# The Avengers (SPOILERS BEWARE0



## horacethegrey (Apr 25, 2012)

Just watched it. Great film. And am here to give my ready assesment. So without further ado:




*SPOILERS BEWARE!!!!*

Anyone who doesn't want to be spoiled just skip my post.





LIKES:

*Joss Whedon* - Without a doubt, the reason this movie works is because of the man behind the camera. The mastermind behind Buffy and Firefly keeps the film tight and suspensful while keeping it focused on the characters. Of course, with Whedon comes his trademark humor, and the film abounds with numerous scenes of these heroes trading snark at each other. There's also hilarious moments of over the top superhero comedy that have to be seen to be believed (and laughed at).

*The Cast* - You'd think with so many characters on the plate, the film would have trouble keeping focus on each of them. Amazingly though, the movie succeeds in this regard, and each of the Avengers are given a proper chance to shine. There's Iron Man, played in all his snarky glory by Robert Downey Jr, and providing some of the most heroic moments in the film. Chris Hemsworth returns in all his noble glory as Thor, and aside from his godly feats he gets some nice scenes of brotherly angst with Loki. Chris Evans also makes his mark as the earnest and commanding Captain America. He becomes the leader the others rally behind with things going to hell. Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner also get some great moments as Black Widow and Hawkeye. While ScarJo looks hot and kicks ass, Renner will astound you with his amazing feats of archery (trust me, Legolas got nothing on this guy). But the biggest crowd pleaser has to be Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner aka The Incredible Hulk. Ruffalo plays Bruce with an eerie calm that belies the barely contained rage he happily lets out when things go south. The scenes of the Hulk smashing things are some of the best in the film.

*Loki *- But for every hero we need a villain. And despite being outnumbered, Loki proves more than an able adversary for the entire team. When we last left him in Thor, Loki was a confused and spiteful soul who wanted to do right by his family, but here he's a cunning and malicious psycho who clearly enjoys doing bad. And all the credit to Tom Hiddleston for playing the God of Mischief with gutso. One of the nest villain performances in a superhero film IMO.

*Action setpieces* - With every summer blockbuster of course comes the inevitable big a** setpieces. But what looks tired and labored in other films is actually exciting and inventive here. The attack on the SHEILD helicarrier  is one, while the attack on New York by Loki's alien allies echoes that of the war in Chicago in Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Only here, it's executed much better. Again, it's a credit to Whedon that he was able to build to such great sequences that kept the audience interested.

*After credtis teaser* - Well, more like after the initial credits teaser. Just one word: THANOS. 


DISLIKES:

*Thin storyline* - Despite all the praise I can heap on the performances, action and Joss Whedon's direction, the story is nothing to write home about. The whole thing is just Loki wanting to conquer Earth with his alien buddies. And his whole reasoing is because we humans are made to be subjugated? Lame.

*Maria Hill* - What was the point of her appearance? I don't think Cobie Smulders played the part bad, far from it. But her role seemed inconsequential.

*Agent Coulson's death* -  Argh. Damn you Whedon and your penchant for killing off likable supporting characters! 

All in all, great movie. But in comparsion to another team movie like _X-men First Class_, it falls somewhat short.


----------



## The Red King (Apr 25, 2012)

YAY Thanos!


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 25, 2012)

Just curious how you managed to watch Avengers a week and a half before it gets released.


----------



## theT0rmented (Apr 25, 2012)

It released today in many countries: The Avengers (2012) - Release dates


----------



## Relique du Madde (Apr 25, 2012)

I so hate you Whedon...   now all we have is the Fake Agent Colson from Battle Scars.. I hope he at lease went out like a bad ass.

-Posted via mobile device.


----------



## The Red King (Apr 25, 2012)

Seeing a movie before the official release date isnt hard.  You can do it legally even!  Mostly just knowing the right people will get you in.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 25, 2012)

[MENTION=6691104]The Red King[/MENTION] - true, I suppose. I have friends that write reviews, and they generally get to see movies early, but they aren't publishing opinions 10 days out. I just didn't realize that the US was getting the movie after almost the entire rest of the world.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 29, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> Just curious how you managed to watch Avengers a week and a half before it gets released.




Well, it was released a few days ago here in the UK, and I saw it on Friday.  It was AWESOME!

Hulk has the best moments in this movie, without doubt.  Since this is the SPOILERS BEWARE thread, I'll just say:





"I'm a god...."
SMASH SMASH SMASH SMASH SMASH
"PUNY GOD!"


----------



## Kzach (Apr 30, 2012)

I just saw it and I have to say, I want to go see it again!

Although there were loads of trademark Whedon-wit moments, I think my favourite has to be when Thor and Hulk land together after defeating the flying snake-eel thingy and Thor looks at Hulk as if to say, "Good job!" and then Hulk punches him in the face


----------



## megamania (Apr 30, 2012)

Must

see

on

saturday

despite

the

flipping

crowds

aaaarrrgh!  Smash!


----------



## qstor (Apr 30, 2012)

Morrus said:


> "I'm a god...."
> SMASH SMASH SMASH SMASH SMASH
> "PUNY GOD!"





You forgot the line "Hulk no like edition wars on ENworld. Hulk smash!"

Mike


----------



## jonesy (May 1, 2012)

So why are Americans getting it last? I saw it last week.


Best line of the movie wasn't even a line. It was a clink sound. Twice in a row. Everyone started laughing at the expression on Loki's face.

I thought the sequence starting from Hawkeye shooting at Loki and ending with Hulk attacking Loki was the best action sequence I remember ever seeing, just because of how much stuff happened between those two in a very short time and how well they meshed together.

The guy playing Coulson said something about the character not really being dead. Heard from a friend, don't know what the source was.

Also, Marvel's Thor and Captain America have never really been my favourites, and Hemsworth I've disliked in other movies, but in this movie both characters were good. (Especially after Cap lost that stupid half-mask).


----------



## Kzach (May 1, 2012)

jonesy said:


> The guy playing Coulson said something about the character not really being dead. Heard from a friend, don't know what the source was.




I wouldn't be surprised. Part of the motivation that got the Avengers to... umm... assemble, was Coulson's death. It was already indicated that Fury used the collectible cards as a prop to push them towards uniting and it was Coulson's idea in the first place that they needed that push. Also, we never actually saw anything but his legs being dragged off. Could've just been unconscious?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 1, 2012)

jonesy said:


> So why are Americans getting it last? I saw it last week.



A trick to combat piracy? A lot of people don't like waiting until a movie comes to them, and non-Americans are so used to it so they are accustomed to using piracy.

Or something with another movie starting in the US a week before?


----------



## Morrus (May 1, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> A trick to combat piracy? A lot of people don't like waiting until a movie comes to them, and non-Americans are so used to it so they are accustomed to using piracy.
> 
> Or something with another movie starting in the US a week before?




I'm sure these things are worked out with big cost-benefit spreadsheets which work out the ideal time to release it in any given location in order to maximise profits, taking into account other movies, other events, holidays, even the weather!


----------



## Kzach (May 1, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I'm sure these things are worked out with big cost-benefit spreadsheets which work out the ideal time to release it in any given location in order to maximise profits, taking into account other movies, other events, holidays, even the weather!




And yet, it's this exact method of thinking that results in rampant piracy. It's deliciously ironic


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 1, 2012)

I'm glad I avoided spoilers before seeing the movie. I saw it tonight and thought it was really, really great. I don't think I've seen the actor playing banner/hulk before, but I've never seen the hulk portrayed so well anywhere, ever. Every scene with him in was a showstopper, from him hunting Black Widow (no wonder she got into a bit of a funk) through to the Loki scene, Hulk was a pretty terrifying character!

All the characters were good, the scenes were great.

If I would have changed anything it might be to have given Renner more lines (although credit to him - this was a better hawkeye than I used to read in the 70's)

Cheers


----------



## jonesy (May 2, 2012)

Ruffalo has been given a contract for six movies with Marvel.

So that would be this one, a Hulk movie, an Avengers sequel, possibly an Iron Man sequel since they had him leave with him at the end, and then still two more.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 2, 2012)

jonesy said:


> So why are Americans getting it last? I saw it last week.




I think because Disney didnt want to slaughter the Hunger Games, and every other movie that came out last week.

-Posted via mobile device.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 2, 2012)

There are reports that the US release of the Avengers has ANOTHER post credit scene.  It's nothing earth shattering but it does seem to be the punchline of some joke since..

[sblock]
it's of the Avengers eating Shawarma at some deli?!?
[/sblock]


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2012)

Relique du Madde said:


> There are reports that the US release of the Avengers has ANOTHER post credit scene.  It's nothing earth shattering but it does seem to be the punchline of some joke since..
> 
> [sblock]
> it's of the Avengers eating Shawarma at some deli?!?
> [/sblock]




No need for spoiler tags in the spoiler thread. 

Yup. Stark makes a few cracks earlier in the movie about eating whatever the hell shwewaaarww whatever is. And the after credits scene shows them eating it.

Still no idea what schwammmrrraaarm or whatever it is, though.


----------



## Hal G (May 3, 2012)

Morrus said:


> No need for spoiler tags in the spoiler thread.
> 
> Yup. Stark makes a few cracks earlier in the movie about eating whatever the hell shwewaaarww whatever is. And the after credits scene shows them eating it.
> 
> Still no idea what schwammmrrraaarm or whatever it is, though.




*Shawarma* (Arabic: شاورما‎) is a popular Levantine Arab<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2]</sup> meat preparation, where lamb, goat, chicken, turkey, beef, or mixed meats are placed on a spit  (commonly a vertical spit in restaurants), and may be grilled for as  long as a day. Shavings are cut off the block of meat for serving, and  the remainder of the block of meat is kept heated on the rotating spit.  Although it can be served in shavings on a plate (generally with  accompaniments), "shawarma" also refers to a pita bread sandwich or wrap made with shawarma meat. Shawarma is eaten with tabbouleh, fattoush, taboon bread, tomato, and cucumber. Toppings include tahini, hummus, pickled turnips and amba. Shawarma is a fast-food staple across the Middle East, Europe and the Caucasus.


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 3, 2012)

Sort of like a gyro or doner kebab. (same thing, really) They are very tasty, especially the ones I had from the greasy spoon take-aways in Marmaris, Turkey when I was in the Navy. Yumm.

On topic - my wife bought tickets for a Saturday evening showing for my birthday present. Can't wait. Borrowed Iron Man from the library and gonna run a mini-marathon with it, Captain America, and Thor (which I own) in my house tomorrow and Friday.

Which Hulk movie are they using as a prequel (if any)--Eric Bana or Ed Norton?


----------



## Morrus (May 3, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> Sort of like a gyro or doner kebab. (same thing, really) They are very tasty, especially the ones I had from the greasy spoon take-aways in Marmaris, Turkey when I was in the Navy. Yumm.
> 
> On topic - my wife bought tickets for a Saturday evening showing for my birthday present. Can't wait. Borrowed Iron Man from the library and gonna run a mini-marathon with it, Captain America, and Thor (which I own) in my house tomorrow and Friday.
> 
> Which Hulk movie are they using as a prequel (if any)--Eric Bana or Ed Norton?




The movie doesn't direct,y reference either Hulk movie. The official tie-in comic series "Nick Fury's Big Week" (or something - can't remember the name) depicts Black Widow witnessing some of the events of the Norton movie.


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 3, 2012)

Thanks. If it doesn't really play with either, then I won't bother hitting up the library for them.


----------



## jonesy (May 3, 2012)

There were a couple of scenes where the computer screens Stark and Fury were looking at showed footage of Hulk (and other characters) from previous incidents, but the clips were seconds long, and I couldn't make out which Hulk movie they were referencing.

Edit: It's possible they weren't from either, since now that I think about it there were also clips of Hawkeye and Black Widow fighting together.


----------



## Kzach (May 3, 2012)

Could be a hint towards (yet) another Hulk movie given that whatshisface has signed a six movie deal with Marvel.


----------



## jonesy (May 3, 2012)

A lot of fans have been complaining about the lack of a russian accent when Black Widow speaks english, but it was stated in the comics that she can speak english without any accent at all if she wants to.

The funny thing is that she speaks russian at the beginning of Avengers and in an interview Scarlett said she had a good translator teaching her so she wouldn't sound like she was just reciting Berlitz.

Why funny? Because the answer from the comics from Black Widow regarding her excellent english goes: "long expensive hours at Berlitz". I think Josh might know that.


----------



## Jemal (May 4, 2012)

Just got back from one of the best movie experiences I've had in a long time... There were so many scenes where the laughter or cheering made me miss the next line!

And if he really is dead, at least Coulson went out with a very literal and awesome bang.. Blasting Loki with the BFG? "Oh, that's what it does"


----------



## Morrus (May 4, 2012)

Jemal said:


> And if he really is dead, at least Coulson went out with a very literal and awesome bang.. Blasting Loki with the BFG? "Oh, that's what it does"




I'm thinking that the cards being in his locker, not his pocket, was a hint that maybe he isn't and that Fury told them he was to get them to band together.  Thus the disapproving look from whoever it was that made that observation.


----------



## Joker (May 4, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I'm thinking that the cards being in his locker, not his pocket, was a hint that maybe he isn't and that Fury told them he was to get them to band together.  Thus the disapproving look from whoever it was that made that observation.




Why would they have that moment together as he said his last words?  Just in case a camera was on them?

Perhaps.  You can explain anything away with a few lines of dialogue.

[MENTION=56189]Kzach[/MENTION]:  The guy's name is Mark Ruffalo.  He's been in quite a few high profile movies.

After sitting through and being dissapointed by nearly every Marvel and DC movie adaption I can finally say I found one that was entirely entertaining.
I'm probably gonna watch a few more times.

Would have liked to see the carrier in action.  That would have been sweet.


----------



## Kzach (May 4, 2012)

Joker said:


> Why would they have that moment together as he said his last words?




To make the audience think that he was dead and thus heighten the impact of the moment as we experience it via our sympathetic connection to the protagonists. Joss has always been pretty good at creating a connection to the characters. It's the biggest reason why Buffy, Angel and Firefly are so popular.


----------



## Joker (May 4, 2012)

Kzach said:


> To make the audience think that he was dead and thus heighten the impact of the moment as we experience it via our sympathetic connection to the protagonists. Joss has always been pretty good at creating a connection to the characters. It's the biggest reason why Buffy, Angel and Firefly are so popular.




Cute.  Is this a meta film as well where some of the characters are aware of an audience that needs pleasing?


----------



## jonesy (May 4, 2012)

Joker said:


> Cute.  Is this a meta film as well where some of the characters are aware of an audience that needs pleasing?



I don't see what the connection you are making there is.

Making the audience relate to characters isn't meta. It's just standard storytelling. And Coulson was injured, at least. How badly is the question.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 4, 2012)

Just got back from seeing The Avengers.  Highly entertaining.  More thoughts later when time permits.


----------



## Felon (May 4, 2012)

Maybe Coulson will come back as The Crimson Cowl or The Invincible Man or the Black Lama. Or, maybe he's just dead.

I'd say this film is a pretty big step in the evolution of the superhero film (which has a ways to go from being fully realized). Singer and Nolan both set the tone for superhero films by playing down the fantastic elements. No "yellow spandex" for the X-Men. No crazy gadgets for the Joker. But in Avengers, we get fully costumed and branded heroes. We even get Loki in his longhorn hat. 

And Thanos. Wow. The cosmic villain-to-end-all-villains. I'm still geeking out over that.


----------



## Felon (May 4, 2012)

jonesy said:


> Also, Marvel's Thor and Captain America have never really been my favourites, and Hemsworth I've disliked in other movies, but in this movie both characters were good. (Especially after Cap lost that stupid half-mask).



Cap's costume was one of the few disappointments. The way the fabric bunched-up in certain places (like the neck) was decidedly Adam-Westish.

I halfway suspect that having proper wings on the helm (as in the comics) rather than being decals would have looked better, added the kind of length and weight that Batman's ears lend to Batman's mask.

Then again, I presage that one day in the not-too-distant future, masks will become rare for superheroes, much as capes have become today.


----------



## Morrus (May 4, 2012)

Felon said:


> Cap's costume was one of the few disappointments. The way the fabric bunched-up in certain places (like the neck) was decidedly Adam-Westish.
> 
> I halfway suspect that having proper wings on the helm (as in the comics) rather than being decals would have looked better, added the kind of length and weight that Batman's ears lend to Batman's mask.
> 
> Then again, I presage that one day in the not-too-distant future, masks will become rare for superheroes, much as capes have become today.




How can there be any disappointment in a film filled with so much glorious HULK SMASH? The rest of the movie could have been an extended toothpaste commercial, and it would still have been awesome. Because, y'know....

HULK SMASHED!


----------



## Felon (May 4, 2012)

Morrus said:


> How can there be any disappointment in a film filled with so much glorious HULK SMASH? The rest of the movie could have been an extended toothpaste commercial, and it would still have been awesome. Because, y'know....
> 
> HULK SMASHED!



Y'know, the sad thing is I used to love Hulk as a kid, but I've been disheartened by years of superhero RPG'ing. Nobody ever wants to play Batman or Captain America or Spider-Man. Everybody wants to be Hulk or Tick or some other lunk. It's been very rare that I've found a player who fantasizes about being clever or resourceful hero rather than simply a powerful, dumb, violent one. 

Still love The Hulk, certainly love what they do with him in The Avengers, but on the other hand, he represents a bit of a bette noir.


----------



## Kzach (May 4, 2012)

Felon said:


> Y'know, the sad thing is I used to love Hulk as a kid, but I've been disheartened by years of superhero RPG'ing. Nobody ever wants to play Batman or Captain America or Spider-Man. Everybody wants to be Hulk or Tick or some other lunk. It's been very rare that I've found a player who fantasizes about being clever or resourceful hero rather than simply a powerful, dumb, violent one.



Funny, I've always wanted to play in a super's game with a character I invented called "Blackout". Although he had a significant power (could drain electricity around him and redirect it) and was good at hand to hand and acrobatics, his main strength was being resourceful and clever and using his enemies weaknesses against them as well as his allies strengths and would often take down his enemies (think King Pin style gangs) through cunning manipulation of events (think Burn Notice) rather than direct conflict.


