The Avengers *sigh*

[Bill Felix]

Pardon the rant.

Am I the only one sick to death of all this Avengers tie-in crap in every Marvel film lately?

For one, they've been generating solid hype for the past 3-4 years. There's no way that film is going to live up to the hype, especially when Marvel has a very spotty track record with its films. Even with good directors the films have turned out to be relatively mediocre to bad.

Marvel has had its fair share of bad films, but it has even more mediocre and forgettable films. Example being The Incredible Hulk, Punisher: Warzone, and even Iron Man 2 which wasn't bad, it was just incredibly forgettable due to the fact that spent too much time shoehorning in comic references and had an anti-climactic Third Act.

I saw Thor a few weeks ago and, despite it being entertaining, I will forget it almost entirely in a month or so because it was ultimately generic.

The thing I absolutely despise about these films is that ever since the success of Iron Man, it feels like every following film was made just to set up the Avengers film. Say what you will about the Spider-Man and X-Men Trilogy, those movies were made for their own sake, not to set up some grand future plot.

My other problem, which will likely anger comic book fans, is manifest in a question: Who cares about the Avengers?

Seriously, Marvel makes films based on the mainstream popularity of the characters and/or groups.

For DC, the most popular and recognized superhero team is the Justice League. And I understand that the Avengers is basically the Marvel equivalent of the best hero group, but doesn't the most widely popular and recognized group in Marvel happen to be the X-Men? And after them, wouldn't it be the Fantastic Four?

If I was an average movie fan, with only a cursory knowledge of the Marvel universe (which happens to be correct), how would I ever know who the Avengers are outside of researching them?

More importantly, why would I care? The only truly good film (so far) that makes up the Avengers origin films is Iron Man. The only character I'm going to care about when the Avengers film rolls around is Tony Stark, because (unless Chris Evans turns in an A+ performance as Captain America) the rest of the Avengers are played by forgettable actors in forgettable films (for the most part).

Hell, Bruce Banner is being played by Mark Ruffalo instead of Edward Norton. So even if I did remember and like The Incredible Hulk (2008), I'd be watching a completely different actor as the Hulk.

They seem to be entirely dependent on Samuel L. Jackson to tie this together. And, while I like Samuel L. Jackson, having him appear for 2-5 minutes in each movie is only teasing me with a Nick Fury movie (which will undoubtedly be 10x more interesting) instead of patching together the Avengers mess.

Even with Joss Whedon directing, it doesn't change the fact that the Avengers film is a Marvel circle jerk that assumes that their previous movies were good enough to warrant the creation of this one.

If the Avengers (2012) is going to be a good movie (good enough to warrant its hype) than Marvel needs to pretend like it gives a shit and make something that:

A) Is longer and more developed than an hour and half film.
B) Has a third act that isn't anti-climactic, stupid, or generic.
C) Give the mainstream audience a reason to care about the Avengers.

Raeg over. Lemme know if you agree or think I'm entirely full of shit.

 

[DhampyrX2]

I think you need set up like this to make even a half-way decent Avengers film. Otherwise you get either an hour of mini-origin stories to fill in those unfamiliar with the comics about who everybody is or you get something like the first Power Rangers movie with no set-up whatsoever and no reason to care about any of the characters if you're not already a fan. Either option would seem sloppy and half-assed. Using a set of popular and decent movies to set up each character is the best compromise they had.

Granted I would have preferred to keep Norton as Hulk and thus far only Iron Man has done well enough to warrant a sequel but the movies are not bad. I thought they did a nice job of making an entertaining movie out of something that could have easily gone way too far over the top with Thor and I will admit to nerding out when I heard Ferirgno scream "Hulk SMASH!" in the fight scene with the Abomination.

Marvel besically made a new comic continuity with the movies that even those who don't like comics can follow.


Truth be told, I could see DC following this pattern. They've done it before with teases like Val Kilmer mentioning Metropolis in Batman and Robin. I could have easily dealt with a mention of Gotham and Batman finding its way into the Daily Planet in Superman returns. In a way it goes a long way into getting a whole new generation interested in the characters and thus buying the comics.

 

[shinzero01]

Yeah. I can't blame them for doing a bunch of intro flicks. I can blame them for Thor, which blatantly ended with "THOR WILL RETURN IN THE AVENGERS" being shown prior to the credits. Thor seemed like someone just wrote down the basic premise of Thor's origins and decided to film them and then tossed in the superfast/nonexistant romance with Portman's character that apparently developed entirely offscreen with the exception of a campfire scene.

