person.

I believe Gone With The wind is still the 'most popular' film having sold more individual cinema tickets than any other film.

Gonzo

saw this movie in 3D and it ruined the film on me. I will never go see a 3D movie ever again. Rewatched it in 2D and it's much better.

Zubeneschamali

Otacon wrote: »

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

Thank Christ Whedon has more sense than to fake up some bullsh!t just to tick a box that says every character has an arc.

Zubeneschamali

jaykhunter wrote: »

I wish Box Office Mojo would divide the revenue a film brings in by the average ticket price that year, so we could get a more accurate representation of how popular a film actually is.

You mean like this?

Avengers is at #105 in the list, if you don't care to click through, just ahead of Shrek 3, and behind Shrek.

jaykhunter

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You mean like this?

Kind of! Except these adjust every film ever to today's ticket prices, so the numbers will change each year - instead of dividing gross by the ave ticket price that year - the numbers would stay the same; i.e. estimated tickets sold.

For example, Star Wars brought in $775,398,007 total. The average ticket price in 1977 is $2.23. So it sold an estimated 347,712,111 tickets. That final number will always stay the same.

By comparison, AVATAR brought in $2,782,275,172 with an average ticket price of $7.50 (although this might be inaccurate as it was only/mostly shown in 3D, right?) So anyway by these numbers it sold 370,970,023 tickets.

Of course it'd be more accurate finding out the % seen in 3D and ave price per country etc but I think estimated tickets sold it makes for a far more interesting discussion/objective view! Also it annoys me that they look much closer at domestic gross, despite international generally doubling the box office or better!

Zubeneschamali

jaykhunter wrote: »

instead of dividing gross by the ave ticket price that year - the numbers would stay the same; i.e. estimated tickets sold.

Ah, you mean like this.

Avengers is still 105, of course, and Gone with the wind is still 4 times its total.

don ramo

jaykhunter wrote: »

Kind of! Except these adjust every film ever to today's ticket prices, so the numbers will change each year - instead of dividing gross by the ave ticket price that year - the numbers would stay the same; i.e. estimated tickets sold.

For example, Star Wars brought in $775,398,007 total. The average ticket price in 1977 is $2.23. So it sold an estimated 347,712,111 tickets. That final number will always stay the same.

By comparison, AVATAR brought in $2,782,275,172 with an average ticket price of $7.50 (although this might be inaccurate as it was only/mostly shown in 3D, right?) So anyway by these numbers it sold 370,970,023 tickets.

Of course it'd be more accurate finding out the % seen in 3D and ave price per country etc but I think estimated tickets sold it makes for a far more interesting discussion/objective view! Also it annoys me that they look much closer at domestic gross, despite international generally doubling the box office or better!

yeah spot on, case and point Avatar $700+million american domestic, $2+billion internationally,

film success should be rated by the simple calculations of bums on seats, obviously for now and for a while yet breaking a billion dollars at the box office will be a big deal, maybe in 10 years when it costs $400million dollars to make a romantic comedy a billion dollars will be a failure:D

CL7

krudler wrote: »

I was at it earlier it was on in the luxury screen in 2D, dont think its on for the later shows though

Saw it last night, excellent. The 3D was pointless like most people said on here though. Was impressed with the new cinema as well. Going to go back there again later this week and watch it in 2D.

jaykhunter

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ah, you mean like this. Avengers is still 105, of course, and Gone with the wind is still 4 times its total.

Almost! That one does the estimated tickets, but for just the US -- can u find a page that includes international (i.e. total revenue)?

Nervous Wreck

Mickeroo wrote: »

Can't say I agree with that, Green Lantern is a brilliant character as is the Flash. Don't judge GL on his crappy movie. Jesus, if they made a proper JLA movie I don't think I'd be able to contain myself.

I actually liked the GL movie.... It wasn't the best but it was certainly better than I was expecting it to be! And it set up nicely for a sequel (that will probably never happen even though ****ing Ghost Rider got a sequel :mad: ).

I agree though, there are some good characters and good stories to tell in the DC universe! I can't see a JLA movie happening in the next 15 years though tbh. As said, although Batman has been incredibly successful, there hasn't really been a critically successful Superman movie since Superman II. DC seems well able to produce fantastic storylines for films (individual characters and JLA alike) but they're mostly in the animated incarnations. I wanna see a live action movie!

Penn

Anyone else hear about some adoption organisation is upset because of Thor's "He's adopted" line? They're saying that the film is trying to imply that Loki is the bad buy because he was adopted. Heard it this morning on the Hollywood Babble-On podcast.

F*cking ridiculous if true. People will take any chance to be offended at anything. The joke isn't that Loki was adopted. The joke is that Thor was defending him but when he found out what he did he tried to weasel out of it by saying that to distance himself from Loki.

Another source

Nervous Wreck

Penn wrote: »

Anyone else hear about some adoption organisation is upset because of Thor's "He's adopted" line? They're saying that the film is trying to imply that Loki is the bad buy because he was adopted. Heard it this morning on the Hollywood Babble-On podcast.

F*cking ridiculous if true. People will take any chance to be offended at anything. The joke isn't that Loki was adopted. The joke is that Thor was defending him but when he found out what he did he tried to weasel out of it by saying that to distance himself from Loki.

Another source

I hate the world....

don ramo

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I actually liked the GL movie.... It wasn't the best but it was certainly better than I was expecting it to be! And it set up nicely for a sequel (that will probably never happen even though ****ing Ghost Rider got a sequel :mad: ).