----------



## Jemal (May 5, 2012)

Felon said:


> Y'know, the sad thing is I used to love Hulk as a kid, but I've been disheartened by years of superhero RPG'ing. Nobody ever wants to play Batman or Captain America or Spider-Man. Everybody wants to be Hulk or Tick or some other lunk. It's been very rare that I've found a player who fantasizes about being clever or resourceful hero rather than simply a powerful, dumb, violent one.




Odd, considering how many super-hero games I play, and I've found quite the opposite.  Most of the characters I encounter are more finesse/wit than brute smash.  The brute characters often have less to contribute outside of straight fighting.

And as far as Coulson, I can totally see Fury smearing the cards in his blood for that extra added push.  Why let such a good man die and not make his death mean something?


----------



## Azgulor (May 5, 2012)

Morrus said:


> The movie doesn't direct,y reference either Hulk movie. The official tie-in comic series "Nick Fury's Big Week" (or something - can't remember the name) depicts Black Widow witnessing some of the events of the Norton movie.




Actually, the Norton film is referenced.  Banner makes a reference to it when he tells Black Widow "Last time I was in New York, I kind of broke Harlem." (or something close) which references the climactic battle of that film.

Additionally, there's the Iron Man cameo/tie-in in that film and "The Consultant" short on the Thor DVD that directly links the Norton film with the Avengers by cementing the Hulk-Shield-Iron Man connection.


----------



## jonesy (May 5, 2012)

Interview with Kevin Feige, Marvel Entertainment CEO:
AVENGERS EXCLUSIVE: Kevin Feige Interview - SPOILER WARNING!!!

He talks about Coulson at the end. What happened wasn't up to Josh, it was a decision by Marvel.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 5, 2012)

jonesy said:


> Interview with Kevin Feige, Marvel Entertainment CEO:
> AVENGERS EXCLUSIVE: Kevin Feige Interview - SPOILER WARNING!!!
> 
> He talks about Coulson at the end. What happened wasn't up to Josh, it was a decision by Marvel.




Sadly the Marvel 616 U now has Agent Coulson and a black Nick Fury (Jr.)... so there is little reason to rez him for now..  Of course he could always have been a skrull, doombot or living decoy...


----------



## Zaukrie (May 5, 2012)

Just saw it. The entire audience laughed, and laughed hard and long when Hulk smashed Loki. Great, great movie. Had to see it in 3D, and the 3D never got in the way. It was actually pretty good.

But really, that was a great movie.


----------



## Joker (May 5, 2012)

jonesy said:


> I don't see what the connection you are making there is.
> 
> Making the audience relate to characters isn't meta. It's just standard storytelling. And Coulson was injured, at least. How badly is the question.




I didn't explain myself right.  My initial question had nothing to do with the concepts of character development or building sympathy with the audience.
Earlier in the thread some people hypothesized that Coulson might not be dead because we don't see him actually dead dead.  I inferred from this that some people thought that him and Nick Fury were plotting to get the Avengers together by faking his death.  I contended that it would be strange to have a final words death scene if they were in cahoots on this.

As an aside, do people in other places have the option of seeing it as a regular IMAX version?  Here in Amsterdam I can choose between 3D and IMAX 3D.  3D still feels a bit like a watching a really good cam or watching your neighbours TV, from outside.


----------



## Kzach (May 5, 2012)

Joker said:


> Earlier in the thread some people hypothesized that Coulson might not be dead because we don't see him actually dead dead.  I inferred from this that some people thought that him and Nick Fury were plotting to get the Avengers together by faking his death.  I contended that it would be strange to have a final words death scene if they were in cahoots on this.



I don't see what's so strange about it. Obviously he was critically injured and dying was a real possibility. After being taken to an infirmary he could be alive or dead due to his injuries, we don't know. But that scene is perfectly valid either way.


----------



## Joker (May 5, 2012)

Kzach said:


> I don't see what's so strange about it. Obviously he was critically injured and dying was a real possibility. After being taken to an infirmary he could be alive or dead due to his injuries, we don't know. But that scene is perfectly valid either way.




Yeah, I mentioned that it could explained away with a few lines of dialogue in a later movie.  I'm not criticizing the scene or its effect in any way.  All I'm saying is that there is nothing in the movie, as is, that shows that Nick Fury and Coulson had planned to push the Avengers into action by faking his death.


----------



## Felon (May 5, 2012)

Kzach said:


> Funny, I've always wanted to play in a super's game with a character I invented called "Blackout". Although he had a significant power (could drain electricity around him and redirect it) and was good at hand to hand and acrobatics, his main strength was being resourceful and clever and using his enemies weaknesses against them as well as his allies strengths and would often take down his enemies (think King Pin style gangs) through cunning manipulation of events (think Burn Notice) rather than direct conflict.






Jemal said:


> Odd, considering how many super-hero games I play, and I've found quite the opposite.  Most of the characters I encounter are more finesse/wit than brute smash.  The brute characters often have less to contribute outside of straight fighting.



Yes, this is always the kind of stuff I hear, and never the kind of stuff I experience. More frustrating with each passing year.


----------



## Kzach (May 5, 2012)

Felon said:


> Yes, this is always the kind of stuff I hear, and never the kind of stuff I experience. More frustrating with each passing year.




Run an online game?


----------



## MarkB (May 5, 2012)

I've played in a number of superhero games with friends locally (one of our regular GMs is an absolute Marvel fan and likes experimenting with lots of different systems to see which captures the superhero experience best), and we've generally never had more than one player go the heavy-hitter route.

Those that do often find that it turns out to be a one-note character who has little to do in many situations.


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2012)

Joker said:


> I inferred from this that some people thought that him and Nick Fury were plotting to get the Avengers together by faking his death. I contended that it would be strange to have a final words death scene if they were in cahoots on this.




Your inferral is slightly wrong.  Those of us who think this might be a possibiity don't so much think they fakes his death - just that they (and by "they" I mean Fury) opportunistically didn't mention he'd survived.


----------



## jonesy (May 5, 2012)

Here's an interesting interview with Whedon:
Joss Whedon's Batman, How Black Widow Nearly Got The Axe & 15 More Revelations


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 5, 2012)

Great movie. Honestly, I can't believe it was this good. Even with the crop of good Marvel movies from Marvel Studios, I'd grown cynical. I love Joss, don't get me wrong. But as much as thought he'd be perfect for The Avengers, a part of me thought it was just to good to be true. A lot of the best superhero movies had come from directors who you wouldn't think would ever do it. Apt Pupil doesn't exactly scream "this guy would love to do X-Men!" 

But he did it. And, in doing so, saved a few other things for me:

First, The Hulk. I like Norton's Hulk, so I wasn't sure how I was going to like Mark Ruffalo. Also, Hulk wasn't in the trailers a lot. (I'm assuming because he was still being added to to movie in post.) But man, Ruffalo and Joss nailed Hulk. And Banner works really well as a cold cynic. Really well.

Favorite Hulk scene: when Hulk runs out of bad guys to punch, he causally hits Thor. There was actually a beat there where I thought "he's run of bad guys, I wonder what he's going to do."

Second, Sam Jackson. For the past few years, his movie choices have sucked. Seriously, Jumper? I can only assume he read a better script. I actually think this is probably one of his best movies ever. 

There was only one problem for me, Captain America, and it's not a big one. First, his helmet/mask sucked. I just didn't work for me. Given how awesome his costume was in his movie, it was a big let down.

Also, I don't think Joss knows how to write the kind of hero Cap his. So he seemed written stiff and stilted. Unnatural. Given, however, Cap's situation, I think it worked out.



jonesy said:


> A lot of fans have been complaining about the lack of a russian accent when Black Widow speaks english, but it was stated in the comics that she can speak english without any accent at all if she wants to.



Well, in the interest of fanwanking, I don't think she'd be a good spy for the U.S. (or, at least what clearly seems to be U.S. controlled agency) if she couldn't speak english with an american accent. 



Felon said:


> Y'know, the sad thing is I used to love Hulk as a kid, but I've been disheartened by years of superhero RPG'ing. Nobody ever wants to play Batman or Captain America or Spider-Man. Everybody wants to be Hulk or Tick or some other lunk.



You know, I'd love to see a superhero RPG based on these movies rather than the comics.


----------



## Piratecat (May 5, 2012)

So, so good. That was the best superhero movie I've ever seen.

"Hulk? SMASH."


----------



## Aeolius (May 5, 2012)

and now I have to buy the DVD...

per the trivia page at imdb: 
"There will be about 30 minutes of the excised footage included in the DVD Release, most of which revolves around Steve Rogers (Captain America). Whedon revealed that one of these scenes involved Rogers struggling to adjust to the modern world in his Brooklyn apartment and another revealed Steve Rogers' reunion with Peggy Carter, his love interest from Captain America: The First Avenger. "


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 5, 2012)

Aeolius said:


> and now I have to buy the DVD...
> 
> per the trivia page at imdb:
> "There will be about 30 minutes of the excised footage included in the DVD Release, most of which revolves around Steve Rogers (Captain America). Whedon revealed that one of these scenes involved Rogers struggling to adjust to the modern world in his Brooklyn apartment and another revealed Steve Rogers' reunion with Peggy Carter, his love interest from Captain America: The First Avenger. "



Hmmmm. I'll have to see that.


----------



## Kzach (May 6, 2012)

I just watched a movie review of The Avengers last night by a pair of Australian reviewing icons: our version of Siskel & Ebert. They gave it 3.5 out of 5 stars. I think it wasn't boring enough for them.


----------



## UselessTriviaMan (May 6, 2012)

We watched it today. I gotta agree - I'm pretty sure I now have a new absolute-favorite superhero flick.

The audience laughed so long and loud when Hulk pulverized Loki (it was like a friggin' Loony Tunes cartoon!) that we completely missed the "puny god" line.

And when the first mega-alien appeared, the little kid sitting behind me burst out with a very loud, "HOLY SCHNIKEES!!" that had most of the theater laughing loudly. 

Absolutely epic, and I'd happily go see that one again in the theater.


----------



## Umbran (May 6, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Your inferral is slightly wrong.  Those of us who think this might be a possibiity don't so much think they fakes his death - just that they (and by "they" I mean Fury) opportunistically didn't mention he'd survived.




having just seen it a few hours ago, he *actively states* that Coulson is dead.  He states that the medics "called it".  In standard lingo, that means "pronounced him dead at the scene".

That, of course, does not mean he's permanently dead - such is the Mighty Marvel Manner.  But it would be going rather beyond Fury failing to mention he was still alive.  More active lying is required.


----------



## Umbran (May 6, 2012)

horacethegrey said:


> J
> *Loki *- But for every hero we need a villain. And despite being outnumbered, Loki proves more than an able adversary for the entire team. When we last left him in Thor, Loki was a confused and spiteful soul who wanted to do right by his family, but here he's a cunning and malicious psycho who clearly enjoys doing bad. And all the credit to Tom Hiddleston for playing the God of Mischief with gutso. One of the nest villain performances in a superhero film IMO.
> 
> ...
> ...




No.  See what you mentioned above.  His whole reasoning is that Thor *loves* the Earth.  Loki, in both the mythology and the comics, is ultimately driven by jealousy.  You said he was a confused and spiteful character in Thor.  You were correct.  The only difference in The Avengers is that he's not confused anymore.


----------



## Kzach (May 6, 2012)

Umbran said:


> No.  See what you mentioned above.  His whole reasoning is that Thor *loves* the Earth.  Loki, in both the mythology and the comics, is ultimately driven by jealousy.  You said he was a confused and spiteful character in Thor.  You were correct.  The only difference in The Avengers is that he's not confused anymore.




It wasn't just jealousy. I thought they made it pretty clear that Loki thought he deserved to be a ruler, a King of Kings. Denied that in Asgard or Jotunheim, he takes up the opportunity to rule Earth instead. The ultimate desire is to be recognised and worshiped.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 6, 2012)

Morrus said:


> No need for spoiler tags in the spoiler thread.
> 
> Yup. Stark makes a few cracks earlier in the movie about eating whatever the hell shwewaaarww whatever is. And the after credits scene shows them eating it.
> 
> Still no idea what schwammmrrraaarm or whatever it is, though.




They didn't have that at my uk (cineworld) showing - I stayed through to the closing of the curtains just in case there was an extra, but no dice. Unless it was on the 3d print and not the 2d for some reason (I saw it in 2d)


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 6, 2012)

Felon said:


> Still love The Hulk, certainly love what they do with him in The Avengers, but on the other hand, he represents a bit of a bette noir.




now I want to create a superheroine called Betty Noir!


----------



## jonesy (May 6, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> They didn't have that at my uk (cineworld) showing - I stayed through to the closing of the curtains just in case there was an extra, but no dice. Unless it was on the 3d print and not the 2d for some reason (I saw it in 2d)



It hadn't been filmed when the international premiere happened. They talked about going back to film an extra scene for the U.S. release.


----------



## Piratecat (May 6, 2012)

That bonus scene was utterly silent. Everyone sitting slumped around the table, exhausted from a hard day of "work", eating takeout while an old guy sweeps up in back and Mark Ruffalo tries not to laugh. Completely brilliant.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 6, 2012)

I went in afraid Ironman would steal the show, thinking they can't pull off a whole team of badass and still make it feel right, and hopeing for no helacarriar becuse I wanted sheild to feel real. I also just assumed that the 'normal' hawkeye and black widow would be BMX bandet to Hulk Thor and Iron man's angel summoner.

I was wrong on all counts. If anything Hulk/Banner stole the show. I think the fight between Hawkeye and Widow showed why they are the best in the world, and at the end they where needed just as much as hulk.

I was suprised Hill was used instead of Sharon Carter or Dum Dum Dugen, but it worked. I was very plesently suprised she didn't try to undermind fury with the nuke bit.

I was upset for a moment when Loki made widow cry "your a monster" I thought they totaly messed up the character... just to turn around and get the crowning moment of Awsome seconds later with "Thanks Loki".

The only moment I am unsure of is a hulk moment, the "I'm always angry" just didn't feel right to me.

Thanos was a great revale, but I wonder witch movie he shows up in next... Avengers 2, or Thor 2, or Captian America 2, or Iron man 3?

No matter what I will be upset if Dr Banner is not in Iron man 3.

People are talking about spin off movies, I want to see a sheild Movie. Fury, Hill, Hawkeye, Widow can all be in it (Damn I miss Colson already) and you could totaly set up something like AIM as the bad guys.


I know some of the marvel properties (like web head and the mutants) are held by other studios, but Punisher and Ghost Rider are both still Marvel. I wonder if we could atleast get Nick Cage into AVengers 2.

I wonder if Luke Cage and Iron Fist could hold a movie now after this too, or atleast a guest spot in one of the sequals comeing out.


----------



## Umbran (May 6, 2012)

Kzach said:


> It wasn't just jealousy. I thought they made it pretty clear that Loki thought he deserved to be a ruler, a King of Kings.




Well, yeah, but why does he think that?  He was raised as brother to Thor, who is?  Heir to Asgard!

They've made it super-clear in Thor and Avengers that there's an entire universe of worlds out there.  He could make a try for any of them.  Dare we say that one that isn't guarded by Thor would be just a tad easier?  But he goes after Earth anyway?


----------



## MarkB (May 6, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Well, yeah, but why does he think that?  He was raised as brother to Thor, who is?  Heir to Asgard!




And he saw Thor grow into a hot-head who wasn't fit to rule, and grew mad with jealousy, believing himself to be better qualified.

Plus, he's the son of Laufey, king of the Frost Giants, heir to a kingdom in his own right.



> They've made it super-clear in Thor and Avengers that there's an entire universe of worlds out there.  He could make a try for any of them.  Dare we say that one that isn't guarded by Thor would be just a tad easier?  But he goes after Earth anyway?




At the time, it wasn't guarded by Thor. With the Bifrost broken, Asgard was cut off from other realms by conventional means. We still don't know exactly how Thor made the trip, but Loki suggests it must have taken all of Odin's power to accomplish.

Plus, the Tesseract is on Earth, and that's the price of admission for Loki's army. Since he has to go there anyway, it's as good a place to rule as any - and it's somewhere he's familiar with.

Plus, the Asgardians have been there before, and they were treated as gods by the Norsemen they befriended. Loki truly does believe that if he walks back in and makes a show of strength, humanity will bow down just as their ancestors did a few centuries ago.


----------



## Felon (May 6, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Thanos was a great revale, but I wonder witch movie he shows up in next... Avengers 2, or Thor 2, or Captian America 2, or Iron man 3?



Perhaps some are too young to remember Thanos' debut, but it was a story arc that ran through several different Marvel titles. It was a crossover event before "crossover event" was an accepted term. So, perhaps he'll pose a thread throughout IM3 and whatever else Marvel churns out.

Gotta say, I wish we could The Vision on the team, but to do it in even a remotely canonical sense requires a tiered approach. You'd have to have Hank Pym, then Ultron, then Vision. 

So, the big question people are asking is if there's any justification for Hulk's sudden surge of team spirit. Sure, he sucker-punches Thor, but he saves Iron Man. That's a big change of heart from almost going Ike Turner on Black Widow.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 6, 2012)

Felon said:


> So, the big question people are asking is if there's any justification for Hulk's sudden surge of team spirit. Sure, he sucker-punches Thor, but he saves Iron Man. That's a big change of heart from almost going Ike Turner on Black Widow.




Remember that Hulk isn't completely mindless/bestial. He's capable of making decisions and recognizing allies--or at least, common threats.

In the Black Widow scene, he changed involuntarily and--this is important--_while everyone was still under Loki's influence_. Every character was being more vicious/violent than usual at that point.

In the later scene, Banner changes deliberately, he's had a reminder that Hulk can be at least partly controlled (he "aimed" at an old, abandoned building when falling), and there's a clear and present common threat.


----------



## Umbran (May 6, 2012)

MarkB said:


> At the time, it wasn't guarded by Thor. With the Bifrost broken, Asgard was cut off from other realms by conventional means. We still don't know exactly how Thor made the trip, but Loki suggests it must have taken all of Odin's power to accomplish.




I believe he says, "I wonder how much dark energy the Allfather had to expend to get you here."  So, not only did he know that Thor could show up, but he knew how.  Loki is many things, but stupid is not one of them.  I think having Thor show up was part of the plan all along.



> Plus, the Tesseract is on Earth, and tha t's the price of admission for Loki's army. Since he has to go there anyway...




If he weren't going up against the Avengers, he wouldn't need the army, would he?  Loki, with is powers of illusion and mastery of subterfuge, could take over any government he choses from within.  Force is a blunt instrument, and not Loki's strong suit.