I enjoyed the actual conflict of Iron Man 2 far more than in Iron Man 1, even though 2 did seem to be in a bit of a rush after Rhodes stole the suite that would become War Machine.

And yeah, I wish Edward Norton was still Banner. Never liked Ruffalo much but I guess he'd visually fit the look of Banner while he's playing vagrant. Some of the comics and animated movies made Banner seem a lot less physically able (and often unshaven) than Norton's portrayal was.

 

[Ordo]

Sorry I liked Thor, though it was a good movie with the only weak point being the romance. Also I like that they are taking the time to set up the avengers. It gives the entire universe a feel of continuity, a sense that these different origin stories were leading to the creation of something new and powerful.

 

[trevelyan1983]

I got into Marvel through Spidey and into X-Men through Spidey. Ditto Punisher, Deadpool, et cetera. At no time did I ever read or particularly care about The Avengers, except where they were occasionally crossed over.

So, I think Bill has a point.

 

[foesjoe]

I think you need set up like this to make even a half-way decent Avengers film.? Otherwise you get either an hour of mini-origin stories to fill in those unfamiliar with the comics about who everybody is or you get something like the first Power Rangers movie with no set-up whatsoever and no reason to care about any of the characters if you're not already a fan.? Either option would seem sloppy and half-assed.? Using a set of popular and decent movies to set up each character is the best compromise they had.

Granted I would have preferred to keep Norton as Hulk and thus far only Iron Man has done well enough to warrant a sequel but the movies are not bad.? I thought they did a nice job of making an entertaining movie out of something that could have easily gone way too far over the top with Thor and I will admit to nerding out when I heard Ferirgno scream "Hulk SMASH!" in the fight scene with the Abomination.?

Marvel besically made a new comic continuity with the movies that even those who don't like comics can follow.


Truth be told, I could see DC following this pattern.? They've done it before with teases like Val Kilmer mentioning Metropolis in Batman and Robin.? I could have easily dealt with a mention of Gotham and Batman finding its way into the Daily Planet in Superman returns.? In a way it goes a long way into getting a whole new generation interested in the characters and thus buying the comics.

I agree with this.

The Avengers are a group of superheroes, each with their own more or less complex backstory. Setting it up this way, with separate introduction films for each character, gets that out of the way so they can focus on plot and action in the actual Avengers film.

The only thing stopping my enthusiasm about the Avengers film is Joss Whedon, because he's the biggest hack to ever do any television or cinema production. I'd prefer Uwe Boll over Joss Whedon.

So far I've liked both Iron Man films and the Thor film. However, I think they tried to cram too much into the Thor film. Where they took two separate films to establish Tony Stark as an arrogant narcissistic cunt who then gets taken down several pegs and emerges at the end as a somewhat more humbled and wiser character, they packed all that character development into one 100 minute film with Thor, which is why it is somewhat weaker than the Iron Man films.

I still think this approach is preferable to simply diving into an Avengers film without any prior character introduction whatsoever. Without these origin films, the first Avenger film would probably be nothing but exposition and character introduction, leaving no room for developing a villain and an interesting plot. Which would be boring. If they had picked this approach, I can imagine movie-goers leaving the first film hugely disappointed, which would make it a lot harder for the second film to attract the mainstream audience.

However, even with all those character introductions out of the way, by the time the first Avenger film starts, there's still a huge risk the film will be boring and campy and nothing but a huge wank-fest because they hired Joss 'Biggest hack to ever live' Whedon to direct it.

 

[Dumbledork]

If they really need to do a Superhero team movie I'd prefer a Thunderbolts movie over an Avengers movie. Honestly, the concept of the Thunderbolts was really interesting at the beginning and I'd like to see that story arc turned into a movie.

 

[ragnarok1337]

Punisher: Warzone

They had a Punisher movie? Not that I particularly like the character, but I haven't heard anything about it.

Speaking of Justice League in an Avengers thread (blasphemy, I know), they need to start making more movies for other DC superheroes than just Batman and Superman. Green Lantern is a good start, but they need to make more.

And if Hal Jordan pulls a Kirk and finds an alien romantic interest (hell, pretty much any romance), I will be oh so very pissed. Which means that it will probably happen. When will movie makers realize that romance does NOT make everything better?

