The Avengers [Spoilers]

[trackercowe]

200.3 million dollars! That's nuts; here's hoping they didn't overestimate the final figure and it will fall above the 200 mark.

It's going to be interesting to see if the DKR can beat that in its opening weekend.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

200.3 million dollars! That's nuts; here's hoping they didn't overestimate the final figure and it will fall above the 200 mark.

It's going to be interesting to see if the DKR can beat that in its opening weekend.

It won't. Nolan is refusing to convert it into 3d (thank god) so it won't be able to make Up the surcharges I suspect.

[Jagermeister]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Galactus was already used in FF2.

Yeah I forgot about that, must be because that movie was absolute crap.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Jagermeister

Yeah I forgot about that, must be because that movie was absolute crap.

And it wasn't really Galactus. At least not the big imposing humanoid guy. In the movie it is basically just a life force with no actual body. Just a bunch of scary looking space clouds.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I just wanted to go into a little more detail on why this movie kicked so much ass.

I'm not a director and I'm not in the entertainment industry but I can honestly say that I could probably have made better superhero movies than about half of what has been released thus far. At the very least I could have told the studios why their movies sucked balls and how to fix it. I truly mean that. So often they change key plot points, or would go too cheesy, too silly. Basically it always felt that the studios and filmmakers thought that comics were silly stories for kids and they would make their movies that way. That includes some of Marvel's best stuff like Xmen and Spiderman.

Since Blade in 1998, which I consider the start of the comic movie trend, filmmakers have struggled to find that happy medium of adaptation. Some movies came out as pure cheese and others couldn't' quite break the barrier and be believable.

I'd say all comic book movies are basically in 2 classes.

1) your standard superhero fare. Xmen, Spidey, GL, FF, V for Vendetta (more on this one later) etc These movies to one degree or another were adapted for the screen. Basically take your standard fluffy action movie and replace Bruce Willis with a comic book character and voila, a movie is born.

The most successful of these types were the ones that managed to fit in much of the superhero lore while still maintaining a somewhat believable movie. Sometimes though the film became far too silly and suspension of disbelief just didn't fly.

One thing all of these movies shared, save maybe V for Vendetta, is that they weren't good movies. And I don't mean good movies compared to other stupid action movies, I mean good movies compared to a solid drama. Most of the time the plot was convoluted, had tons of plot holes, poor acting, cheesiness and try as the film might just didn't quite capture the feel of a comic book properly. Something always felt just a tad off. Even the really good ones like Spiderman just didn't have me totally immersed. For the longest time I always just thought it was because, as a comic lover, they could never take my fave stories and characters and just put them on screen without butchering it. So some filmmakers came up with category 2. Don't bother trying to change stuff, just literally put page to screen.

Which brings me to group 2).

These I would consider movies like Sin City, Watchmen and 300. All three said "#### it, why try and meld comic and mainstream movie, lets skip that and just literally turn the pages into a movie". They didn't look like normal movies, they looked like moving comic books with sound. The filmmakers realized that adapting those comics to the big screen and following the traditional film model wouldn't work so they embraced the cartoonish aspects and fed off of that.

And it worked quite well for all three of those. We've also seen a few spectacular failures like The Spirit that tried to use this overly cartoonish model.

I was tempted to put Watchmen and V for Vendetta in their own category because they both did a pretty good job of staying faithful to the comic and were also solid movies (Vendetta was made waaaayyyy lighter in tone and V the character was way less morally ambiguous).

And although Watchmen was like a superhero movie, it wasn't quite a superhero movie. That was the whole point of Watchmen the comic was to revolutionize the way we look at heroes and likewise the film can't simply be lumped in with other comic book/superhero movies.


The closest we've ever seen to a true cinematic comic experience that was a solid movie and one that didn't resort to just putting page to screen was obviously TDK.

TDK wasn't really either of group 1 or 2. It was too well acted and too powerful to simply be another fluffy comic movie. They tried to make it a genuinely good movie. A movie you didn't just compare to other action movies but a film that you could compare to ANYTHING.