I could take a No-Prize argument - Loki falls through the void, ends up in the hands of the Skrulls, and this is the one way he figures out to save his hide.



> Plus, the Asgardians have been there before, and they were treated as gods by the Norsemen they befriended.




And the most beloved of the Asgardians among Earthmen?  Thor!



> Loki truly does believe that if he walks back in and makes a show of strength, humanity will bow down just as their ancestors did a few centuries ago.




Yes, 'cause he's kind of arrogant.  I merely argue that this isn't *why* he does it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 6, 2012)

Mouseferatu said:


> Remember that Hulk isn't completely mindless/bestial. He's capable of making decisions and recognizing allies--or at least, common threats.
> 
> In the Black Widow scene, he changed involuntarily and--this is important--_while everyone was still under Loki's influence_. Every character was being more vicious/violent than usual at that point.
> 
> In the later scene, Banner changes deliberately, he's had a reminder that Hulk can be at least partly controlled (he "aimed" at an old, abandoned building when falling), and there's a clear and present common threat.




lets not forget Hulk had always shown knowladge of how banner was treated, not only does stark like banner, but he likes and respects hulk... even saying for him to suit up(aka hulk out).  I think hulk dislikeing the spys (distrustful), and seeing thor as a target (or at least a fun plaything) would respect cap for his treatment of banner and his eagerness to give both he and hulk a break, and stark for opening going to bat for hulk.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 6, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Well, yeah, but why does he think that?  He was raised as brother to Thor, who is?  Heir to Asgard!
> 
> They've made it super-clear in Thor and Avengers that there's an entire universe of worlds out there.  He could make a try for any of them.  Dare we say that one that isn't guarded by Thor would be just a tad easier?  But he goes after Earth anyway?




He wanted to piss on everything Thor wants / cares about. What better way then enslave the people Thor chose to become a protector of, murder a bunch of them, destroy a major city, then eventually find his mortal GF and stuff her into a fridge.  Thor is lucky he didn't buy a dog while in New Mexico since if Loki would have punted that dog across an interstate during rush hour traffic.


----------



## MarkB (May 6, 2012)

Umbran said:


> If he weren't going up against the Avengers, he wouldn't need the army, would he?  Loki, with is powers of illusion and mastery of subterfuge, could take over any government he choses from within.  Force is a blunt instrument, and not Loki's strong suit.




The Avengers didn't even exist when Loki arrived - they were an abandoned initiative. Even when they do show up, he deals with them using those aforementioned powers of illusion and subterfuge, and leaves the helicarrier believing that he has definitely shattered the group's cohesion and probably killed one or more of them.

Despite all this, he still sets out to import an army onto Earth and take it over by force - so clearly their job wasn't to deal with the Avengers.

My impression is that Loki didn't want to conquer by subterfuge, to lead from the shadows, despite that being what he's good at. What he wanted was to subjugate a planet by force of arms and become its acknowledged ruler. And from his viewpoint, Earth was a perfectly good candidate for that plan.


----------



## Umbran (May 7, 2012)

MarkB said:


> My impression is that Loki didn't want to conquer by subterfuge, to lead from the shadows, despite that being what he's good at. What he wanted was to subjugate a planet by force of arms and become its acknowledged ruler. And from his viewpoint, Earth was a perfectly good candidate for that plan.




I think you're rather making my point for me.

He doesn't have to lead from the shadows forever - just until his power is secured.  Earth is a "perfectly good" candidate for the brute force plan *except* for that pesky little bit about Thor loving it.  Brother dear has always been in Loki's way, remember.  There's no way Loki's taking on Earth without Thor showing up.

So, riddle me this: why does a genius-intelligence (I'll grant Loki that) take on a planet using something other than the approach he's personally best suited for?  

Remember this is going back to the OP's, "his whole reasoing is because we humans are made to be subjugated?"  He does tell himself that humans are natural followers (though, there's probably some argument there this is wishful thinking and rationalization on his part - it is what he wants to believe).  I'm just saying that is not his *whole* reasoning, by a long shot.


----------



## megamania (May 7, 2012)

Its been 48 hours since watching it and the kids abnd I are still laughing and replaying the scenes.   So many good lines and scenes.

The favorite it appears is the Loki / Hulk scene.

"What can you do to me? I am a god"

After Hulk swatting some imaginary flys (using Loki)-  the look on Loki's face is ABSOLUTELY priceless.    I want it as a screen saver.

It went much as expected-

Best lines- Iron Man
Sentimental scene- Thor   ( though the "adopted" line is priceless
Wow scene- Hawkeye
Movie stealer-  Hulk
How did... you TRICKED me scene- Black Widow

The weakest character which I think was more about the focus on the SUPER heroes  was Fury.   His moments to shine were not as good as the others but still very Fury.   The whole Coulson / cards spin was excellent.   Cap was semi weak but its hard to portray strength of conviction and high moral standards in a movie like this.   And push comes to shove- he held his own against Thor.


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2012)

megamania said:


> The favorite it appears is the Loki / Hulk scene.
> 
> "What can you do to me? I am a god"
> 
> After Hulk swatting some imaginary flys (using Loki)-  the look on Loki's face is ABSOLUTELY priceless.    I want it as a screen saver.



Yeah, it was geat. I would have liked it better if instead of empty bluster, Loki was actually blasting Hulk, making the auidence think for a moment that he was turning the tables back in his favor. THEN he gets abruptly smashed.


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2012)

Mouseferatu said:


> Remember that Hulk isn't completely mindless/bestial. He's capable of making decisions and recognizing allies--or at least, common threats.
> 
> In the Black Widow scene, he changed involuntarily and--this is important--_while everyone was still under Loki's influence_. Every character was being more vicious/violent than usual at that point.



The Hulk's level of intelligence has always been variable. In the previous films, he was little more than a raging animal, and that's kind of how he acted on the helicarrier. It's one of those unfortunate barriers directors seem to have with Hulk. They think it's campy for him to be able to speak like he does in the comics.

How was Loki influencing everyone? He doesn't (apparently) cast spells in this incarnation.


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2012)

Oh, can somebody explain to me what's the difference between seeing Avengers in Imax 3D and seeing Avengers in "Imax: a 3D Experience"?


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 7, 2012)

Felon said:


> How was Loki influencing everyone? He doesn't (apparently) cast spells in this incarnation.




Via the scepter. (The "glowstick of fate," or however Stark put it.) They made a pretty big deal of focusing on its increasing glow as the argument heated up, and Banner even grabbed it up at one point without realizing it. Given that Loki's entire reason for being there was to stir up trouble, but he only actually spoke to a couple of them, it's pretty clear he wasn't relying on charisma--or Charisma-based skills --alone.


----------



## jonesy (May 7, 2012)

Mouseferatu said:


> Via the scepter. (The "glowstick of fate," or however Stark put it.) They made a pretty big deal of focusing on its increasing glow as the argument heated up, and Banner even grabbed it up at one point without realizing it. Given that Loki's entire reason for being there was to stir up trouble, but he only actually spoke to a couple of them, it's pretty clear he wasn't relying on charisma--or Charisma-based skills --alone.



Plus the whole thing with the weapon being able to switch peoples allegiances (Hawkeye and Selvig).


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 7, 2012)

Felon said:


> Yeah, it was geat. I would have liked it better if instead of empty bluster, Loki was actually blasting Hulk, making the auidence think for a moment that he was turning the tables back in his favor. THEN he gets abruptly smashed.




I would have hated that. It would have been such a traditional movie trope that I've seen dozens of times before.

For my money the way they did it was perfect. Fast; shocking; funny. A perfect antidote to hubris.


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I would have hated that. It would have been such a traditional movie trope that I've seen dozens of times before..



It's a trope you've seen a dozen times either way.  Changing bluster to blaster doesn't change the dialogue or the resulting beatdown. The difference is only a slight variation that incorporates a genuine threat to go along with all the dire "I'm a god" boasts. Seems like a much bigger payoff to me than reducing the film's arch-villain to the equivalent of a snooty pantywaist maitre'd waiting to take a pie in the face.


----------



## IronWolf (May 7, 2012)

Felon said:


> It's the same trope you've seen a dozen times either way.  Changing bluster to blaster doesn't change the dialogue or the result. The difference is only a slight variation that incorporates a genuine threat to go along with all the big "I'm a god" boasts. Seems like a much bigger payoff to me than reducing the film's arch-villain to the equivalent of a snooty pantywaist maitre d waiting to take a pie in the face.




I tend to agree with PlaneSailing on this one. I was expecting the scene to play out as you wanted it. Instead Loki starts getting thrashed just as he finishes his verbal spiel. Played out really well for me. 

Not trying to change your mind, just agreeing with PlaneSailing that I thought the scene worked great.


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2012)

Oh, I luaghed mightily at the scene as well, I just have that rare trait that allows for appreciation and criticism to co-exist. I felt that adding a touch of menace instead of just impotent shouting, makes it more of a secne from an action movie rather than a Three Stooges short (indignant head waiter getting pie in the face an all). Plane's reaction seems a little overwrought, since adding that touch of menance would not have radically changed the setup or undermined the payoff.


----------



## Umbran (May 7, 2012)

Felon said:


> Seems like a much bigger payoff to me than reducing the film's arch-villain to the equivalent of a snooty pantywaist maitre'd waiting to take a pie in the face.




But... Loki *is* a snooty patywaist maitre'd.  He's a whiny emo god-child with jealousy and daddy issues!  He just happens to have magical power and a brain the size of a planet to back him up.

Remember, the Norse and Greek gods are traditionally only superhuman in terms of their power - their morals, ethics, wisdom and interpersonal skills are entirely *human*.


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2012)

Umbran said:


> But... Loki *is* a snooty patywaist maitre'd.  He's a whiny emo god-child with jealousy and daddy issues!  He just happens to have magical power and a brain the size of a planet to back him up.



Well, that's the basic wrinkle with the character right there. That's the impression the movie bestows. He's very watered down, basically not much to write home about without his scepter thing. Can't be both powerful and a pantywaist. Which should an arch-villain be?

I'd better not see that with Thanos, or there will be an emo hissy-fit of titanic proportions (pun intended!). 

Then again, I guess if they're true to Thanos' character, the Avengers will basically be dead meat.


----------



## hopeless (May 7, 2012)

*Nope*



Plane Sailing said:


> They didn't have that at my uk (cineworld) showing - I stayed through to the closing of the curtains just in case there was an extra, but no dice. Unless it was on the 3d print and not the 2d for some reason (I saw it in 2d)




Watched the 3d version didn't see that either, was it left out for the US premiere?


----------



## billd91 (May 7, 2012)

jonesy said:


> Here's an interesting interview with Whedon:
> Joss Whedon's Batman, How Black Widow Nearly Got The Axe & 15 More Revelations




Thankfully, Black Widow didn't get the axe. Though the Wasp wasn't a heavy hitter and wasn't always a positive contributor in the early Avengers comics, I think it's important to emphasize that there have pretty much always been women in the Avengers. Ditching out of that for the movies would have been a wrong move.


----------



## Umbran (May 7, 2012)

Felon said:


> Can't be both powerful and a pantywaist. Which should an arch-villain be?




Pantywaist is a state of mind, not of body  Do remember that it was THE HULK who slapped him around, not pre-SuperSolider Steve Rogers or something.  And he still survived, apparently without major injury, as he was up and walking the same darned day.  So, not exactly a weakling.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 7, 2012)

Felon said:


> Well, that's the basic wrinkle with the character right there. That's the impression the movie bestows. He's very watered down, basically not much to write home about without his scepter thing. Can't be both powerful and a pantywaist. Which should an arch-villain be?




I'm tempted to wonder whether we saw the same film  

Loki holds his own in fights against Thor, and pretty much any single superhero - even when Iron Man 'captures' him, it is later clearly because he wants to be captured.

The scene tells us nothing about Loki's power (which has been amply demonstrated many times) and everything about the Hulk.

all IMO.


----------



## Umbran (May 7, 2012)

hopeless said:


> Watched the 3d version didn't see that either, was it left out for the US premiere?




It *hadn't been shot* at the time of the European premiere.

'The Avengers': The (spoilerish) backstory behind secret new scene | Inside Movies | EW.com


----------



## Desdichado (May 7, 2012)

Kzach said:


> To make the audience think that he was dead and thus heighten the impact of the moment as we experience it via our sympathetic connection to the protagonists. Joss has always been pretty good at creating a connection to the characters. It's the biggest reason why Buffy, Angel and Firefly are so popular.



But they're not so popular.  They've all been cult favorites and mainstream commercial failures.


----------



## Azgulor (May 7, 2012)

Felon said:


> Well, that's the basic wrinkle with the character right there. That's the impression the movie bestows. He's very watered down, basically not much to write home about without his scepter thing. Can't be both powerful and a pantywaist. Which should an arch-villain be?
> 
> I'd better not see that with Thanos, or there will be an emo hissy-fit of titanic proportions (pun intended!).
> 
> Then again, I guess if they're true to Thanos' character, the Avengers will basically be dead meat.




Watered down?  The guy was used as a rag doll and the floor yielded to his body.  Yeah, he felt the punch, maybe some bruising, but the guy was talking and walking later.  The SHOCK of being attacked in that matter took the fight out of him as much as the pounding did.

If anything, I liked the fact that the movie showed how much damage an Asgardian could take.

I thought that they did a great job with Loki and that he was a threat throughout the movie.

3 days later, my kids are still talking about that scene and laughing.  I thought it was perfect.


----------



## Desdichado (May 7, 2012)

MarkB said:


> Despite all this, he still sets out to import an army onto Earth and take it over by force - so clearly their job wasn't to deal with the Avengers.
> 
> My impression is that Loki didn't want to conquer by subterfuge, to lead from the shadows, despite that being what he's good at. What he wanted was to subjugate a planet by force of arms and become its acknowledged ruler. And from his viewpoint, Earth was a perfectly good candidate for that plan.



Loki wasn't calling the shots.  At least not completely.  The Other, or whatever dumb name they gave that skrull leader with the Mouth of Sauron outfit threatened him more than once if he didn't do his part of the alliance.


Piratecat said:


> That bonus scene was utterly silent. Everyone sitting slumped around the table, exhausted from a hard day of "work", eating takeout while an old guy sweeps up in back and Mark Ruffalo tries not to laugh. Completely brilliant.



My wife thought that was the funniest part of the whole movie.  Granted, it was after 2 AM when we first saw it, so I think she was kinda slap-happy, but still.  When we saw it the next day with the kids, I couldn't convince her to go grab some shawarmaa after the movie.  I thought that would have been funny.

Then again, we did Mexican.  It _was_ Cinco de Mayo, after all.


----------



## billd91 (May 7, 2012)

Hobo said:


> But they're not so popular.  They've all been cult favorites and mainstream commercial failures.




I wouldn't call either Buffy nor Angel commercial failures since they lasted 7 and 5 seasons, respectively. I would even say Buffy, at least, was sufficiently mainstream to be the #2 show on a fledgeling network and showed broad youth appeal.


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> Loki holds his own in fights against Thor, and pretty much any single superhero - even when Iron Man 'captures' him, it is later clearly because he wants to be captured.



I guess you hated all those scenes that showed Loki doing that stuff, because it was "the same trope you've seen in dozens of films", right? 

No? Then why in the world are we off on this tangent that came about when you said you would have hated to see Loki display some power against Hulk? What, it's just in that one scene where I suggested he display some of that power instead of just whining indignantly that it's no sale? Well, that's fair. 



Azgulor said:


> I thought that they did a great job with Loki and that he was a threat throughout the movie.



Except the one scene where he goes out like a punk, because he just stood there yelling at the monster about to do him dirty.

And yeah, Loki's seriously watered down from his comic book incarnation.

I can't believe one little nitpick about a scene has elicited such rancor. I understand everyone liked the scene, but it's possible to enjoy something and still muse about how it could've been improved. Has George Lucas hurt you all so deeply?


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2012)

billd91 said:


> I wouldn't call either Buffy nor Angel commercial failures since they lasted 7 and 5 seasons, respectively. I would even say Buffy, at least, was sufficiently mainstream to be the #2 show on a fledgeling network and showed broad youth appeal.



Yeah, I was a bit puzzled by Hobo's comments myself. Firefly, sure. Angel? Meh. But definitely not Buffy.


----------



## MarkB (May 7, 2012)

Felon said:


> I can't believe one little nitpick about a scene has elicited such opposition. I understand everyone liked the scene, but it's possible to enjoy something and still have criticisms (well, for some of us anyway). Has George Lucas hurt you all so deeply?




I don't think any other handling of it could have captured the the wonderful humour of that moment in the way it was encapsulated in the movie. Advocating its revision is advocating the loss of one of the most iconic stand-out moments of the entire movie. That's likely to elicit a response.

And I don't think it is out-of-character. This is a Loki who's gone from merely craving power to actually believing his own press - a character who really does consider himself a god, and humans his natural subjects. To acknowledge the physical threat the Hulk represents is to admit his own mortality, so when he's faced with that reality, he's totally in denial right up until the truth hits him in the face - or, at least, twirls him round its head and slams him into the floor several times.


----------



## Desdichado (May 7, 2012)

billd91 said:


> I wouldn't call either Buffy nor Angel commercial failures since they lasted 7 and 5 seasons, respectively. I would even say Buffy, at least, was sufficiently mainstream to be the #2 show on a fledgeling network and showed broad youth appeal.



That's fine and--no offense--I don't see you as a particularly keen TV industry insider, so I don't think what you would call it is particularly relevent.

Buffy did well by UPN's standards.  But it was UPN's standards.  It got kicked off the WB fer cryin' out loud, and it's not like the WB had really high standards.  Why?  For ratings.

Buffy was very much a cult favorite _only_.  It was not a "hit" in the traditional sense that that word is used.

And yet it was the closest thing Whedon had had to a hit in his repertoire.  It was curious to me that he was picked to run this, and clearly it looks like it was the right decision after all.  In many respects it's because--as he recognized in that 15 points article--that he had to file off a lot of the Whedonisms to make Avengers be a good Avengers movie.


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2012)

MarkB said:


> I don't think any other handling of it could have captured the the wonderful humour of that moment in the way it was encapsulated in the movie.



So here's the thought process being presented: people enjoyed that scene, ergo any other way of handling that scene must therefore be utterly ruinous. Irrational mental barrier identfied. 