 

[Dumbledork]

There have been two Punisher movies as far as I know. If I remember correctly Dolph Lundgren played the Punisher in the first one.

 

[Bill Felix]

There have been two Punisher movies as far as I know. If I remember correctly Dolph Lundgren played the Punisher in the first one.

No one counts that one, lol. In that case, there are three Punisher films.

There's The Punisher (1989) with Lundgren, which is supposed to be as good as all of the forgotten 1980s and 1990s Marvel films (read: not very).

Then there's The Punisher (2004) starring Thomas Jane. This film was a large disappointment to fans because of how soft and non-brutal the Punisher came across as. Despite that, it was an entertaining movie to non-comic fans who weren't expecting that sort of thing.

Then there's Punisher: Warzone (2008) which stars Ray Stephenson (from that HBO show Rome) as Frank Castle. Warzone is dark, incredibly brutal and violent, and much more true to the comic vision of the Punisher. However, no one saw it because it's very hard to sell a comic book film that has a hard 'R' rating due to very gruesome violence. If you blinked back in 2008, you missed it. It's not bad, just ultimately mediocre.

Sorry I liked Thor, though it was a good movie with the only weak point being the romance. Also I like that they are taking the time to set up the avengers. It gives the entire universe a feel of continuity, a sense that these different origin stories were leading to the creation of something new and powerful.

*spoilers*

I didn't hate Thor, I just won't remember it because it didn't do anything particularly noteworthy. There's: a largely CGI fight scene early in the film that doesn't accomplish anything besides establishing characters, a scene where Thor fights that giant robot thing after getting his powers back, and then Thor vs. Loki. And Thor vs. Loki, the big third act fight, was quite short and anti-climactic. The most effective part of Thor happened after the credits, when Loki appears looking much more evil, entertaining, and dangerous.

*end spoilers*

I just don't think that films besides Iron Man have enough strength to constitute an Avengers film. Robert Downey Jr. is leagues above the other actors in a film that actually makes us care about his character because it gives time and effort to its development.

As it stands, the Avengers is basically Iron Man 3: The Avengers, because the majority of people will see it for Tony Stark and Robert Downey Jr.

That's just me though.

 

[ragnarok1337]

Kind of like X-Men was pretty much "Wolverine and the X-Men"?

 

[shinzero01]

Kind of like X-Men was pretty much "Wolverine and the X-Men"?

More like Wolverine, Rogue and the X-men. Then X3 just shat all over the trilogy.

I liked Punisher: Warzone, mainly because they portrayed the Punisher as an unstoppable killing machine with no mercy for villains. Also the heat seeking rocket vs parkour was golden. The only downside I saw in the movie was that the villain seemed to be a complete joke. His brother was even more of a joke and it was hard to even view them as threats even when they were killing people because their characters were so silly.

 

[Antimatter]

Punisher: Warzone

They had a Punisher movie? Not that I particularly like the character, but I haven't heard anything about it.

Speaking of Justice League in an Avengers thread (blasphemy, I know), they need to start making more movies for other DC superheroes than just Batman and Superman. Green Lantern is a good start, but they need to make more.

And if Hal Jordan pulls a Kirk and finds an alien romantic interest (hell, pretty much any romance), I will be oh so very pissed. Which means that it will probably happen. When will movie makers realize that romance does NOT make everything better?

Hall's had several romances in the comics though, both with other lanterns and with humans.

 

[DhampyrX2]

Punisher: Warzone

They had a Punisher movie? Not that I particularly like the character, but I haven't heard anything about it.

Speaking of Justice League in an Avengers thread (blasphemy, I know), they need to start making more movies for other DC superheroes than just Batman and Superman. Green Lantern is a good start, but they need to make more.

And if Hal Jordan pulls a Kirk and finds an alien romantic interest (hell, pretty much any romance), I will be oh so very pissed. Which means that it will probably happen. When will movie makers realize that romance does NOT make everything better?

Hall's had several romances in the comics though, both with other lanterns and with humans.

Since this is Hal Jordan he almost needs to have a romance with Carol Ferris at the time to set her up as a Star Sapphire. From the looks of the promos I could see them messing with things enough that he's fighting Parralax to start off, but you still need Carol Ferris in a Hal Jordan-era GL movie.



As for Thor, I agree the romance was tacked on poorly. It makes me wonder if some things were left on the cutting room floor that made it fit better. Honestly I would rather have seen more interaction with Sif than with Jane in the first movie.