They came very close but failed in that attempt. TDK was too weak in too many story areas to be a genuinely good movie without adding "for a comic book movie". Even though Nolan made it so real, and suspension of disbelief was working fine to mask the often problematic hero stuff, they really dropped the ball on gaping plot holes for me to be totally immersed in that world. Still, until the Avengers, it was the closest thing to the "truth" so to speak, without resorting to doing a Sin City style "its practically a cartoon" type green screen movie.


Then came the Avengers. Whedon has made a masterful film. It isn't as good of a movie as TDK. It just isn't. The acting in TDK was top notch, it has deep, meaningful themes that make you question morality, right and wrong and the hero vs villain, hero/anti-hero etc etc. But that's where TDK had a problem. It was too serious and good for a comic movie and too comic book movie-ish to be put in a category with other amazing drama films.

But Whedon wasn't going for just a genuinely solid movie. He wanted to make the best superhero movie of all time. That means that it is inherently different in tone and feel than TDK. You know from the first minute that this is an action movie and that you aren't going to see a Best Picture nominee. The normal leaps in logic that we see with comic book movies was still there. Since it didn't take itself as seriously as TDK, the minor plot issues or lack of story aren't a concern or nearly as glaring as they were in TDK.

Avengers was so strong though, that for the first time ever a comic book movie blew my mind. It had the perfect amount of action, it was filmed beautifully, it was funny, it didn't have hardly any cheesy moments like virtually all superhero movies have, including Spiderman and Xmen.

I think the Incredible Hulk was a big stepping stone. It showed that a serious actor could play a sympathetic role in a superhero movie that still had action but also had heart. As much as I liked Spiderman 1 & 2 and Xmen 1 & 2 they were both pretty cheesy a lot of times, or had absolutely moronic plot holes that were unavoidable.

Whedon has found the perfect harmony of inside references, accurate but believable characters, action, story, humor. He truly found a way to keep the world true to the comics and not make it seem silly. That's why I was so surprised to see the Helicarrier or Hawkeye or Thanos. There were so many things that even I would have said "no way, that just won't translate without going all Sin City". The other thing Whedon did was embrace the intricacy and history of the comic. Plot points, characters, scenes, vehicles etc that I never, ever thought would translate well to screen weren't just done so believably, they were done masterfully. Whedon didn't shun the stuff that would be hard to translate, he ####ing owned it. He didn't skip it because it wouldn't work or would look cheesy, he went all out and made it work in a way that makes you wonder how anyone could have gotten it wrong. That in itself is a truly amazing feat.

That's pretty long winded and I'm sure some of it is confusing, contradictory to itself or just nonsensical but I had no other way to describe why a movie that story wise wasn't that amazing, had no memorable acting performances like Heath Ledger, had no blood, guts or sex, was pretty lighthearted, didn't have a super deep message like TDK or Watchmen etc etc. I honestly don't know how to properly phrase it. Whedon took so many things I wasn't sure could even be pulled off and he didn't just manage to get it done, he did it better than I could ever imagine. RIght at the beginning of this post I stated I could probably have made better comic book movies than 90% of the stuff out there, including the Spiderman and Xmen which each had major downsides. I couldn't even have dreamed of making this film this good.

I've often felt that studios meddle too much in superhero movies. They change this character, or that part of the origin or pick and choose plot elements from different stories etc. Much like Peter Jackson did with LOTR, I've always thought, why not just make a film faithful to the effin comic? (and preferably without going green screen 300 style) How hard could it be to make a regular movie that had super heroes and was awesome? I assumed Avengers was one of those movies that just couldn't work. Too many characters, too much stuff going on, too far fetched to work. Some of these comic book movies seem destined to fail because they just won't translate well. Green Lantern was one of those. You could tell before the first trailer ever came out that they could never adapt it properly and have it be a good flick. I honestly thought Avengers would fall into that category.