> Advocating its revision is advocating the loss of one of the most iconic stand-out moments of the entire movie. That's likely to elicit a response.



Advocating its revision does not equate to advocating the loss of the scene. That's simply a false dichotomy. Something good can be made better.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 7, 2012)

Felon said:


> Has George Lucas hurt you all so deeply?




You're the only guy who seems to be annoyed about this.

I don't think anyone is trying to change your mind, why not just think 'Oh, other people have a different opinion' and go back to talking about what you DO like?

Seriously, there was so much that was fun about that film.


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2012)

Hobo said:


> That's fine and--no offense--I don't see you as a particularly keen TV industry insider, so I don't think what you would call it is particularly relevent.



OK, you got me curious. By what virtue do you feel comfortable saying Whedon's stuff is a failure, and then dismissing Bill's opinion as irrelevant because you don't see him as a keen industry insider?

You're not really Kevin Klein, are you? I thought that was just a picture!



> Buffy did well by UPN's standards.  But it was UPN's standards.  It got kicked off the WB fer cryin' out loud, and it's not like the WB had really high standards.  Why?  For ratings.



Buffy didn't get kicked off WB. Whedon moved it to UPN because he got a better offer. And mostly out of bitterness for losing Buffy, WB cancelled Angel despite it having good (but not Buffy-level) ratings.


----------



## Umbran (May 7, 2012)

Felon said:


> Has George Lucas hurt you all so deeply?




You sure you want to go the "dismissive and personal" route in a thread with two admins and a moderator active in it?  

No, George Lucas didn't hurt me deeply.  I just happen to think that making Loki seem badass just then would mean Hulk was reacting to a credible threat at that moment, rather than indulging in an all-too-human desire to shut a pompous blowhard up.  It would remove most of the humor from the scene, reducing it to one more shot of a fight.  I see no overall improvement there.


----------



## Felon (May 7, 2012)

Umbran said:


> You sure you want to go the "dismissive and personal" route in a thread with two admins and a moderator active in it?



Say what now? How is a knee-slapping joke about George Lucas to nobody in particular tatamount to a dismissive personal attack?

I mean, except to George Lucas.



> I just happen to think that making Loki seem badass just then would mean Hulk was reacting to a credible threat at that moment, rather than indulging in an all-too-human desire to shut a pompous blowhard up.  It would remove most of the humor from the scene, reducing it to one more shot of a fight.  I see no overall improvement there.



What I envisioned is more like for half-a-sec the audience thinks Loki's about to make a comeback, and then, SURPRISE! NOPE! Vintage Whedon anticlimax humor.


----------



## Umbran (May 7, 2012)

Felon said:


> Say what now? How is a knee-slapping joke about George Lucas to nobody in particular tatamount to a dismissive personal attack?




If you want to discuss it, let's take it to PM or e-mail, and not clutter the thread with it.


----------



## Piratecat (May 7, 2012)

Felon, he's trying to gently tell you that you're starting to come off as pugnacious and argumentative in a fun thread about a comic book movie. I'll be less gentle. Scale back, please. Let's discuss the movie, everyone, instead of heading off on a tangent about Lucas and FOX.

On a happier note, my wife just came back from seeing it. She is screaming "HULK SMASH! as she careens around the house.


----------



## Grimmjow (May 7, 2012)

i loved when CA was giving orders to the police and he was like "Why should i listen to you?!" then CA beats up the aliens and the guy starts repeating what he told him


----------



## MarkB (May 7, 2012)

Felon said:


> So here's the thought process being presented: people enjoyed that scene, ergo any other way of handling that scene must therefore be utterly ruinous. Irrational mental barrier identfied.
> 
> 
> Advocating its revision does not equate to advocating the loss of the scene. That's simply a false dichotomy. Something good can be made better.




I didn't say you'd lose the scene - I said you'd lose the iconic stand-out moment.

That scene, as it stands, is one of the most awesome, most talked-about moments in the entire movie - top three certainly, maybe even number one. It might, theoretically, be possible to improve upon it, but I can't see the revisions you've suggested doing anything of the sort - more likely, as Umbran said, it would have diminished it to just another fight scene, relatively forgettable.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 8, 2012)

Actually, I think it was smart to make Loki go out the way he did.  It at least made him save face since he essentially was knocked out "fighting" (read being savagely beaten by) Hulk soon after he fought Ironman then Thor to a stand still. At that point since he basically already fought Ironman and Capt he really concluded that him vs Hulk + Thor + Capt + Ironman + Black Widow + Hawkeye would have been suicide if Hulk could at least knock him out when he wasn't prepared for a fight.

Loki isn't about the raw power and damage he can dish out, its about the amount of abuse he can take while making everything go to hell around him.
-Posted via mobile device.


----------



## Desdichado (May 8, 2012)

Felon said:


> Buffy didn't get kicked off WB. Whedon moved it to UPN because he got a better offer. And mostly out of bitterness for losing Buffy, WB cancelled Angel despite it having good (but not Buffy-level) ratings.



If by that you mean, the WB didn't give him a good offer because it wasn't really bringing in the ratings, then OK, yes, you're right.

Otherwise... not so much.


----------



## Felon (May 8, 2012)

Hobo said:


> If by that you mean, the WB didn't give him a good offer because it wasn't really bringing in the ratings, then OK, yes, you're right.
> 
> Otherwise... not so much.



Well, feel free to cite some sources. I'd love to check'em out. But you don't strike me as a particularly keen TV insider so...well, you know.


----------



## Kzach (May 8, 2012)

Hobo said:


> But they're not so popular.  They've all been cult favorites and mainstream commercial failures.




Buffy was cancelled because Geller didn't sign on for an 8th season citing that she wanted to go out on a positive note in regards to the popularity of the 7th season.

As far as commercial success goes, given the millions of dollars of revenue it has brought in from DVD sales alone, not to mention all the paraphernalia surrounding the series and it's spin-off, Angel, I'd say it was a pretty darn big success.

The same can be said of Firefly which made a huge amount of money in merchandise and DVD sales.


----------



## Spatula (May 8, 2012)

No comments about the aliens? Their design wasn't familiar to me, and I didn't catch the name in the movie. Wiki says they are "Chitauri" which I also don't recognize, but apparently they're the skrulls of the Ultimate universe. Or not. Do the Ultimate aliens look like the ones in the movie?

With all of the different Marvel alien races to pick from, I'm surprised they went with one that was made up or doesn't have much history. Or maybe that was the idea, since they were just there to get beat up on.


----------



## Piratecat (May 8, 2012)

The chitauri are the non-shape shifting skrulls.


----------



## Desdichado (May 8, 2012)

Felon said:


> Well, feel free to cite some sources. I'd love to check'em out. But you don't strike me as a particularly keen TV insider so...well, you know.



Dude, seriously?  Have you even started with Wikipedia?  Or Google?  This isn't exactly something that requires "keen industry insider" perspective; it's pretty common knowledge.


Kzach said:


> As far as commercial success goes, given the millions of dollars of revenue it has brought in from DVD sales alone, not to mention all the paraphernalia surrounding the series and it's spin-off, Angel, I'd say it was a pretty darn big success.
> 
> The same can be said of Firefly which made a huge amount of money in merchandise and DVD sales.



You just made all that up.  I have no idea what the sales were like, and most importantly, I have no idea what the _costs_ where like, so whether or not that managed to pique some business-man's interest at the studio is all complete conjecture.

But I'm going with not.  Especially relative to the alternatives.  Y'know; actual hit shows.


Spatula said:


> With all of the different Marvel alien races to pick from, I'm surprised they went with one that was made up or doesn't have much history. Or maybe that was the idea, since they were just there to get beat up on.



I think the idea was, "let's pick an alien race that isn't cheesy."  

I guess maybe Shi'ar could have qualified as not-cheesy, but then again, they've always been too associated with the X-men to turn up in an Avengers movie.

Which is one of my pet peeves; the X-stuff and the Avengers/FF have always been pretty chimney-like, with hard walls between them.  I mean, yeah--Beast, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver and lately even Wolverine have all been Avengers in the past, but curiously that doesn't really lead to closer ties between the two continuities within a continuity.  Same for the crossover events.  How come the Avengers never fight Magneto?  Why don't the X-men take exception to Doctor Doom.    Don't the X-men think that the threat posed by someone like Galactus is important enough?  Don't the Avengers think the same about Apocalypse?  And so on, and so on.

FF and Avengers have become fairly tightly integrated to the point where it's often easy to forget that some of the most classic villains in the entire Marvel universe are FF villains originally.  The X-men continue to stand apart.  And to a great degree, so has Spiderman until very recent years (and I don't just mean putting him on the Avengers team; the whole Dark Avengers routine was another big step in the integration of Spiderman and his associated characters into the greater Marvel orbit.)

Anyway, you could make a case that both the look and the name (and the MO) of the skrulls are all kinda cheesy, so I can see why the producers would want to shy away from them.


----------



## jonesy (May 8, 2012)

Spatula said:


> No comments about the aliens? Their design wasn't familiar to me, and I didn't catch the name in the movie. Wiki says they are "Chitauri" which I also don't recognize, but apparently they're the skrulls of the Ultimate universe. Or not. Do the Ultimate aliens look like the ones in the movie?
> 
> With all of the different Marvel alien races to pick from, I'm surprised they went with one that was made up or doesn't have much history. Or maybe that was the idea, since they were just there to get beat up on.



They have a decade of history in the comics. They are a hivemind race who are against free will, so they made a pretty good match for Loki in terms of his purposes in the movie. They were financing the Nazi, so there's a link to Red Skull.


----------



## Kzach (May 8, 2012)

Hobo said:


> You just made all that up.



No, I didn't. It's actually pretty well known fact. I'm surprised you don't know it, you being an 'industry insider' and all.



Hobo said:


> I have no idea what the sales were like, and most importantly, I have no idea what the _costs_ where like, so whether or not that managed to pique some business-man's interest at the studio is all complete conjecture.




So let me sum up your argument: u dun no an i dun no so u rong an iym rite!!!11!! lolz usuxxorz!!!1!! iwinztehintarwebz!!!11111!!


----------



## jonesy (May 8, 2012)

Hobo said:


> Which is one of my pet peeves; the X-stuff and the Avengers/FF have always been pretty chimney-like, with hard walls between them.  I mean, yeah--Beast, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver and lately even Wolverine have all been Avengers in the past, but curiously that doesn't really lead to closer ties between the two continuities within a continuity.  Same for the crossover events.  How come the Avengers never fight Magneto?  Why don't the X-men take exception to Doctor Doom.    Don't the X-men think that the threat posed by someone like Galactus is important enough?  Don't the Avengers think the same about Apocalypse?  And so on, and so on.



Except, Avengers have fought Magneto. X-Men have fought Doctor Doom. X-Men have fought Galactus. Avengers have fought Apocalypse. And so on, and so on.


----------



## Desdichado (May 8, 2012)

Kzach said:


> No, I didn't. It's actually pretty well known fact. I'm surprised you don't know it, you being an 'industry insider' and all.



Logical leap there.  I never claimed to be an industry insider.  I claimed that... that other guy, whomever it was (Felon?) wasn't.


			
				Kzach said:
			
		

> So let me sum up your argument: u dun no an i dun no so u rong an iym rite!!!11!! lolz usuxxorz!!!1!! iwinztehintarwebz!!!11111!!



Actually, I'm not very interested in arguing at all about whether or not Buffy was successful enough to be considered a "hit."  Going down that road with obvious Whedon fanboys is tilting at windmills.

Really? After multiple warnings from admins and moderators about being polite, you want to dismissively call people fanboys? Bonus points for nerve, but you lose points for being insulting. Please don't repeat this. - Piratecat

Certainly I'll agree with the notion that of all the Whedon creations, Buffy is the _only_ one until now that could possibly have qualified.  

If your qualifications for "hit status" are kinda loose.


----------



## Desdichado (May 8, 2012)

jonesy said:


> Except, Avengers have fought Magneto. X-Men have fought Doctor Doom. X-Men have fought Galactus. Avengers have fought Apocalypse. And so on, and so on.



A bit here and there.  With 50 years of publication, I'd hope there'd be _some _crossover.  And I specifically mentioned that yes, I'm aware of it.

It's still a pet peeve of mine that the X-men (and associated teams, villains and individuals) stand apart from the rest of the Marvel universe in many ways.  I'd love to see them more tightly integrated; really feel like they're part of the same superhero community in the same setting--kinda like how the Avengers and the Fantastic Four have evolved over time.  They're a _long_ way from that.


----------



## Kzach (May 8, 2012)

Hobo said:


> Logical leap there.  I never claimed to be an industry insider.  I claimed that... that other guy, whomever it was (Felon?) wasn't.
> 
> Actually, I'm not very interested in arguing at all about whether or not Buffy was successful enough to be considered a "hit."  Going down that road with obvious Whedon fanboys is tilting at windmills.
> 
> ...




Do you even realise that you're arguing against yourself? Everything you say about other people's statements also applies to your statements, except that you don't seem to allow for this fact. Felon isn't an industry insider so his statements don't count, but you're not an industry insider and yet your statements are entirely valid.

Sorry. Does not compute.

And that's pretty much the entirety of your arguments. Everything anyone else says is garbage because they're not experts who can prove it, but what you say is 'teh trooth' despite the fact that you're not an expert and can't prove it.


----------



## Felon (May 8, 2012)

Spatula said:


> With all of the different Marvel alien races to pick from, I'm surprised they went with one that was made up or doesn't have much history. Or maybe that was the idea, since they were just there to get beat up on.



Well, I'd say they wanted to have a race that had a good mix of opponents for the Avengers. Needed high-speed flying guys to fight Iron Man, needed some big heavy-hitters for Hulk and Thor to lay into, and lots of small fry for everybody else. 

They probably didn't want a bunch of mechs and robots clomping around, because that's a little played out in the Bayesque era of films. 

That remeinds me of the funniest thing that happened when I went to the midnight show. Wasn't even in the film. During the trailer for Battleship, the projector went out. Wild applause rose from the crowd. The joke was on us, though, since when the projector eventually went back online, we just had to watch it again.


----------



## Felon (May 8, 2012)

SO, for the sequel, who (if anyone) should leave and who should go?

I personally would love to see The Vision. He's iconic for a large chunk of Avengers history, and is distinctive enough in powers, appearance, and overall concept that he would be a stand-out character. Problem is, to get it canonical, they first have to introduce Hank Pym and foreshadow Ultron. That's one film right there. Then the next film has to introduce both Ultron and Vision.

Wonder Man might be a more practical pick. He was the superhero who stopped wearing a costume long before it became fashionable. 

Always liked the Wasp, because her powerset and fighting style is unique. She's kind of the superhero equivalent of a rogue, zipping in close and distracting the big bad so that one of the heavy-hitters can pick himself up and get in a good shot. It's one those archetypes that I don't really see in the superhero RPG's. Not a popular character, I know, but I'll take her over the Widow.


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2012)

Hobo said:


> I think the idea was, "let's pick an alien race that isn't cheesy."




I think it was more "let us continue with how most of the current movies are informed by the Marvel Ultimates line," as the Ultimates line establishes the Chitauri - beating the Chitauri is pretty much the first thing the "Ultimates" (the Avengers in the Ultimates line) do.  

And the Ultimates Chitauri *do* shapeshift.  It just isn't a major concern while they're invading.



> I guess maybe Shi'ar could have qualified as not-cheesy, but then again, they've always been too associated with the X-men to turn up in an Avengers movie.




In standard Marvel continuity (such as it is) humans encounter first the Skrulls, then the Kree (and the Kree-Skrull War), and then the Shi'ar come around.  While they are not forced to, there's something to be said for taking inspiration from that timeline.



> Which is one of my pet peeves; the X-stuff and the Avengers/FF have always been pretty chimney-like, with hard walls between them.




I have to disagree that this is the case.  While there are classic pairings of villains to hero groups, Marvel has by no means been siloed.  Pick a major villain - he or she has probably fought every major hero group in the Marvel universe.  



> And to a great degree, so has Spiderman until very recent years (and I don't just mean putting him on the Avengers team; the whole Dark Avengers routine was another big step in the integration of Spiderman and his associated characters into the greater Marvel orbit.)




Ha!  Really.  Dude, Marvel Team-Up. They've been mixing Spidey into other lines for decades.  Outside of the team-up line, he's had guest stars from lots of other lines in his books, and been a guest star frequently.  If there's one poster child for marvel *not* being siloed, it is Spider Man.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 8, 2012)

Felon said:


> SO, for the sequel, who (if anyone) should leave and who should go?



I don't want any of them to leave, although historically Hulk wanders off and later becomes a defender much later.

In an ideal world, I'd love to see [strike]Frasier Crane[/strike] Beast in there. He could start off looking vaguely normal and then sprout blue fur during the course of the movie. There are a laundry list of reasons that's not going to happen though.

Vision's a good one. IMDB says there's an Ant-man movie in the works. If that happens, maybe we can get Ant-man and the Wasp in Avengers 2 (you know the marketing is going to call it A2) and maybe Vision in Avengers 3. 

Also, I'm hoping for more Jarvis. The shot of the tower with just the "A" part of the "Stark" sign still up alluded to the idea of an Avenger's Mansion, or an Avenger's Tower. Admittedly, Jarvis isn't an Avenger, but I still like the idea. In all the movies with him, he's always been a useful AI without wandering into the various AI cliche or stereotypes.


----------



## jonesy (May 8, 2012)

The most prevalent members have been Captain America, Iron Man, Vision, Scarlet Witch, Thor, Hawkeye, Wasp, Henry Pym, (and Jarvis).

The oldest regular members that aren't as often around are Quicksilver, Hercules, Black Panther, Black Widow, Wonder Man, Mantis, Ms. Marvel, and Falcon.

Then there's regulars who came about in the 80's: Tigra, She-Hulk, Captain Marvel, Starfox, and Namor.

I don't think most of those are tied up in movie legalities.


I think Starfox, She-Hulk and Hercules should have their own movie.


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2012)

Felon said:


> SO, for the sequel, who (if anyone) should leave and who should go?




As they've written him so far, Hawkeye can go.  He's just not that interesting.  

