The Avengers *sigh*
- Thread starter Bill Felix
- Start date
Galactus. I'm not sure how they could pull off a win, but it would proably be much better than the Fantastic Four sequel, where Silver Surfer ALONE could destroy Galactus.
Alternately, Doctor Doom. While he is generally Fantastic Four material, some of his plans are epic enough to involve all of the Avengers...and more.
Alternately, Doctor Doom. While he is generally Fantastic Four material, some of his plans are epic enough to involve all of the Avengers...and more.
Anyone else think Loki looks way too strung out there with Tony? I think it's the hair. Either way, the whole "I have an army" thing is not really a Loki kind of line to me. Loki snarks and teases and talks down to people. Or at least to mortals since he thinks he's above them. He doesn't try to threaten or intimidate people outright like that. That's more Thor's M.O.
If Loki is involved, I'm hoping they will bring in the Mangog. It's about the only threat that's credible enough for Thor to NEED the Avengers' help, since he got roflstomped nearly every time he tried to brute-force the thing.
Then again, the Mangog is an army in one body - a billion billion souls of a race enemy to the Asgardians and all their allies. That'd fit nicely under 'army', and Loki did manipulate it several times.
Then again, the Mangog is an army in one body - a billion billion souls of a race enemy to the Asgardians and all their allies. That'd fit nicely under 'army', and Loki did manipulate it several times.
Bill Felix said:
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.
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.
So... the movie? It's absolutely fantastic.
It was a balanced ensemble through most of it. Every single main character had roughly the same amount screen time and it didn't rely on one of them to carry the film.
And... it ticks nearly all the points that you mentioned.
A) Is longer and more developed than an hour and half film.
2 hours and 20 minutes iirc
B) Has a third act that isn't anti-climactic, stupid, or generic.
The start was slow but very interesting... which then builds up to non-stop AWESOME action
C) Give the mainstream audience a reason to care about the Avengers.
Hrm. Depends. I think most people would've already seen the other Marvel Films. So I'm guessing that the mainstream audience would love bringing Ironman, Captain America, The Hulk, and Thor together in one film.
That being said, Mark Ruffalo was great as the Hulk. I think he embodied Bruce Banner more than Edward Norton ever did.
All in all? The fears you posted are unfounded. They pulled it off.
Jared_Drake said:
Bill Felix said:
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.
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.
So... the movie? It's absolutely fantastic.
It was a balanced ensemble through most of it. Every single main character had roughly the same amount screen time and it didn't rely on one of them to carry the film.
And... it ticks nearly all the points that you mentioned.
A) Is longer and more developed than an hour and half film.
2 hours and 20 minutes iirc
B) Has a third act that isn't anti-climactic, stupid, or generic.
The start was slow but very interesting... which then builds up to non-stop AWESOME action
C) Give the mainstream audience a reason to care about the Avengers.
Hrm. Depends. I think most people would've already seen the other Marvel Films. So I'm guessing that the mainstream audience would love bringing Ironman, Captain America, The Hulk, and Thor together in one film.
That being said, Mark Ruffalo was great as the Hulk. I think he embodied Bruce Banner more than Edward Norton ever did.
All in all? The fears you posted are unfounded. They pulled it off.
No need to prove it to me, my original argument was looking kind of flimsy by the end of 2011.
Yeah, and that was pulled off well. I think, honestly, without the common plot threads/callbacks in the other movies, this one wouldn't have worked as well. Everyone fell into a certain role, and even the non super powered characters were able to steal scenes and be badass. There was also a surprising amount of comedy, most of it very well done.
Also, the best depiction of the Hulk in any movie, imho.
Also, the best depiction of the Hulk in any movie, imho.