And yet it is IMO far and away superior to TDK. I know it is early and I may think less of the film as I watch it repeatedly as I did TDK but I can say for certain I was more excited for TDK but I'm far more excited to see Avengers for a second time than I was TDK. In fact I didn't even see TDK twice in theatres I don't think.

[Inglewood Jack]

wow, thanks Cecil, there should be a way to send that up to movie execs to remind them that fans care and won't settle for Michael Bay-like schlock when it comes to their comics.

I was giddy like every other nerd at the reveal of Thanos (the guy sitting beside me screamed "oh sht...Thanatos!!") but I'm not convinced that him or Galactus or any other cosmic threat will really work well for the masses. They didn't even want to call the Cosmic Cube by its real name because non comic readers would probably find it corny.

TDK and Iron Man 1 worked so well because they had great characters and action without crossing into the realm of cartoony theme park ride. Avengers was probably right at that limit, but had just enough awesome character moments to prevent it from becoming Transformers. If you start doing the galactic villains then it's headed towards Green Lantern territory, and everything ends up being 100% CGI (it's probably about 70% right now)...at that point, audience stops connecting cause they're watching a damn cartoon.

Maybe they'll surprise us, but I think if they want to keep it rollling, it's gotta stay relatable to the people at street level.

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

wow, thanks Cecil, there should be a way to send that up to movie execs to remind them that fans care and won't settle for Michael Bay-like schlock when it comes to their comics.

I was giddy like every other nerd at the reveal of Thanos (the guy sitting beside me screamed "oh sht...Thanatos!!") but I'm not convinced that him or Galactus or any other cosmic threat will really work well for the masses. They didn't even want to call the Cosmic Cube by its real name because non comic readers would probably find it corny.

TDK and Iron Man 1 worked so well because they had great characters and action without crossing into the realm of cartoony theme park ride. Avengers was probably right at that limit, but had just enough awesome character moments to prevent it from becoming Transformers. If you start doing the galactic villains then it's headed towards Green Lantern territory, and everything ends up being 100% CGI (it's probably about 70% right now)...at that point, audience stops connecting cause they're watching a damn cartoon.

Maybe they'll surprise us, but I think if they want to keep it rollling, it's gotta stay relatable to the people at street level.

The CGI is The Avengers was really well done though. Same with the movie Thor, Asgaard looked excellent and believable.

Every part of CGI in Green Lantern looked awful.

[HPLovecraft]

God damn pirates making the studios lose money!

[Bob]

I'm glad they didn't overdo it with the horrific teal/orange color grading that's so prevalent these days. It was still there, but far more muted than in, say, Iron Man 2.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

The CGI is The Avengers was really well done though. Same with the movie Thor, Asgaard looked excellent and believable.

Every part of CGI in Green Lantern looked awful.

oh without a doubt the Avengers CG was far ahead of most other superhero movies, or action movies in general for that matter. Hulk and Iron Man are fine because they're CG basically all the time so there's no awkward switching between live action to manage. With the humans there were a few cases where it was just a bit iffy, e.g. Cap jumping around on the helicarrier. But it wasn't anything significant and certainly you can see the progress since the bad old days of Spider-Man 1.

if Thanos is in the next one, then I'm sure it'll be fine if it's him beating the hell out of the Avengers with his fists and energy blasts, at least you can still feel like you could be there spectating it. But if you have Celestials chucking planets at Thanos while he casually blows them away with the Gauntlet, well I don't know much more engaging that is than cartoon Hal Jordan vs big blob Parallax. I'd still pay to see it though.

[LGA]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

oh without a doubt the Avengers CG was far ahead of most other superhero movies, or action movies in general for that matter. Hulk and Iron Man are fine because they're CG basically all the time so there's no awkward switching between live action to manage. With the humans there were a few cases where it was just a bit iffy, e.g. Cap jumping around on the helicarrier. But it wasn't anything significant and certainly you can see the progress since the bad old days of Spider-Man 1.

if Thanos is in the next one, then I'm sure it'll be fine if it's him beating the hell out of the Avengers with his fists and energy blasts, at least you can still feel like you could be there spectating it. But if you have Celestials chucking planets at Thanos while he casually blows them away with the Gauntlet, well I don't know much more engaging that is than cartoon Hal Jordan vs big blob Parallax. I'd still pay to see it though.