I think, in these group-movies, the characters need to be established in other movies in order to work out.  They don't need to have their own film, but I don't think there's much time in the group movie to start from the ground up.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 8, 2012)

Hobo said:


> Dude, seriously?  Have you even started with Wikipedia?  Or Google?  This isn't exactly something that requires "keen industry insider" perspective; it's pretty common knowledge.
> 
> You just made all that up.  I have no idea what the sales were like, and most importantly, I have no idea what the _costs_ where like, so whether or not that managed to pique some business-man's interest at the studio is all complete conjecture.
> 
> ...




Actually they have problem is everytime the Avengers get mixed up in mutant affairs X-Men and their fans decry racism.

Much of the last 5 years of XMen stories has been a result of a XMen/Avengers crossover (House of M and DeciMation) and the current Marvel event is Avengers vs XMen.  The AvX is pretty much is about the pheonix coming to earth and the majority of the XMen acting as cultists due to their belief that the pheonix will make every depowered mutant become repowered.... nevermind the fact that the pheonix has been destroying planets left and right on the way to earth. Meanwhile the Avengers are rightfully paranoid since they know planets have been destroyed and they decide to raid all XMen's bases in an attempt to capture (or in Wolverine's case) kill the mutant messiah who might actually be the mutant anti-christ.   Now what is confusing is that they are trying to say that the Pheonix is like the force that gives the Iron Fists their powers...  So yeah... even though their histories have been mingling right now they are being fully integrated.

-Posted via mobile device.


----------



## Felon (May 8, 2012)

Umbran said:


> I have to disagree that this is the case.  While there are classic pairings of villains to hero groups, Marvel has by no means been siloed.  Pick a major villain - he or she has probably fought every major hero group in the Marvel universe.



Indeed, the shared nature of the universe was one of Marvel's major innovations.

Heck, note that Mr. Fantastic, Invisible Woman, and Thing have all been Avengers. Luke Cage, Crystal, and She-Hulk have been on both teams.

Of course, classic superheroes weren't very proactive. Enemies usually came to them. There's a distinct reason why Dr. Doom fights the FF and Ultron fights the Avengers and Magneto fights the X-Men. 

As for Spidey--the very central concept of the character is that he's not a joiner or A-lister. He's an underdog and an odd-man-out. People used to get that. Of course, this has been pooped on in recent years, with him being pimped out to two teams of Avengers at once as well as the new FF. And even that doesn't hold a candle to Wolverine being in his own books, two Avengers teams, and a half-dozen X-teams all at the same time.


----------



## Felon (May 8, 2012)

Relique du Madde said:


> So yeah... even though their histories have been mingling right now they are being fully integrated.




With the X-Men, I think there's a legitimate basis for saying they've been self-contained. Of course, a large chunk of Marvel's books are X-centric, so it's a pretty large container. For the last last couple of decades, they haven't really done much except try to weather one genocidal assault after another. Do-gooding and superheroics have fallen to the wayside in favor of survival.

The writer who made the biggest effort to address this in recent years has been--guess who?


----------



## Spatula (May 8, 2012)

Spider-Man himself certainly hasn't been cut off from the rest of the MU, but aside from the whole Norman Osborn thing you could say that most of his rogues gallery is in the "street level" silo (which Spider-Man shares with Daredevil, the Punisher, the old Power Man & Iron Fist, etc.). Which I think was the original complaint - the foes don't get spread around enough, not that the heroes don't (and Felon makes a good point that there's a reason for that, in that the super-villains are usually going after the heroes to get revenge, not the other way around). But that is exactly why the various super-teams haven't fought a lot of Spider-Man's villains - the Avengers are concerned with bigger threats than with who controls the NYC crime rackets.


----------



## Felon (May 8, 2012)

Sure, Marvel's super-teams have definite hooks that govern the types of foes they face.

Avengers: Alien and high-power threats
Fantastic Four: Exploration of the universe with incidental do-gooding
X-Men: Mutant threats
Defenders: Mystical threats

There's room for overlap, and that's why there is overlap. But if Dr. Doom was threatening the globe, I might just decide to let the FF be the primary response team.


----------



## Morrus (May 8, 2012)

billd91 said:


> I wouldn't call either Buffy nor Angel commercial failures since they lasted 7 and 5 seasons, respectively. I would even say Buffy, at least, was sufficiently mainstream to be the #2 show on a fledgeling network and showed broad youth appeal.




Buffy got 5M viewers. Which is good for a genre show in America. But that doesn't make it mainstream.

As a comparison, Doctor Who gets 7-10M viewers in the UK. That's mainstream (in a country with a fifth the population of the US, so pro-rata it's 35-50M viewers).


----------



## billd91 (May 8, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Buffy got 5M viewers. Which is good for a genre show in America. But that doesn't make it mainstream.
> 
> As a comparison, Doctor Who gets 7-10M viewers in the UK. That's mainstream (in a country with a fifth the population of the US, so pro-rata it's 35-50M viewers).




That's 5 million viewers on a minor network. If prorating matters, you should probably at least double, maybe triple, that to get an estimate of its viewership on one of the big broadcast networks. Its ratings were enough to equal or exceed every nearly every other offering the WB network had including the clearly mainstream ones like Dawson's Creek. So I really don't see how it gets relegated to cult status but Dawson's Creek or 7th Heaven don't other than by content.

A "cult" show that is competitive with mainstream shows has to have broken out of cult status.


----------



## Morrus (May 8, 2012)

billd91 said:


> That's 5 million viewers on a minor network. If prorating matters, you should probably at least double, maybe triple, that to get an estimate of its viewership on one of the big broadcast networks. Its ratings were enough to equal or exceed every nearly every other offering the WB network had including the clearly mainstream ones like Dawson's Creek. So I really don't see how it gets relegated to cult status but Dawson's Creek or 7th Heaven don't other than by content.
> .




There may be a million reasons why it's not mainstream - being on a minor network perhaps being a major one of them - but those reasons don't make it mainstream. They just explain why it's not.

I've no idea about the other shows you mentioned. But a mainstream show in the US gets more than 5M viewers.

You don't pro rata to other networks. You pro rata to population. That's the only context the word "mainstream" makes sense. As a percentage of the population in question.

10M viewers in the UK is mainstream. 5M viewers in the US is not mainstream.


----------



## EricNoah (May 8, 2012)

Enjoyed it, worth the money and time.  Not sure I need to see it again.  Too many characters I didn't care about (some heroes I didn't know at all, some I knew but don't find that interesting).  Did a decent job of juggling all of the different characters though.


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2012)

Morrus said:


> That's the only context the word "mainstream" makes sense. As a percentage of the population in question.




I disagree.  In the US, the word is also used to distinguish content type, not just viewership.  Mainstream, as opposed to sci-fi/fantasy genre.  Mainstream as opposed to sub-culture.  Star Trek Next Gen was a genre show, still associated with geek subculture, not the main culture of the US, while Cheers and LA Law (a sitcom and law drama, respectively) were mainstream, even though they all these shows got around 20 million viewers.  

"Dawson's Creek" was basically a prime-time soap opera, aimed at a younger audience.  It got ratings and viewership similar to Buffy's.  It was definitely a mainstream show, while Buffy was not.


----------



## Morrus (May 8, 2012)

Umbran said:


> I disagree.  In the US, the word is also used to distinguish content type, not just viewership.  Mainstream, as opposed to sci-fi/fantasy genre.  Star Trek is a genre show, while Cheers and LA Law (a sitcom and law drama, respectively) were mainstream , even though they all got around 20 million viewers.
> 
> "Dawson's Creek" was basically a prime-time soap opera, aimed at a younger audience.  It got ratings and viewership similar to Buffy's.




Well, OK, but Buffy doesn't meet those criteria either. Whether you use the word to describe viewing percentages or subject matter, it was never mainstream.

As an aside - not that it's relevant - Star Trek TNG never got anywhere near 20M viewers in the US. It peaked at about 10M, and sunk to 4M. I dunno about the original series, though; I was under the impression that got cancelled due to low figures, got renewed with a fan campaign, then got cancelled again. Certainly not in the same level if viewership as Cheers and the like.

http://www.trektoday.com/articles/ratings_history.shtml


----------



## jonesy (May 9, 2012)

Avengers is already the 47th highest grossing movie of all time. Forbes is predicting it will beat Avatar.


----------



## Umbran (May 9, 2012)

Morrus said:


> As an aside - not that it's relevant - Star Trek TNG never got anywhere near 20M viewers in the US. It peaked at about 10M, and sunk to 4M.




Morrus, the numbers at that link are in terms of households, not individual viewers.  The premier episode, "Encounter at Farpoint" was seen by an estimated 27 million people in it's first airing (which, given syndication, was not all on one night, but all in one week), and was an astounding success for the syndication model they chose to use.  

And, given that Next Gen ended it's run in May 1994, I think getting 4 million viewers in 1998 would be pretty darned astounding!  Damn that time travel, it gives me a headache! 

But yes, Star Trek was never "mainstream".  My point was merely, that "mainstream" does not equate to "widely viewed", or vice versa.


----------



## Felon (May 9, 2012)

The original absurdity posted by Hobo was that Buffy was a commercial failure. It lasted seven seasons and became a franchise. If that's a failure, seems like the bar is set pretty high. Now we're going on about whether Buffy was mainstream, lending credence (even if unintentionally) to the false dichotomy that anything which doesn't do gangbusters in the mainstream equates to a commercial failure.

The show was successful for the type of show it was. A  "cult" following? Well, insomuch as that mainstream audiences don't go for much outside of reality shows and police procedural dramas. Even though the sci-fi and fantasy genres are the box-office darlings year-in and year-out, those genres don't really enjoy a lot of followers on TV for whatever reason.



Umbran said:


> Morrus, the numbers at that link are in terms of households, not individual viewers.  The premier episode, "Encounter at Farpoint" was seen by an estimated 27 million people in it's first airing (which, given syndication, was not all on one night, but all in one week), and was an astounding success for the syndication model they chose to use.



Sure, and like the WB and UPN channels, many folks simply didn't have the option of seeing them in their first run. When you start using a word like "mainstream", the qualifiers shift away from financial success to simple recognizability. I'd say Buffy and Picard are household names in the U.S, wouldn't you?


----------



## Umbran (May 9, 2012)

Felon said:


> Even though the sci-fi and fantasy genres are the box-office darlings year-in and year-out, those genres don't really enjoy a lot of followers on TV for whatever reason.




I guess it is largely this - on the silver screen, the sci-fi and fantasy genres hold the highest potential for amazing visuals and action sequences.  They don't have that on the small screen.



> Sure, and like the WB and UPN channels, many folks simply didn't have the option of seeing them in their first run.




I think the syndication for first run of Next Gen reached something like 90% of American homes.  It was a major effort to pull that off, and many think it couldn't be done without the backing of a major network.  But, well, it was Star Trek, and given flexibility, the stations took to it in droves.  



> I'd say Buffy and Picard are household names in the U.S, wouldn't you?




I am not at all sure they are.  Kirk and Spock are, yes.  But Buffy?  I don't think she's much recognized outside geek circles.  I'd guess Picard's somewhere in-between.


----------



## jonesy (May 9, 2012)

"Just like Budapest all over again."

"You and I remember Budapest very differently."


----------



## Jhaelen (May 9, 2012)

Felon said:


> The original absurdity posted by Hobo was that Buffy was a commercial failure.



So he wasn't totally correct: just delete 'commercial' from the sentence and he's spot on


----------



## Felon (May 9, 2012)

Jhaelen said:


> So he wasn't totally correct: just delete 'commercial' from the sentence and he's spot on



And something other than Buffy, like Firefly, Serenity, Dollhouse...

It is interesting to see how Whedon's body of works will evolve now that he's primed to topple King Cameron himself.


----------



## Azgulor (May 9, 2012)

An Avengers sequel needs to learn from the X-men movies mistakes and avoid "insert new character here" syndrome.  The movie established the team.  Let that be the team.

The more characters that are introduced, the harder it gets to provide adequate story/screen time for each character (see introduction of non-essential new characters in Star Trek films for examples).  The actors' contracts are formed around # of movie appearances.  So if, for example, Thor gets short-shrift in Avengers 2 to make way for Vision, the actor is done after Thor 3 & Avengers 3 (barring a new contract).  Also, unlike in comics, the actors will age and the longer the span of time between movies, the less likely you'll see them.  If Ruffalo appears in Iron Man 3, that counts against his movie appearances so while he'll be in Avengers 2 & 3, it hedges against him having standalone Hulk movies.

If Avengers 2 or Avengers 3 has a completely different roster, they're going to derail the franchise.  X3 had a weak-ass plot but it sure had a lot of throwaway appearances, didn't it?

I think it's far more likely you'll see characters like Wasp, Ultron, & Vision in Ant-Man (or its potential sequels) than in the Avengers.  Ant Man hasn't really been an A-Lister that can carry his own series in the comics and if you're going to do an Ant Man movie, you're going to need to have some classic Pym storylines from the Avengers to do it well.

They could use Ant Man as the lead-in to Avengers 2 (or 3) if they wanted to go the Ultron route.  However, I still believe additional heroes on the roster = diminshed story/screen time for the other heroes and/or the villain, which is big negative, IMO.

I put even odds that a Thanos conflict might be a build-up storyline that would culminate in Avengers 3 as the capstone "6th movie" for Iron Man, Thor, & Cap.  Since Whedon thinks an Avengers 2 would be better served as smaller scale & more character focused, it's hard to see Thanos as an Avengers 2 BBEG, but we'll have to see who's writing/directing it...


Finally, can we take the Whedon/Buffy/WB vs UPN discussion to a new/forked thread, already?  Sheesh.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 9, 2012)

Felon said:


> I personally would love to see The Vision. He's iconic for a large chunk of Avengers history, and is distinctive enough in powers, appearance, and overall concept that he would be a stand-out character.




The vision was my favourite avenger in my formative years, I really liked the character and his powers which seemed unique at that time. As I remember the involvement of ultranationalist in his origin could easily be introduced as a later backstory. I read many avengers stories with the vision before I ever came across the Luton history, and that worked fine for me, it could work for others too. 

However, all the avengers have had either movies of their own or cameos in other movies - I can't see another being introduced without some foreshadowing. I guess that might make ant man (hank pym) a good candidate wi lots of plot hooks around him. 

Cheers


----------



## Felon (May 9, 2012)

Having some spellcheck issues there, Plane?



Azgulor said:


> An Avengers sequel needs to learn from the X-men movies mistakes and avoid "insert new character here" syndrome.  The movie established the team.  Let that be the team.



Never happen. And probably shouldn't happen. Audiences will want new stuff. If nothing else, they'll want to keep seeing superhero-versus-superhero action. Can't have Iron Man, Thor, and Cap mixing it up again, can we?

Since characters can be introduced in Marvel films leading into the Avengers (as you noted) then the concerns you have are largely addressed.


----------



## Azgulor (May 9, 2012)

Felon said:


> Having some spellcheck issues there, Plane?
> 
> 
> Never happen. And probably shouldn't happen. Audiences will want new stuff. If nothing else, they'll want to keep seeing superhero-versus-superhero action. Can't have Iron Man, Thor, and Cap mixing it up again, can we?
> ...




So audiences want new stuff, but need to see the same old stuff (superhero vs. superhero)?  Which is it?

And no, intros in other films don't address it.  If the Avenger roster doubles, you can't provide a balance of story/screen time to each character.  Avengers already clocks in at 2.5 hours.  Additionally, if I'm using solo-hero films to intro or develop characters just to avoid future Avenger plot-time, I still have the problem of # of contractual appearances.  Also, you've got the budget of a single Avenger film to consider.  If Ant Man also showcases an actor for Wasp, Vision, Ultron, etc. I'm adding to the budget of future Avengers installments.

Avengers is a runaway success.  While I'd love to see Avengers 2 & 3 have equal success, the odss are against it being of the same magnitude.

For every fan who says "add my personal favorite Avenger", someone else's favorite is getting short shrift or reduced time.  And there are a TON of Avengers.  

They'd actually be better off doing spin-off Avenger teams ala West Coast Avengers/JL International where they could showcase more characters without mucking with the core team.

Also, my gut tells me that if we see any new Avengers, they'll be trying to diversify the team.  My money would be on Scarlet Witch, Ms. Marvel, or Wasp, Falcon, and/or Luke Cage.  But yeah, I'd love to see the Vision as well.  However, I realize all the plot baggage that entails and think it would be better served in Ant-Man movies.


----------



## Azgulor (May 9, 2012)

Additionally, there's the element of villain character development to consider.  In the comics, Loki was the Avengers first opponent.  Loki was established in Thor.

Moving forward, they'll likely not have that advantage.  The villain characters will need to be established as well.  In most cases, establishing the villain is MORE important once the heroes are familiar.  (Ala The Dark Knight)

Thanos still feels like a build-up bad guy to me (unless that build-up happens in Thor 2).  I could see a Masters of Evil or similar threat in Avengers 2.  That could be a lot of characters to introduce right there. (as an example)


----------



## Joker (May 9, 2012)

Felon said:


> Having some spellcheck issues there, Plane?
> 
> 
> Never happen. And probably shouldn't happen. Audiences will want new stuff. If nothing else, they'll want to keep seeing superhero-versus-superhero action. Can't have Iron Man, Thor, and Cap mixing it up again, can we?
> ...




I don't think that's true.  People generally care about interesting characters in a well written and well developed story.  You still need new antagonists, new challenges to overcome and some development in the existing characters.
You might get new characters to fulfill the role of expired characters but it isn't required.

I'm not saying new characters are bad, I just don't think that they are a must in sequels.


----------



## Felon (May 9, 2012)

Azgulor said:


> So audiences want new stuff, but need to see the same old stuff (superhero vs. superhero)?  Which is it?



Both. Most moviegoers want to see something fresh and new...as long as it's familia and doesn't defy expectations. They want variation on a theme, not originality. Producers have known this paradox for years, and Avatar is the Q.E.D.

In this case, the Vision shows up, and there's a knock-down drag-out fight. Heck, him and Wonder Man going at it was one of my earliest childhood memories.  



> Also, my gut tells me that if we see any new Avengers, they'll be trying to diversify the team.  My money would be on Scarlet Witch, Ms. Marvel, or Wasp, Falcon, and/or Luke Cage.  But yeah, I'd love to see the Vision as well.  However, I realize all the plot baggage that entails and think it would be better served in Ant-Man movies.



You left out Black Panter. He's probably the best of the token crowd, because the whole way he's been re-imagined with the Wakandan element over the last twenty years is actually pretty novel amongst superheroes. For a Batmanesque character, he's very un-Batmanesque--in other words, he's a good variation on a theme.