I agree though, there are some good characters and good stories to tell in the DC universe! I can't see a JLA movie happening in the next 15 years though tbh. As said, although Batman has been incredibly successful, there hasn't really been a critically successful Superman movie since Superman II. DC seems well able to produce fantastic storylines for films (individual characters and JLA alike) but they're mostly in the animated incarnations. I wanna see a live action movie!

there has been rumblings of a JLA movie for a year or two, DC are on about rebooting batman almost immediately after TDKR,

Superman (Man of Steel) is being rebooted right now, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770828/ , due for release next June,

while Green Lantern exploded all over the place so did the Ang Lees Hulk, so no reason it couldn't be rebooted in 2 or 3 years,

surely they could update Wonder Woman a bit to appeal to audiences, as they could with Green Arrow and The Flash,

i was never into comics but looking at what Marvel have acheived without some of there most recognizable names available to them, shows that with the right idea and the right people it can be done,

Mickeroo

I guarantee after the success of Avengers WB will want to do a JLA movie, thats the way hollwood works sure, if something makes big money the other studios will try and emulate it.

Handsome Bob

I thought GL was absolute muck, typified by that speech Hal gave to the villain about how he was chosen, I thought that he came across as a bit of a dickhead.

spankmaster2000

Mickeroo wrote: »

I guarantee after the success of Avengers WB will want to do a JLA movie, thats the way hollwood works sure, if something makes big money the other studios will try and emulate it.

George Miller actually made a decent stab at making a Justive League film a few years ago.
Although it was eventually canned; I do remember reading about the entire cast, being on-set while fully costumed; even if it was only for a few hours.

Those are some spy-shots from a set I'd love to have seen!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_League_Mortal#Canceled_film

krudler

CL7 wrote: »

Saw it last night, excellent. The 3D was pointless like most people said on here though. Was impressed with the new cinema as well. Going to go back there again later this week and watch it in 2D.

they've ended the 2D run afaik, asked them during the week, they have a facebook page and are good for answering questions on it though so if enough people ask they might run it in 2D again. its a balls that not only is 2D getting less showings but it ends its run first.

Mickeroo

spankmaster2000 wrote: »

George Miller actually made a decent stab at making a Justive League film a few years ago.
Although it was eventually canned; I do remember reading about the entire cast, being on-set while fully costumed; even if it was only for a few hours.

Those are some spy-shots from a set I'd love to have seen!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_League_Mortal#Canceled_film

Yeah I remember that, it was going to be a seperate universe from the Nolan & Singer ones with a younger cast iirc.

Would have been interesting to see how it would have worked without lead up movies like the Avengers had the luxury of.I guess supes and bats would have been the main focus.

There was also a Superman/Batman team-up movie in the works being directed by Wolfgang Peterson at one point, though it was being billed as Superman Vs. Batman.

Nervous Wreck

Mickeroo wrote: »

Would have been interesting to see how it would have worked without lead up movies like the Avengers had the luxury of.I guess supes and bats would have been the main focus.

If DC were to do a JLA movie, some lead-ups would be essential.

Galvasean

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I hate the world....

constitutionus

got around to watching it again last friday in the new IMC cinema in tallght and went to the 3D showing .

now im NOT a fan of 3D.

Im not rabidly against it like some ,but ive gotten sick of seeing such half arsed versions of it that it may as well not exist.

but sweet jesus the 3D in this was actually very good !

now maybe its the cinema. supposedly its state of the art and the glasses i got arent like the ones i get in liffey valley and were easier to put over my own but none of the things that usually piss me off were apparent.

the screen was nice and bright and some fecking how it even made caps outfit looks better (i really dont understand that one, i hated his helmet in 2d but it blended in better here).

3D is still something ill only go to on a rare occasion if i can help it but it wasnt the disaster i expected in this, particularly some of the flying shots though new york. gave me a bit of hope for the spidey film. and they avoided some of the more obvious tropes (i wouldve sworn blind that bit with the helicopter going down at the begining with the blades hitting the ground would be in 3D but it wasnt.)

fair play to em.

i'd actually have no prob advising people to see it in that format and im lost to think of another action film beyond avatar that i can say that about.

krudler

overheard someone arguing about how Stark could have fallen back through the portal once on the other side if there's no gravity in space, guess the earths gravity was strong enough to pull him back through as he wasnt that far past it the wormhole/portal thingy

Penn

krudler wrote: »

overheard someone arguing about how Stark could have fallen back through the portal once on the other side if there's no gravity in space, guess the earths gravity was strong enough to pull him back through as he wasnt that far past it the wormhole/portal thingy

I was more so thinking the explosion of the missile hitting the Chitauri ship/base may have also pushed him towards the portal, then allowing gravity to pull him back through

mikhail

krudler wrote: »

overheard someone arguing about how Stark could have fallen back through the portal once on the other side if there's no gravity in space, guess the earths gravity was strong enough to pull him back through as he wasnt that far past it the wormhole/portal thingy

I am unable to perform the necessary piece of relativistic calculus to tell whether gravity would have an effect through a circular aperture (ignoring for a moment the physics the aperture itself). At least I know I haven't a clue how that'd work though.

jcsoulinger

I seen this at the weekend, I taught it was good just a little kiddish for my taste but fully expected that going in so its not a real fault of the film. Would give it 7 out of 10.

Dont know if someone asked this in the thread before but in the hulks first appearance in the film he is totally out of control but in his second freak out he seems to know exactly what hes doing, this inconsistency really grinded my gears.