With Thanos' story I assume they'll use his pre-rebirth-by-Death incarnation.

Spoiler!

I assume they'll have him invade the Earth for the cosmic cube, he'll beat the tar out of the Avengers and find out that the cube is in Asgard. He'll invade Asgard, beat the tar out of everyone there, take the cube and gain omnipotence. When all seems lost the heroes will notice that he has left the cube unguarded and they will find a way to destroy it. I really hope that they keep the Thanos story intact. What I mean is that Thanos should be completely unstoppable, and the only way the heroes win is because Thanos is sabotaging himself as he does not believe he is worthy of greatness that he achieves. He should have a superior strategy (trumping Captain America), stronger than the smart people (Banner and Ironman), and smarter than the strong people (Hulk and Thor).

Hopefully they would do a few more clean shots and hints about the Infinity Gauntlet, the end of the movie should have Thanos standing over the infinity well and realizing the potential of the infinity gems. That or Thanos grabbing the Infinity Gauntlet as "The Touch" plays in the background with a voiceover by Peter Cullen saying "Arise Thanatos Prime"...I think I'd be mildly okay with that.

[TurnedTheCorner]

The Infinity Gauntlet would make for a terrible movie. I'm not sure how Thanos will be translated to the screen, but I have faith it will be enjoyable.

[nik-]

Well I just got back from it. Thanks to the people pointing out it was Thanos at the end ... I couldn't really tell

Aside from being stuck in the first row, which sucked, I still had a blast. "Hulk ... smash" was awesome, his punch to Thor, the Shawarma scene .. oh man. So many good moments. The actor who plays Loki is great, and he looks like a certified badass in full Loki gear.

[silentsim]

I didn't see the credit scenes

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by silentsim

I didn't see the credit scenes

There's two. After the initial credits (last about 1 minute) it shows the bad guy talking to Thanos. After all the other credits it shows them all at the Shawarma place eating, all looking depressed and nothing is said. It's perfect.

[driveway]

It was good, but I disagree with Cecil that it was so head-and-shoulders above the rest of the Superhero genre.

Two things that it did very well was snappy dialogue (mostly driven by Robert Downey Jr.) and well-choreographed CGI sequences. Too often in huge set-pieces in films it's almost impossible to follow exactly what's happening (I'm looking at you Transformers) but in the Avengers everything was clear and made perfect sense.

It still has some glaring plot holes and a pretty huge element of cheesy-ness, but it was fun Joss Whedon Buffy cheesy, not make-you-groan Thor cheesy.

[nik-]

Again, I loved the movie, however here is a reminder of why it is absolutely ridiculous that Marvel/Disney won't pay the actors like Terrence Howard and Ed Norton a real salary and just recast instead. Mickey Rourke was initially offered $250,000 for his role in Iron Man 2.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avengers11.htm

... 3 days.

[Bertuzzied]

Holy crap was this a terrible movie. It was like a group of 6 unfunny spidermen cracking lame ass jokes for 2.5 hours. I HATE Thor and Loki and i can't believe he was the main villain in the movie. Serves me right for not watching the previews and accepting a free ticket last minute.

The only good thing was the new nsx at the end of the movie!

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Holy crap was this a terrible movie. It was like a group of 6 unfunny spidermen cracking lame ass jokes for 2.5 hours. I HATE Thor and Loki and i can't believe he was the main villain in the movie. Serves me right for not watching the previews and accepting a free ticket last minute.

The only good thing was the new nsx at the end of the movie!

Not sure if troll, or just ignorant?

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

Not sure if troll, or just ignorant?

Well one good thing about watching it in an imax theatre was that it was loud enough to keep me awake... hehe.

and just stop with comparing this to the Dark Knight. It's incomparable.