----------



## Azgulor (May 9, 2012)

Gah!  Black Panther was the one I was trying to remember!  He's a favorite of mine and my kids.


----------



## Felon (May 9, 2012)

You guys watch Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes? BP's under-utilized in terms of spotlight time, but he's pretty formidable nonetheless.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 9, 2012)

In addition to Black Panther, Captain Britain would be a good addition. Both are nationals of other countries, which would add to the the international feel of team.

Also, it might bug Alan Moore a bit.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 9, 2012)

Azgulor said:


> If the Avenger roster doubles, you can't provide a balance of story/screen time to each character.
> [...]
> Also, my gut tells me that if we see any new Avengers, they'll be trying to diversify the team.



Personally, I want to see different Avengers in every movie, i.e. don't _add_ new characters, _replace_ them.

This was, imho, the most disappointing thing about the Heroes TV show's later seasons (well apart from the bad storyline): The original Heroes got old really fast, I wanted to see completely new Heroes in a new story!

Why aren't there more shows (or movie sequels) that aren't afraid of killing off main - or at least secondary - characters?

This is a rhetorical question, of course. The unwillingness to take any risks by the producers (never change a winning team!) and the cost-effectiveness of signing actors for several seasons/sequels in advance combined with fan-outrage if a favorite character dies pretty much makes such a concept impossible.

At least _I_ would totally love it, though.


----------



## Azgulor (May 10, 2012)

Jhaelen said:


> Why aren't there more shows (or movie sequels) that aren't afraid of killing off main - or at least secondary - characters?




1. Because if the characters are done well, they're interesting enough for fans to want to continue watching/reading about the characters.  Question for you - do you only run a character once in a RPG and create a new character every session?  If not, why not?  Same idea.


2. Because often, when new characters are introduced, they're often less interesting than the ones that were replaced.  Y'know the characters that grabbed the fans interest in the first place.


3. If fans aren't invested in the characters, their propensity to follow the franchise/series diminishes rapidly.  Poor continuity + declining interest = dying/dead franchise/series.


----------



## Grimmjow (May 10, 2012)

i also like the scene with CA and the police


----------



## Jhaelen (May 10, 2012)

Azgulor said:


> Question for you - do you only run a character once in a RPG and create a new character every session?  If not, why not?  Same idea.



Nope. A session is the equivalent of an episode. What I'm talking about is switching the character after every adventure. And that's exactly what's possible in our game groups: Everyone has at least a secondary character.



Azgulor said:


> 2. Because often, when new characters are introduced, they're often less interesting than the ones that were replaced.



I disagree. Often they're just as interesting BUT the fans of the previous characters simply won't give them a chance because they prefer seeing their favorites.

It's just like fans screaming for an author to continue a book series about a particular protagonist. Sometimes the author is bored to tears with a character after a while and would like nothing better but to refuse to write another novel _or_ write a final one killing the character off.

Have you seen or read Stephen King's "Misery"? It's a perfect example.

Myself, I prefer reading standalone novels because for me the exciting part is getting to know a new 'world' populated by new characters. Sequels simply lack this kind of freshness. They tend to be just 'more of the same' or rehashing the original story.



Azgulor said:


> 3. If fans aren't invested in the characters, their propensity to follow the franchise/series diminishes rapidly.  Poor continuity + declining interest = dying/dead franchise/series.



Yup. And that's precisely what I'm complaining about. 

Fan is short for 'fanatic' and that shows time and again. For a franchise/series fans are great because once they're hooked, they'll stay until well after the point where things stopped being interesting. The quality of the storyboards can go downhill without it being noticed by fans for a long time, saving the producers a ton of money. In this period their initial investment pays off.


----------



## pathfinderq1 (May 10, 2012)

My wife and I saw this over the weekend, and enjoyed it immensely.

Top Moment: Hulk's beatdown of Loki

Secondary Moment: best use of a "highly specific skill set"- Black Widow's scene with Loki.  Not everyone can trick a trickster god, after all.


----------



## Herschel (May 10, 2012)

Saw it, was unimpressed.

It wasn't a bad movie, it just wasn't tremendous either.

Likes:
Robert Downey Jr. - He was terrific, as usual. Unfortunately his acting had to carry the rest of the main cast. 

The Hulk - The first big screen actual Hulk scenes I've ever enjoyed. 

Tom Hiddleston - He did a great job as Loki. He didn't have much room to work, but that was expected with an ensemble this big. 

The supporting characters - They were generally very good. 

Thor - he showed more emotional depth in a few short blurbs than his entire movie. Chris Hemsworth isn't a great actor, but he was good enough. 

The post-credits scene was tremendous. 

Dislikes:
The battle for the All-Spark, erm, magic cube of power, erm, Tesselect. Been there, done that. Recently. 

The big alien worms and tech were also very "Tansformers" feeling, as was most of the climactic battle. 

Chris Evans is a stinking, festering turd of an actor. He had all the gravitas of a young David Caruso without the Shatner-esque comedic quality. He has all the depth of a puddle of spit in the Sahara. He's about as enjoyable as a Marlon Wayans marathon.  He really drags the cast/movie down.

Mark Ruffalo - I really like Ruffalo in general, but his mewling, mumbling Dr. Banner was disappointing. I'm not sure what the real story is with Ed Norton but he was missed. 

It's worth seeing, but not on any list of great films.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 11, 2012)

Felon said:


> Having some spellcheck issues there, Plane?




Posting from a phone - darn you, autocorrect, darn you to heck!

It's funny enough that I'll leave it as is though


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 11, 2012)

Felon said:


> You guys watch Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes? BP's under-utilized in terms of spotlight time, but he's pretty formidable nonetheless.




I think the first Avengers comic I ever bought was #52, where the grim reaper had defeated the Avengers (hawkeye, goliath, wasp) but was in turn defeated to his great surprise by Black Panther.


----------



## Felon (May 11, 2012)

Azgulor said:


> 1. Because if the characters are done well, they're interesting enough for fans to want to continue watching/reading about the characters.  Question for you - do you only run a character once in a RPG and create a new character every session?  If not, why not?  Same idea.




In my superhero campaigns, players are recommended to have two or three characters to alternate between. Gives everyone a chance to play characters with different power levels and specialties, and prevents characters from getting stale by relying on the same set of attacks and defenses. (as most superhero RPG"s don't actually serve up a combat system that's dynamic or creative).

What, everyone doesn't play that way?


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 11, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm glad I avoided spoilers before seeing the movie. I saw it tonight and thought it was really, really great. I don't think I've seen the actor playing banner/hulk before, but I've never seen the hulk portrayed so well anywhere, ever. Every scene with him in was a showstopper, from him hunting Black Widow (no wonder she got into a bit of a funk) through to the Loki scene, Hulk was a pretty terrifying character!






jonesy said:


> Ruffalo has been given a contract for six movies with Marvel.
> 
> So that would be this one, a Hulk movie, an Avengers sequel, possibly an Iron Man sequel since they had him leave with him at the end, and then still two more.






Herschel said:


> Dislikes:
> 
> Mark Ruffalo - I really like Ruffalo in general, but his mewling, mumbling Dr. Banner was disappointing. I'm not sure what the real story is with Ed Norton but he was missed.



Ruffalo is getting rave reviews from the critics for his portrayal of Banner. In an interview I read, he said that he and Ed Norton joked that the role of Bruce Banner was their generation's Hamlet. 



Herschel said:


> It's worth seeing, but not on any list of great films.



The majority of critics and filmgoers disagree with you. At Rottentomatoes.com the Avengers currently has a favorable rating of 93% from critics and 96% from audience members.


----------



## Herschel (May 11, 2012)

The Tomatometer is a rather.....squishy measuring stick. Some of the distinctions between what is a positive and negative review are rather arbitrary. It's not a bad movie, it's just not that great. 

Chris Evans is an anchor. He's a charmless block of tofu who's acting "depth" can be described by the ability to look kind of pouty at times. He really killed the movie for me.  

Ruffalo mumbled a lot, which he's normally soft-spoke but usually enunciates well enough. This bugged me as I generally like him in whatever he does and I like _how_  he went about his portrayal, but the mmbling was too incongruous for such a talented guy. Take the marbles out already, you're better than that!


----------



## Azgulor (May 11, 2012)

Either you saw a different movie than I did or you were in a theater with audio issues.  I don't know what mumbling you're talking about.  I understood every word Ruffalo said in the film.


I also disagree with you about Chris Evans as cap, but it's pretty evident from your discriptions that it's just better to leave it at "agree to disagree".


----------



## Zelda Themelin (May 11, 2012)

Mmh someone mentioned how much ending fight for artifact is so similar including the artifact in recent movies. Yes, I've noticed. However has anyone else spotted/been bothered with musical score combined with soundeffect, especially this sound is almost exact in same in multiple movie trailers relating to techno-space-magic-alien-stuff.

All transformers have it, there it started actually.
Battleship trailer had it, Avenger had it too, but there sound of effect was modified little bit. Prometheus has almost same one too. Arght and it really brings transformers to my mind and I found those movies painfully boring.

It is kinda cool effect but do they have to use it everywhere?
Same composer guy maybe?

Also there is similarish fantasy variation of this that has appered in all god of war... uh. greek mythology movies recently. It is funny computer games used to imitate movies, but now it's movies imitatating computer games, effect-wise at least.

Tecno-organic-cyber-metal-trantsformer-look seems to be common too, I suspect partial copy-pasting.


----------



## El Mahdi (May 12, 2012)

Just saw it today with my wife.  We both thought it was sheer awesomeness.  The interplay between the different characters, outside of combat, was the best part for us.  It was gonzo superhero action without being cheesy, believable and interesting presentation of each character, excellent acting...all around awesome.

The CGI was almost perfect.  There was only one scene where I could tell the CGI from real (the scene during the big fight where Thor lands and deflects a blast off of Cap's shield...there's a couple of seconds there where Cap is CGI, and it's noticeable - doesn't move right - but that was it).

I'd give it 4.9999999 stars out of 5.


----------



## Kzach (May 12, 2012)

I'd just like to point out that it's worth watching twice.

I just came back from a second viewing. With movies like this, it can actually be better the second time around because it's not a blur of action and you can focus on what you know is important and you also tend to notice things you missed the first time.


----------



## jonesy (May 12, 2012)

jonesy said:


> Avengers is already the 47th highest grossing movie of all time. Forbes is predicting it will beat Avatar.



Yeah, you know how I said that three days ago?

29th. Just went past Inception. Avengers is a money making monster.


----------



## Felon (May 13, 2012)

If it can crush Avatar, I'm all for it. Of course, that'll just encourage Cameron to keep making Avatar films, but one can't have everything.

Second go round is a must if only to be able to hear all the lines missed due to audience whoops and laughter.


----------



## jonesy (May 13, 2012)

Felon said:


> If it can crush Avatar, I'm all for it. Of course, that'll just encourage Cameron to keep making Avatar films, but one can't have everything.



I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or what, but:
James Cameron on Chinese Filmmakers, Censorship and Potential Co-Productions - NYTimes.com



> I’m in the “Avatar” business. Period. That’s it. I’m making “Avatar 2,” “Avatar 3,” maybe “Avatar 4,” and I’m not going to produce other people’s movies for them. I’m not interested in taking scripts.


----------



## renau1g (May 13, 2012)

jonesy said:


> Yeah, you know how I said that three days ago?
> 
> 29th. Just went past Inception. Avengers is a money making monster.




Not sure though if the competition coming up will be too much for the Avengers to pass Avatar....

This weekend is a foregone conclusion, the Dark Shadows was never a threat.

Next weekend: Battleship (possible) & What to Expect when You're Expecting. 
Weekend After: Chernobyl Diaries and MIB 3 (possible) 
Following (6/1): Snow White & 7 Huntsmen
Weekend after that (6/8): Prometheus


----------



## Felon (May 13, 2012)

jonesy said:


> I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or what, but:
> James Cameron on Chinese Filmmakers, Censorship and Potential Co-Productions - NYTimes.com



Yeah, I read that. It's not a new sentiment. He said a long time ago that Titanic gave him a big ol' pile of "eff you" money. 



renau1g said:


> Not sure though if the competition coming up will be too much for the Avengers to pass Avatar....
> 
> This weekend is a foregone conclusion, the Dark Shadows was never a threat.
> 
> ...



Well, at this point, Avengers is one of those movies you're either going to go see, or you're not. I don't think there are many fence-sitters left to be swayed by a choice between it and the likes of Battleship.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 13, 2012)

Based on that list, I suspect they're safe until Prometheus.


----------



## Joker (May 13, 2012)

Wow, I didn't realize Battleship gets released a whole month later stateside than in the Netherlands.

Don't bother.


----------



## renau1g (May 13, 2012)

Felon said:


> Yeah, I read that. It's not a new sentiment. He said a long time ago that Titanic gave him a big ol' pile of "eff you" money.
> 
> 
> Well, at this point, Avengers is one of those movies you're either going to go see, or you're not. I don't think there are many fence-sitters left to be swayed by a choice between it and the likes of Battleship.




My point is that to surpass avatar it will probably need people to go see multiple times. If you compare the three weeks of movies to what avatar competed with I'm sure you'd see that the summer movies are probably a bigger threat. Avatar was putting up 25 million weekend nearly 2 months after release Feb 12 - 14. 

Also, box office mojo is predicting that MIB 3 will outgross Prometheus FWIW. I preferred Avengers to Avatar, but respect the 3d work Cameron did, it's still the only more I've been blown away by the 3d effects. Avengers 3d was pretty decent too.


----------



## jonesy (May 13, 2012)

Yeah well, Avengers is now 11th with a billion dollars. It's going to be number 3 before next weekend at this pace.


----------



## renau1g (May 14, 2012)

jonesy said:


> Yeah well, Avengers is now 11th with a billion dollars. It's going to be number 3 before next weekend at this pace.




"It currently ranks 11th on the all-time worldwide chart with $1.002 billion, and by the end of next weekend it will move up to fourth place behind Avatar, Titanic and Deathly Hallows Part 2." - Around-the-World Roundup: 'Avengers' Reaches $1 Billion Worldwide - Box Office Mojo

"Through Sunday, The Avengers is estimated to have earned $373.2 million, which ranks 18th on the all-time domestic chart. It's now inevitable that the movie will finish above $500 million, and it should also claim third place on the all-time chart ahead of The Dark Knight ($533.3 million)." - Weekend Report: 'Avengers' Shatters More Records, 'Shadows' Mostly Sucks - Box Office Mojo

"Across its 54 markets, The Avengers added an estimated $95.4 million this weekend to bring its foreign total to $628.9 million. That's the highest overseas gross ever for a comic book adaptation, and it ranks 16th among all titles. The movie's top market so far is the United Kingdom with $65.7 million, and China ($52.3 million), Mexico ($49.6 million), Brazil ($44.6 million) and South Korea ($41.3 million) make up the Top Five. It's only major market remaining is Japan, where it opens in August, and there's a good chance The Avengers ultimately winds up close to $800 million in overseas revenue." - Around-the-World Roundup: 'Avengers' Reaches $1 Billion Worldwide - Box Office Mojo

Yup, it's a monster. But $1B is a far distance from $2.78B. (or even the $2.1B of Titanic). If it ends up at $800B overseas + $535 domestic = $1.335B, finishing just ahead of Harry Potter Deathly Hollows (pt. 2)'s $1.328B.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (May 14, 2012)

Finally dropped into this thread - big comic book fan and superhero movie fan (my avatar being my longest played Champions character - going on 25 years or so).

Before the Avengers my favorite superhero movie was the Chris Reeve Superman.

I didn't feel there was a single false note in Avengers - the characters were all in character, the story worked; even if a bit thin. As for Loki being a bit out of character, I'm thinking the Chitari had something over him - maybe they saved him at the end of Thor, and had some control there - using him for their plan - and he went along with it, to try and conquer Earth, but not really expecting it to work. He did say something to that effect in there.

I have never liked the Hulk - brainless monsters don't appeal to me as a protagonist. The Ang Lee was a waste of film, the one after was pretty fun, and the performance of Ruffalo in Avengers was fantastic - I want to see a Hulk movie with him in it.

Every hero got a "crowning moment of awesome" and the dialog, pace and action was there.

As for possible new Avengers - personally I've always disliked Pym and Janet, so if they never show up I don't mind. Stark could built Ultron.  And for Vision-- he is someone with  memories of someone else - that could be how Coulson comes back.

The humor was perfect. Too often Superhero movies forget that Superheroes are also supposed to be fun.

I was completely surprised. Whedon is someone who's work I am usually at best neutral towards, and often disliked (I could never get into Buffy or Angel, and I think Firefly was canceled before he could screw it up in second season - part of the reason I think  it is so well regarded). So Whedon doing so well really surprised me.

I plan on seeing it at least twice more in the theaters.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 14, 2012)

The Avengers: Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:  $373,071,647    37.3% + Foreign:  $627,300,000    62.7% = Worldwide:  $1,000,371,647   

Avatar: Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:  $760,507,625    27.3% + Foreign:  $2,021,767,547    72.7% = Worldwide:  $2,782,275,172


----------



## MarkB (May 14, 2012)

Another interesting statistic: Avengers is the first movie ever to pull down more than $100 million in the US box office in its second week of release.


----------



## jonesy (May 15, 2012)

Meanwhile back in 1999:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgVcs1va1mQ]Xander says "Avengers assemble!" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 15, 2012)

Some funny comics about the Avengers by Noelle Stevenson.

Samples:


----------



## Felon (May 15, 2012)

Lord Mhoram said:


> And for Vision-- he is someone with  memories of someone else - that could be how Coulson comes back.



I was thinking about this possibility as well. Coulson didn't really strike me as anything but an utterly disposable character, but he seems to have gained sufficient traction to perhaps warrant a return. 

The Vision serves well as that "outsider-looking-in" archetype that Whedon likes to insert when an ensemble cast starts to get big. I'm thinking along the lines of River, Anya, Connor, and (especially) Illyria (who has Fred's brain patterns tucked away). When you have a bunch of people being all snarky and heavy on the pop-culture references, it's fun to have a foil in the form of someone who doesn't have a proper handle on snark and pop culture.