And Robert Downey Jr makes the perfect Tony Stark because he has an eerie combination of the look, the real-life problems with alcohol, the charisma, and the acting chops to pull off Stark's character. I honestly can't picture anyone ELSE playing Iron Man.

 

[Bill Felix]

Do the Avengers have an iconic villain?

The Justice League has the Injustice Gang/Legion of Doom. The X-Men have the Brotherhood. Who do the Avengers have?

As far as villains go, these movies have teased Loki, Abomination, and Red Skull. The villains in both Iron Man movies died.

 

[shinzero01]

Do the Avengers have an iconic villain?

The Justice League has the Injustice Gang/Legion of Doom. The X-Men have the Brotherhood. Who do the Avengers have?

As far as villains go, these movies have teased Loki, Abomination, and Red Skull. The villains in both Iron Man movies died.

Avengers have a bunch.

if they could pull off Ultron, it'd be awesome. But theres no Hank Pym yet.

 

[Dumbledork]

Do the Avengers have an iconic villain?

The Justice League has the Injustice Gang/Legion of Doom. The X-Men have the Brotherhood. Who do the Avengers have?

As far as villains go, these movies have teased Loki, Abomination, and Red Skull. The villains in both Iron Man movies died.

Avengers have a bunch.

if they could pull off Ultron, it'd be awesome. But theres no Hank Pym yet.

There's also Baron Zemo and Modok

 

[biigoh]

Kang The Conquerer? ^_^

 

[DhampyrX2]

The Mandarin has yet to be introduced.

 

[Prince Charon]

Sorry I liked Thor, though it was a good movie with the only weak point being the romance. Also I like that they are taking the time to set up the avengers. It gives the entire universe a feel of continuity, a sense that these different origin stories were leading to the creation of something new and powerful.

Yeah, pretty much this, though I do think that a very good Avengers film is necessary, or there will be a lot of very annoyed fans, out there, both movie and comic.

EDIT: As for romance in films, they tend to tack that on a lot in the hope of getting (stereotypical) women to watch, without making it uninteresting to (stereotypical) men by overemphasizing it. All to often, this leads to half-assing either the action, the romance, or both. For Hal specifically, Carol is an essential part of his cast of characters, as of his origin, much as Lois is for Clark, once he gets to Metropolis.

 

[nick012000]

There have been two Punisher movies as far as I know. If I remember correctly Dolph Lundgren played the Punisher in the first one.

No one counts that one, lol. In that case, there are three Punisher films.

There's The Punisher (1989) with Lundgren, which is supposed to be as good as all of the forgotten 1980s and 1990s Marvel films (read: not very).

Then there's The Punisher (2004) starring Thomas Jane. This film was a large disappointment to fans because of how soft and non-brutal the Punisher came across as. Despite that, it was an entertaining movie to non-comic fans who weren't expecting that sort of thing.

Then there's Punisher: Warzone (2008) which stars Ray Stephenson (from that HBO show Rome) as Frank Castle. Warzone is dark, incredibly brutal and violent, and much more true to the comic vision of the Punisher. However, no one saw it because it's very hard to sell a comic book film that has a hard 'R' rating due to very gruesome violence. If you blinked back in 2008, you missed it. It's not bad, just ultimately mediocre.

Which punisher movie was it where he tortured a mob informer by lying to him about the effects of being blowtorched, then blowtorching a piece of steak and jabbing him with a popsicle, and where he killed the mob boss's son by forcing him to hold his arm out, putting a claymore in his hand, and attaching the tripwire to the ceiling so that when his arm got tired, the claymore would go off?

 

[trevelyan1983]

The Thomas Jane one, with Travolta as the mob boss.

 

[A Curious Stranger]

Can anyone explain why Joss Whedon apparently sucks? I haven't seen any of his shows but I've only heard good things about them.

 

[Deleted member 5249]

Can anyone explain why Joss Whedon apparently sucks? I haven't seen any of his shows but I've only heard good things about them.

I've never been a fan of Joss Whedon. He tends to insert drama for the sake of drama. From what I remember of Buffy he left me with the impression he kills characters for the sake of shocking the audience instead of it being meaningful.

I couldn't even stand Dollhouse or Firefly.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[MTing]

Can anyone explain why Joss Whedon apparently sucks? I haven't seen any of his shows but I've only heard good things about them.

He kills off characters to force them to grow. While most people have character growth as a long soul searching process, Joss Whendon just kills off a character to force character growth.