----------



## Umbran (May 15, 2012)

Lord Mhoram said:


> As for possible new Avengers - personally I've always disliked Pym and Janet, so if they never show up I don't mind. Stark could built Ultron.  And for Vision-- he is someone with  memories of someone else - that could be how Coulson comes back.




It is unlikely that Stark builds Ultron - the third Iron Man movie is expected to be based on the Extremis story line, and that may well be the last for him for now.  And, I don't think Marvel fans would put up with that departure from canon.  

But, Stark does mention Life Model Decoys in Avengers (tryign to evade a call from Coulson, no less!).  And Stark was moved by Coulson's death...

So, we could have an LMD Coulson.  And that's a half-step away from having the Vision. If they aren't planning on doing Wonder Man any time soon, maybe fans wouldn't mind using Coulson's engrams as a basis for the Vision.

And, well, look at the art on Vision.  He's typically drawn with a long face, high forehead, and he doesn't have hair.  Honestly, Coulson *looks* a bit like the Vision.   And, so far, the actor showed himself to have some chops.  Why not?


----------



## The Red King (May 15, 2012)

You know I really like the idea of Coulson as an LMD or even as the Vision.  I really like the character, and was sad to see him killed.


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 15, 2012)

My wife and I both swear that we saw Coulson, briefly, at the very end, after Fury tells Maria that the Avengers will come together if necessary, and she walks away as the camera lifts up to give a broad view of the helicarrier's bridge.

I watched it again, and I still see a guy in Coulson's standard MIB attire, wearing sunglasses the way Coulson did.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 15, 2012)

Felon said:


> I was thinking about this possibility as well. Coulson didn't really strike me as anything but an utterly disposable character, but he seems to have gained sufficient traction to perhaps warrant a return.



His roll in Thor helped a lot. Competent, but funny, is a good combination. And since he wasn't one of the main characters, he never had any of the flaws writers add to main characters to make him interesting. So we had an unflawed, competent, and funny character. I think that is a big part of his appeal.

Add to that the scene early in The Avengers in Stark Tower with Tony and Pepper, and I think it's easy to see why people cared about him. I think that, even for people who had never seen a previous Marvel Cinematic Universe movie, Coulson quickly became a character to care about. I certainly cared more about him than Hill. (Not to knock Hill or her actress, Smulders, but Hill just didn't get any character development.)


----------



## billd91 (May 15, 2012)

Umbran said:


> It is unlikely that Stark builds Ultron - the third Iron Man movie is expected to be based on the Extremis story line, and that may well be the last for him for now.  And, I don't think Marvel fans would put up with that departure from canon.




Stark may not have invented Ultron, but he has reassembled him on more than one occasion. So if they can establish some kind of idea that there's a history of a virtually indestructible, sentient, megalomaniacal, Oedipal robot made by someone in Stark's past, it's not a stretch to have Stark reassemble him.


----------



## Felon (May 15, 2012)

The main reason it was Hank Pym who built Ultron and not Stark is that the latter wasn't on the team when Roy Thomas came up with the villain. Tony Stark is the engineer with a specialization in computers, robotics, and weapon systems. Up until the day he built Ultron, Hank Pym was a scientist specialized in biochemistry and entomology. In the good ol' days of comics, with a target audience comprised of kids, this "Gilligan's Island" notion that "science is science" passed muster, but now...?

This is one retcon that would just make good sense. Btw, in my mind's ear, Ultron is voiced by Chris Latta (Cobra Commander, Starscream). How about you guys?

Regarding Pym, like I've said this in other threads, I think Marvel (and its various licensees) really missed the boat by not doing some Pixar/Dreamworks 3D adaptations of some of their characters. "Ant-Man, Giant-Man" would make a great light-hearted film for young audiences.


----------



## El Mahdi (May 15, 2012)

fanboy2000 said:


> His roll in Thor helped a lot. Competent, but funny, is a good combination. And since he wasn't one of the main characters, he never had any of the flaws writers add to main characters to make him interesting. So we had an unflawed, competent, and funny character. I think that is a big part of his appeal.
> 
> Add to that the scene early in The Avengers in Stark Tower with Tony and Pepper, and I think it's easy to see why people cared about him. I think that, even for people who had never seen a previous Marvel Cinematic Universe movie, Coulson quickly became a character to care about. I certainly cared more about him than Hill. (Not to knock Hill or her actress, Smulders, but Hill just didn't get any character development.)




I agree. Unflawed, funny, and competent sums him up perfectly.

Personally, I hope he's not really dead. There are quite a few sites pointing out how we didn't necessarily see him die, and that Fury could be lying (again) as motivation for the hero's. There were negotiations with Clark Gregg to play Coulson in _Iron Man III_, though nothing about whether he will be. It's also possible that even if he is in _Iron Man III_, it may just be in the form of a flashback or somesuch. I would imagine that now, no matter what, they're going to keep this secret as long as they can because of the buzz the character has. Maybe with enough buzz though, they might decide to keep him around.

Clark Gregg is really good in that role, though he pretty much had that character down long before the Marvel movies. His Agent Casper from The West Wing was very similar: a competent, nice, by-the-book fan-boy. He's only in like 8 episodes or so, but he's one of mine and my wife's favorites from the show (well, he's one of my wife's favorites because he's married to Jennifer Grey).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oambrQGdLjg"]West Wing - Allergy medicine and tractor fluid - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 15, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Clark Gregg is really good in that role, though he pretty much had that character down long before the Marvel movies. His Agent Casper from The West Wing was very similar: a competent, nice, by-the-book fan-boy.



Hadn't seen that before, I never watched the West Wing. I did see him a few months ago on The New Adventures of Old Christine when my wife was watching reruns in syndication. It was weird hearing his voice saying things that _weren't_ MiB like.


----------



## Nellisir (May 16, 2012)

Just saw it for the first time (I've been busy!).  Loved it.  Reviews are generally spot on: good character building, particularly for the Black Widow - I could see a movie there.  Less so for Hawkeye: the character was great, just not as fleshed out.

Hulk/Banner was spectacular, though I think it might get old over the course of a whole movie.  The Hulk really works best in an ensemble, IMO.  Iron Man was Iron Man, Thor was Thor, and Cap was Cap (still looks like a babyface to me; would've liked to see an actor with a little more maturity).

I liked how the power levels were portrayed.  Black Widow & Hawkeye can go toe to toe.  Captain is above them, but below Iron Man, Thor, and Hulk.  IM can go toe to toe with Thor, but it's hard and he wears down.  Thor and Hulk can go toe to toe, but it's hard on Thor.  Black Widow vs Hulk...she gets the heck out of the way.  No fancy tricks, just evasion and running like hell.

Hulk vs Loki was priceless.


----------



## MarkB (May 16, 2012)

Nellisir said:


> Just saw it for the first time (I've been busy!).  Loved it.  Reviews are generally spot on: good character building, particularly for the Black Widow - I could see a movie there.  Less so for Hawkeye: the character was great, just not as fleshed out.




I'm generally not keen on prequels, but I think I could actually enjoy a Black Widow / Hawkeye: Origins movie.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (May 16, 2012)

Umbran said:


> It is unlikely that Stark builds Ultron - the third Iron Man movie is expected to be based on the Extremis story line, and that may well be the last for him for now.




Ah.

Don't know that one. Likely too recent for me to have read - I pretty much gave up on Marvel throughout the 90s and the 00s. The reset/renumbering of the Avengers and Heroic age had a few stories I wanted to read with the Avengers but that was pretty much it.

I'm one of those that considers the Dissambled/Mutants killed/Civil War/Skrull series of events to be less palatable than Liefeld Artwork.

one of the things I loved about the Avengers movies - the Heroes get to be Heroic, not anti-heroes or dark reflections - but out and out heroic, even the Hulk (I character I normally don't care for at all).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 16, 2012)

Saw the movie tonight, in 3D.

Enjoyed myself, but while the 3D was effective, it didn't move me enough to justify the added cost.


----------



## billd91 (May 16, 2012)

Felon said:


> The main reason it was Hank Pym who built Ultron and not Stark is that the latter wasn't on the team when Roy Thomas came up with the villain.




Is that from Roy Thomas? I ask because Iron Man was in the issue in which a flashback reveals that Pym created Ultron. I can see using someone who wasn't headlining his own comic if they don't want to try to jam too much into the continuity, but it seems a bit of odd work to shift to Pym under the explanation that Stark was on leave from the Avengers at the time of creation when he's there for the story that explains it.


----------



## Janx (May 16, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Saw the movie tonight, in 3D.
> 
> Enjoyed myself, but while the 3D was effective, it didn't move me enough to justify the added cost.




We made our second attempt to go see it last saturday in 2d.  It was good.

Given that most movies after Avatar had 3d tacked on, I assume Avatar is the only good 3d movie on the planet.  I'll wait until people are raving about a film's use of 3d and they mention how the director planned and shot the whole file for 3d.

Which is a segue into the question of why did that one guy in this thread think this movie wasn't that good when buttloads of people in here liked it and apparently sales for it are really high.  Much like the hopefulness that this movie tops Avatar, as if that position wasn't deserved.

I think there's a simple test before declaring a movie wasn't good vs. you personally didn't like the movie.  If the movie has poor sales and you though the movie was crap, then it probably was a crappy movie.  If the movie has awesome sales and you didn't like the movie, that's clearly a matter of preference, given that while the mass of humanity is dumber than you, they are still not so dumb that they will eat dog turds off the sidewalk.

Lastly, I'd like to close with an Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit comparison.  Having just learned of AS/BB, it's just wrong NOT to reference it.


----------



## Umbran (May 16, 2012)

Janx said:


> I think there's a simple test before declaring a movie wasn't good vs. you personally didn't like the movie.  If the movie has poor sales and you though the movie was crap, then it probably was a crappy movie.  If the movie has awesome sales and you didn't like the movie, that's clearly a matter of preference, given that while the mass of humanity is dumber than you, they are still not so dumb that they will eat dog turds off the sidewalk.




Given that the mass of humanity has given careers to people like the Wayans Brothers, and supports movies like "Bridesmaids", I think your test needs recalibration.


----------



## renau1g (May 16, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Saw the movie tonight, in 3D.
> 
> Enjoyed myself, but while the 3D was effective, it didn't move me enough to justify the added cost.




I wanted to see it in IMAX and the only way to do that was to see it 3d. I'd much prefer 2d in the IMAX format (I think Batman will be like this IIRC), I hate wearing the glasses.

Luckily I had passes so it was "only" $6/ticket and one thing that was really cool, they had reserved seating, so your seat number was printed on the ticket after you chose your seat....that was certainly enjoyable.


----------



## Felon (May 16, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Is that from Roy Thomas? I ask because Iron Man was in the issue in which a flashback reveals that Pym created Ultron. I can see using someone who wasn't headlining his own comic if they don't want to try to jam too much into the continuity, but it seems a bit of odd work to shift to Pym under the explanation that Stark was on leave from the Avengers at the time of creation when he's there for the story that explains it.



True, Iron Man, Cap, and Thor showed up for the induction, but they were basically just guest stars in the Avengers at that time. Not really "on leave" as much as "on loan". Usually, they'd rotate them around a bit, Cap in one adventure and a few issues later Iron Man would pop in. There's always been this weird territoriality with characters that have their own books that are also supposed to be part of a team.

It was one of those wonderfully puerile comic book moments where Cap's brilliant tactical mind tells him the best way to test the Vision's capabilities is to pick a fight right there at the meeting table, and when Vision shows him up, Iron Man and Thor gang up on the poor android just because Cap's their chum.


----------



## Umbran (May 16, 2012)

Felon said:


> The main reason it was Hank Pym who built Ultron and not Stark is that the latter wasn't on the team when Roy Thomas came up with the villain.




I hadn't heard that.  But, either way, we are talking about changing a basic truth of the characters established in 1968.  Tony Stark has developed as a character for several decades *without* having that particular burden.  You can't just add it in willy-nilly and have it be acceptable to fans.



> Tony Stark is the engineer with a specialization in computers, robotics, and weapon systems. Up until the day he built Ultron, Hank Pym was a scientist specialized in biochemistry and entomology. In the good ol' days of comics, with a target audience comprised of kids, this "Gilligan's Island" notion that "science is science" passed muster, but now...?




Well, I don't think that description of Pym is accurate - the formula he creates for size change isn't really biochemical, but physics (Pym particles!), and his insect-control stuff is as much "cybernetic" as anything else in the Marvel Universe.

For the movies, we don't have Pym established - they could simply slant him so it makes sense.  But, since I don't think we're going to see Ultron at all, I think it is irrelevant.


----------



## Felon (May 16, 2012)

Umbran said:


> I hadn't heard that.  But, either way, we are talking about changing a basic truth of the characters established in 1968.  Tony Stark has developed as a character for several decades *without* having that particular burden.  You can't just add it in willy-nilly and have it be acceptable to fans.



I think yuo'd be surprised how little traction Hank Pym has these days. Series like the Ulimates line show that fans are okay with rewriting history. It's no less sever than, say, making Hawkeye a SHIELD assassin. If it makes sense, it works.

Moreover, I don't think you'd be surprised at how popular Iron Man is. In terms of pleasing both fans and casual moviegoers, keeping him in center stage makes all the sense in the world. They'd have to have one really great debut for Hank Pym to change that.



> Well, I don't think that description of Pym is accurate - the formula he creates for size change isn't really biochemical, but physics (Pym particles!), and his insect-control stuff is as much "cybernetic" as anything else in the Marvel Universe.



It's accurate as it can be given the loose notions about science in comics. Don't know where you got your intel about pym particles, but they are certainly derived from a chemical formula--little gas capsules that originally he'd inhale, and then later just spray on. As for the helmet, that was an application of his skills as a chemist and entomologist, sometimes described as transmitting his vocie commands into pheromones, and at other times translating his language into the ant argot (psuedo-sceince is kind of hard to classify under a particular field). I believe the interpretation of it as some cybernetic telepathy is the latter-day work of Elliot Brown, who often fell back on explaining most super-powers as either psionics (even when the powers ostensibly were not mental in nature) and the shunting of mass from an extradimensional source.

Of course, for most of comics history, writers had only a limited awareness or concern for such consistent distinctions. They didn't have a Wikipedia or Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe to consult back then. But Hank Pym wasn't constantly cranking out new inventions or feats of engineering, and certainly nothing on the order of Ultron. He was kind of a two-trick pony, really.


----------



## Azgulor (May 16, 2012)

Janx said:


> Given that most movies after Avatar had 3d tacked on, I assume Avatar is the only good 3d movie on the planet.  I'll wait until people are raving about a film's use of 3d and they mention how the director planned and shot the whole file for 3d.




As a sidenote, the best use of 3D I've seen since Avatar was Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides.  Pretty much the entire movie has well-done 3D elements to it.  As for this tacked-on, afterthought 3D approach, I wish studios would drop it all together.


----------



## renau1g (May 16, 2012)

Azgulor said:


> As a sidenote, the best use of 3D I've seen since Avatar was Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides.  Pretty much the entire movie has well-done 3D elements to it.  As for this tacked-on, afterthought 3D approach, I wish studios would drop it all together.




If people stopped going to crappy 3d-renditions then they'd stop making them, but it's gravy money a lot of times... I blame people more than the studios.


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 16, 2012)

renau1g said:


> If people stopped going to crappy 3d-renditions then they'd stop making them, but it's gravy money a lot of times... I blame people more than the studios.



A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. Now, however, there were only 3 non-3D showings on opening weekend at my local theatre, and they were either too early (my wife works until 6:30) or too late (start times after 10pm don't work when you've got two kids who are ridiculous early birds that never stay in bed past 6am).


----------



## Felon (May 16, 2012)

Janx said:


> I think there's a simple test before declaring a movie wasn't good vs. you personally didn't like the movie.  If the movie has poor sales and you though the movie was crap, then it probably was a crappy movie.  If the movie has awesome sales and you didn't like the movie, that's clearly a matter of preference, given that while the mass of humanity is dumber than you, they are still not so dumb that they will eat dog turds off the sidewalk.



This is populism, a most appalling way of determining the quality of works of art or fiction (albeit a _popular_ one). 

There seems to be a misconception, often touted in this very forum, that because personal preferences are simply a matter of opinion, they are thus completely arbitrary and beyond the reach of logical examination. Furthermore, any attempt to do so is simply a sign of pugnacious and argumentative behavior (i.e. a clear indicator of violating the moderators' "jerk test"). Civility dictates that when someone tells you you're wrong, you should just respect that as a disagreement. A disagreement being, after all, the most indisputable thing under the sun.

Not so. Not every opinion is as utterly subjective as "I like the color green" or "I hate cashews". Most opinions are more elaborate than that. They are based on reasons, not whim, and most preferences are derived from personal standards. They may be weak reasons and lousy standards, and that can be a topic of discussion.

Given all of that, I do not see the need for simple tests. Rather, people who state their opinions should be willing to discuss them. Somebody posted their reaons for not being by the Avengers earlier in this thread, and I appreciate them taking the time to back up their assessment even if I don't agree with it.

All those others who only have to offer "I loved it and my kids loved it and everybody loves it, and since all of these people disagree with just li'l ol' you, that implicitly indicates your assessment is wrong" ....well, not so much appreciation there.


----------



## renau1g (May 16, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. Now, however, there were only 3 non-3D showings on opening weekend at my local theatre, and they were either too early (my wife works until 6:30) or too late (start times after 10pm don't work when you've got two kids who are ridiculous early birds that never stay in bed past 6am).




That sucks. My kiddos are the same (well, more like 6:30 but still too early for my liking). 7:50 may be doable, but if you wanted to see Avengers you'd be SOL. 

Here's a sample of the opening weekend at the two theaters here for Battleship

May 18, 2012	 - (RW®C/DVS®) - No Passes
4:10 PM	 | 7:20 PM	 | 10:25 PM

May 18, 2012	 - No Passes
4:50 PM	 | 7:50 PM	 | 10:55 PM

Battleship
May 18, 2012	 - No Passes
3:40 PM	 | 4:20 PM	 | 6:50 PM	 | 7:20 PM	 | 9:55 PM	 | 10:25 PM

Here's the Avengers this weekend:

Marvel's The Avengers
May 18, 2012	 - (3D)
3:50 PM	 | 4:20 PM	 | 7:10 PM	 | 7:40 PM	 | 10:30 PM	 | 11:00 PM

May 18, 2012
3:20 PM	 | 6:40 PM	 | 10:00 PM

Marvel's The Avengers
May 18, 2012	 - (3D)
3:30 PM	 | 3:50 PM	 | 6:40 PM	 | 7:10 PM	 | 10:00 PM	 | 10:30 PM

May 18, 2012
6:20 PM	 | 9:40 PM


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 16, 2012)

[MENTION=54810]renau1g[/MENTION] - Yeah, that's about what the schedule was opening week where I live, too. So we saw it in 3D. Great movie. Still don't think it was worth the extra $3 per ticket for the 3D.


----------



## billd91 (May 16, 2012)

Felon said:


> I think yuo'd be surprised how little traction Hank Pym has these days. Series like the Ulimates line show that fans are okay with rewriting history. It's no less sever than, say, making Hawkeye a SHIELD assassin. If it makes sense, it works.




It certainly doesn't help that Hank Pym is probably one of the most dumped on characters in the Marvel Universe. Confidence and multiple personality problems set in fairly early, but writers have alternately trashed him or tried to rehabilitate him since he gave Wasp the black eye back in the early 1980s. Given the influence the Ultimates have had on the current movies and how the books ramped up the domestic violence to a new extreme, I think think integrating Pym would be a challenge. The main continuity's Civil War and Camp Hammond probably didn't help much. I think there's a reason Ant Man has been stuck in relatively early stages of production while the other movies have charged forward. They have to go carefully with a character who's relatively obscure outside of the Avengers fanboy/girl culture. That must hardly seem worth it.

That said, the whole Ultron/Yellowjacket/Wasp/Jocasta storyline is core Avengers meat and potatoes. It would be a classic, albeit hard to really capture in 2 hours on screen.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 16, 2012)

Janx said:


> Given that most movies after Avatar had 3d tacked on, I assume Avatar is the only good 3d movie on the planet.  I'll wait until people are raving about a film's use of 3d and they mention how the director planned and shot the whole file for 3d.



IIRC, Whedon was going to film it in 3d, but dealing with 3d and everything else was too much, so he filmed it 2d with an eye to doing the 3d in post.

Coraline's good in 3d. Stop motion animation looks really good in 3d. Of course, I believe Coraline (and Avatar) were filmed in 3d, while Avangers was not.



renau1g said:


> I wanted to see it in IMAX and the only way to do that was to see it 3d. I'd much prefer 2d in the IMAX format (I think Batman will be like this IIRC), I hate wearing the glasses.



No 3d for Dark Knight Rises. Also, several scenes (including an awesome opening sequence) are actually filmed in the old IMAX ratio. Whoooo!



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Lastly, I'd like to close with an Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit comparison.  Having just learned of AS/BB, it's just wrong NOT to reference it.



BMX Bandit needs to work at a hippie co-op.



Umbran said:


> Given that the mass of humanity has given careers to people like the Wayans Brothers, and supports movies like "Bridesmaids", I think your test needs recalibration.



Hey, Bridesmaids was cute. I liked it.


----------



## Felon (May 16, 2012)

billd91 said:


> It certainly doesn't help that Hank Pym is probably one of the most dumped on characters in the Marvel Universe. Confidence and multiple personality problems set in fairly early, but writers have alternately trashed him or tried to rehabilitate him since he gave Wasp the black eye back in the early 1980s. Given the influence the Ultimates have had on the current movies and how the books ramped up the domestic violence to a new extreme, I think think integrating Pym would be a challenge.



Well, in The Ulimates, Mark Millar made pretty much all of the Avengers pretty vulgar. Captain America is a hyper-violent bone-breaker, the Wasp is this disgusting egg-laying bug-woman, and the Hulk eats people. That's Millar for ya. And fans can't get enough of'im.

Funny thing about Pym is that his one Ike Turner moment was more unforgivable in the eyes of fans than blatant acts of murder by other Marvel heroes. I mean, Namor once flew to the top of the Statue of Liberty and tossed tourists to their deaths. 

So you have that ugliness to his character, mixed with a set of silly powers that don't really contribute much to the team (either as Ant-Man or Giant-Man). I always thought Yellowjacket back when I had no idea of his previous identities (how many heroes can do much with "yellow" as part of their name?), but that whole character seems to have been abandoned for good while Ant-Man and Giant-Man (and Goliath) keep seeing returns. 



> That said, the whole Ultron/Yellowjacket/Wasp/Jocasta storyline is core Avengers meat and potatoes. It would be a classic, albeit hard to really capture in 2 hours on screen.



Moreover, it would involve benching characters that fans want to see center stage.


----------



## renau1g (May 16, 2012)

fanboy2000 said:


> No 3d for Dark Knight Rises. Also, several scenes (including an awesome opening sequence) are actually filmed in the old IMAX ratio. Whoooo!
> 
> 
> Hey, Bridesmaids was cute. I liked it.





re: IMAX ratio... something changed? 

I couldn't stand Bridesmaids, I didn't laugh once the whole time. I had heard everyone compare it to The Hangover..... nope, not even close IMO.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 16, 2012)

Marvel once did a TV series called _Mutant X_ that was essentially X-Men with the serial numbers filed off.  They could do much the same with The Avengers and capture that Pym/Ultron/ etc. storyline with some success.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 16, 2012)

renau1g said:


> re: IMAX ratio... something changed?



Yes. There are two IMAX formats. One is a large format (i.e., the film is larger than the standard 35mm format) film, the other is not. (Really, it's just a projection system.)

Originally, you filmed IMAX films with a special camera that and exhibited on a screen that literally occupies your field of vision. They were specially built and constructed.

In the past few years, there have been IMAX branded screens that, while larger than normal, aren't as large as the screens from before. For the most part, the show movies that weren't shot on IMAX cameras. The Avengers wasn't shot on IMAX cameras, nor was John Carter. The latest Mission Impossible was. Or, at least several scenes were. The cameras are very loud and not all that suitable for dialog scenes.

If you watch The Dark Knight at home and see the picture ratio change, that's the transition from IMAX to non-IMAX or vise versa.


----------



## Nellisir (May 16, 2012)

Umbran said:


> It is unlikely that Stark builds Ultron - the third Iron Man movie is expected to be based on the Extremis story line, and that may well be the last for him for now.  And, I don't think Marvel fans would put up with that departure from canon.




If it makes a good story, I think fans will live with it. Iron Man fans are only a subset of Marvel fans, and Marvel fans are only a subset of moviegoers.  I barely know anything about Ultron's origin.  I don't know anything at all about Extremis, and I've been reading Marvel comics weekly for twenty+ years.  Just not Iron Man.  Or Avengers, for that matter.

I'd call it a significantly lesser deviation from canon than the entirity of the last X-Men movie, which rewrote the entire beginning of the X-Men, but still made a very good movie.


----------



## jonesy (May 16, 2012)

Felon said:


> Funny thing about Pym is that his one Ike Turner moment was more unforgivable in the eyes of fans than blatant acts of murder by other Marvel heroes. I mean, Namor once flew to the top of the Statue of Liberty and tossed tourists to their deaths.



Of course it was more unforgivable. It was detailed, it was disturbing, it was pages upon pages. The Namor incident was so glossed over it's amazing anyone even remembers it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 16, 2012)

Wasn't Namor at war with the surface world at that point?

(Not justification, context.)


----------



## billd91 (May 16, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Wasn't Namor at war with the surface world at that point?
> 
> (Not justification, context.)




He was. And I saw that in comics from the 1940s. Did he do the same when he was rediscovered in the FF comics in the 1960s?

Given the culture of the 1940s as shown in pop culture from movies to the comics, is anybody really surprised that a version of Captain America separated from that time might be a bit of a bonebreaking, thinks-with-his-fists kind of guy as written in the Ultimates? The Cap from the main continuity is filtered through the 1960s civil rights and Vietnam war and protests era. He's no longer the kind of guy who we'd likely get thawing out a super-soldier frozen in the last days of WWII. And I really enjoyed that contrast while the Ultimates ran.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 16, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Wasn't Namor at war with the surface world at that point?\






billd91 said:


> He was. And I saw that in comics from the 1940s. Did he do the same when he was rediscovered in the FF comics in the 1960s?



Yep. Since the '60s, Namor's waffled on the whole good guy thing. He waffled in the '40s too. His feature was after the Human Torch's in the original Marvel Comics title. It's an interesting contrast.


----------



## Felon (May 17, 2012)

billd91 said:


> He was. And I saw that in comics from the 1940s. Did he do the same when he was rediscovered in the FF comics in the 1960s?



Well, he rampaged quite a bit. Led his forces against the surface. Teamed up with Dr. Doom and the Hulk. No blatant loss of life in the Comics Code days, but he probably doled out a few black eyes at the very least. Many heroes have gone through a dark phase or two. But the context of domestic abuse seems far more horrible than all of the brutality other characters have had to redeem themselves for.  



> Given the culture of the 1940s as shown in pop culture from movies to the comics, is anybody really surprised that a version of Captain America separated from that time might be a bit of a bonebreaking, thinks-with-his-fists kind of guy as written in the Ultimates?



I wouldn't say the Millar version of Cap was simply an old-school John-Wayne man's-man type. I'd be fine with that. When I say "bone-breaking", we're not just talking knocking some teeth out. He went to a more extreme level of steel-toed-boot-through-the-face viciousness, as Millar characters are wont to do. Granted, he's no Midgnighter, but still....

Likewise, a Hulk that actually kills people when he goes on a rampage makes for an interesting modern take, but that's not quite shocking enough, so he eats people. I've enjoyed some of Millar's stuff (Authority, Wanted, Kick-Ass), but it seems safe to say that cynicism, cruelty, and anger are emotions that permeate everything he writes. I don't think I've ever seen a moment of pure, untainted compassion or kindness in any of his works. Admittedly, there's likely plenty I haven't read. Maybe when I get a chance to check out "Superman: Red Son" I'll see a change of tone.

To my way of thinking, a Cap that's just an inhumane thug that doesn't think twice about shattering and mangling his opponents like Jason Voorhees..well, which of Cap's qualities does that leave to admire? There's no shortage of vicious, take-no-crap tough guys in comics.


----------



## renau1g (May 17, 2012)

Felon said:


> To my way of thinking, a Cap that's just an inhumane thug that doesn't think twice about crippling or killing...well, which of Cap's qualities does that leave to admire? There's no shortage of mean, take-no-crap tough guys in comics.




I love Cap, I love his idealism, I am a bit tired of the mean, tough guy bull, and I think that's a reason why Avengers did well, it was fun, it had heroes being....well heroes. 

I still remember the Amalgam crossover from the 90's. Captain America and Batman stopping the big cosmic entities from destroying one another.

"They see....A child witnessing his parents gunned down...swearing vengeance... unselfishly devoting his life to those who cannot protect themselves...From the nothingness of a blighted soul, he fashioned a dark guardian and joined others in battle"

"They see...a young man with willing spirit and weak flesh, subjecting himself to experiments so he can fight a great evil...a man whose battle carries him across decades to a harsh, cynical world that needed him even more, and was even less willing to admit it...." 

That last part about Captain America was one that always stuck with me, not sure why, I wasn't crazy about the character before.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 20, 2012)

Felon said:


> The Vision serves well as that "outsider-looking-in" archetype that Whedon likes to insert when an ensemble cast starts to get big. I'm thinking along the lines of River, Anya, Connor, and (especially) Illyria (who has Fred's brain patterns tucked away). When you have a bunch of people being all snarky and heavy on the pop-culture references, it's fun to have a foil in the form of someone who doesn't have a proper handle on snark and pop culture.




I think that they have probably been using Captain America for that archetype - there are several places in Avengers where he doesn't get the pop culture reference as a reminder to us that he was from the 1940's. "smart as Stephen Hawking" was one that springs to mind.

Not to say they couldn't drive it further with someone like the vision, of course.


----------



## Felon (May 20, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I think that they have probably been using Captain America for that archetype - there are several places in Avengers where he doesn't get the pop culture reference as a reminder to us that he was from the 1940's. "smart as Stephen Hawking" was one that springs to mind.
> 
> Not to say they couldn't drive it further with someone like the vision, of course.



That's a good observation. Cap has a handful of blonde moments in the movie. I think for him to become the character he's meant to be, that's going to fall to the wayside by the time Avengers 2 comes out. 

Kind of concerned that the problem with the next movie will be that they've worked passed the problems that made the first movie fun. Some of the real stand-out moments are the squabbles and brawls between the different heroes. It's the basic conundrum of sequels. In the first movie, protagonists go through a catharsis where they work through their issues. In the sequel, they either regress and start acting like jackasses again (Iron Man 2 springs to mind) as if their previous catharsis didn't take, or they're fine and they have nothing internal to push against. A more in-touch Cap makes sense in a sequel, but comes at the expense of those moments of humor.


----------



## Nellisir (May 20, 2012)

Saw it again last night.  I have to say, one of my favorite moments is when the Widow is recovering from evading the Hulk.  She's clearly not calm and in control.  She just trying to recover and not be totally, absolutely terrified.

I feel like the movie gives a really appropriate sense of how powerful and dangerous the Hulk is, and that's pretty cool.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 20, 2012)

Felon said:


> It's the basic conundrum of sequels. In the first movie, protagonists go through a catharsis where they work through their issues. In the sequel, they either regress and start acting like jackasses again (Iron Man 2 springs to mind) as if their previous catharsis didn't take




I really, really hate it when heroes are hit by the stupid stick in a sequel. I don't know whether it is because studios want to slavishly follow the same 'formula' which worked in the first one, or writers just find it really hard to write something that can build upon the first without undoing the things that have been learned (or something else).

I'll be keeping my fingers crossed, but I fear it is going to be the filmic equivalent of the 'difficult second album'


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 20, 2012)

Nellisir said:


> Saw it again last night.  I have to say, one of my favorite moments is when the Widow is recovering from evading the Hulk.  She's clearly not calm and in control.  She just trying to recover and not be totally, absolutely terrified.
> 
> I feel like the movie gives a really appropriate sense of how powerful and dangerous the Hulk is, and that's pretty cool.




I agree on both counts; I think the Widows reaction was a strong bit of writing.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 20, 2012)

I also love that Widow scene (several, actually, as iirc she's shaken for a few senes). It not only grounds her in reality, but helps stress that the Hulk is _incredibly_ dangerous to normal humans, that one blow and poof, you're dead, period.

Another favorite bit of mine is when the Hulk is trying to lift Thor's hammer Mjölnir and his feet are crushing into the floor: when immovable object meets irresistible force, it's all about leverage.


----------



## MarkB (May 20, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I really, really hate it when heroes are hit by the stupid stick in a sequel. I don't know whether it is because studios want to slavishly follow the same 'formula' which worked in the first one, or writers just find it really hard to write something that can build upon the first without undoing the things that have been learned (or something else).




To be fair, it's not just studios. I've seen similar character-growth resets in novels, even by authors I generally respect, and superhero comics are, let's face it, infamous for performing resets on any of a variety of aspects of their material, characterisation included.



> I'll be keeping my fingers crossed, but I fear it is going to be the filmic equivalent of the 'difficult second album'




It is one good argument in favour of including at least a couple of new main characters in the next movie - changing the group dynamic allows for new frictions to occur without undoing the progress of the first movie.

Still, I don't think it needs to be entirely one thing or the other. I think this team could easily be seen falling back into mostly-good-natured bickering when not in direct danger, only coming together as a unit under battlefield conditions.


----------



## billd91 (May 21, 2012)

MarkB said:


> To be fair, it's not just studios. I've seen similar character-growth resets in novels, even by authors I generally respect, and superhero comics are, let's face it, infamous for performing resets on any of a variety of aspects of their material, characterisation included.




I don't mind this sort of thing so much because, with real growth, it's often a couple steps forward and one back. It's rarely smooth, constant, and continual.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 21, 2012)

And some- especially those with serious vices or other demons- rarely make true and lasting progress.

(I mean, just how well was the role of Tony Stark/Iron Man really cast, right?)


----------



## Felon (May 21, 2012)

Nellisir said:


> Saw it again last night.  I have to say, one of my favorite moments is when the Widow is recovering from evading the Hulk.  She's clearly not calm and in control.  She just trying to recover and not be totally, absolutely terrified.
> 
> I feel like the movie gives a really appropriate sense of how powerful and dangerous the Hulk is, and that's pretty cool.



Yes, despite the undercurrents of humor, there's nobody treating the Hulk as a joke. 

Of course, Hulk would never actually Ike Turner a woman lying on the floor like that. He's got a soft spot for the ladies. We'll just keep chalking that up to Loki's influence.


----------



## Oryan77 (May 21, 2012)

I finally saw this on Saturday. I have to say the funniest moment was when Stark snitches on the guy for playing Galaga and then when everyone leaves the room, we see the guy look around and then load up Galaga. I was not expecting to actually see a guy playing Galaga. And of all the games, Galaga? Pure comedic genius.

Robert Downey Jr. was great and all, but the Galaga guy stole the show. I hope he gets a Golden Globe award for that performance. Maybe we'll find out the Galaga guy has some super power in Avengers 2? Maybe he'll get angry that they block Galaga from his computer and he will go work with Thanos; who will let him play all of the Galaga that he wants.


----------



## Nellisir (May 21, 2012)

Oryan77 said:


> I finally saw this on Saturday. I have to say the funniest moment was when Stark snitches on the guy for playing Galaga and then when everyone leaves the room, we see the guy look around and then load up Galaga. I was not expecting to actually see a guy playing Galaga. And of all the games, Galaga? Pure comedic genius.



Is that what that was?  I didn't understand that reference at all.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 21, 2012)

Whippersnapper!


----------



## Nellisir (May 22, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Whippersnapper!




And I just had a lovely discussion this afternoon about the amount of grey in my hair.  

Also, I grew up without a tv or video games, and the nearest arcade was an hour away.  So...hick might be more accurate.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 22, 2012)

Hmmm....


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 24, 2012)




----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2012)

TarionzCousin said:


> Hmmm....




Worst.  Lion King.  Cosplay.  EVAR!

Simba didn't have a hammer!  What were those guys THINKING?!?!?!


----------



## Aeolius (Jun 4, 2012)

So, what was in the bag that Natasha Romanoff gave to Bruce Banner, as he drove off with Tony Stark at the end of the movie? Was that a gag reference to Stark's comment about "You really have got a lid on it, haven't you? What's your secret"? Or perhaps it was a hard drive to build a new LMD?


----------



## Felon (Jun 7, 2012)

Change of clothes, maybe?


----------

