Contains Spoilers! The Avengers (film) [Archive]

darth los

09-Aug-2010, 02:40 PM

My money is on The Hulk. I read a while back that he was probably the villian, then they also replaced Edward Norton for Mark Ruffalo. Maybe Norton didn't want to be the baddie?

This is going to be an extremely difficult film for Whedon and Marvel to pull off....

Comic Con Teaser, BTW

GvL4iJy2PPw&hl=en_US&fs=1

Hulk, definitely.

He's already recast.

I think it'll be like the original comics, where the Hulk is being manipulated by Loki. Why not? They'll be coming off of the Thor movie...

At the end of the new hulk movie, Stark approaches General Ross about getting the hulk to join a "team" that he was putting together, so it's already set up fo that.

It sounds like hulk is good money.

:cool:

Neil

14-Jun-2011, 02:14 PM

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50022

AcesandEights

14-Jun-2011, 02:15 PM

Damn, I saw the topic and thought Darth was vack to posting again. Oh, well. :(

bassman

29-Jul-2011, 03:43 PM

A small teaser with footage. Strangely this is attached to a yahoo promo that gives away the ending of Captain America? :rockbrow:

cT9g4_0UnxI

Danny

29-Jul-2011, 05:05 PM

A small teaser with footage. Strangely this is attached to a yahoo promo that gives away the ending of Captain America? :rockbrow:

cT9g4_0UnxI

cap coming to modern times is about as big a spoiler that darth vader is luke skywalkers father and clark kent is actually the last some of krypton and batmans parents where shot when he was a child. its part of the characters 'origin' and has been part of pop culture for longer than most of us have actually existed. id say its kosher to "spoil".

another spoil, he will also throw a shield quite fast at some german men. sorry, i could not keep this eldritch secret in the dark for any longer. :p

-sarcasm mode completed, genuine comment mode initiate:

looks neat- though thor looks kinda funny, like he lost his beard but got that irritating "every american actor in the 90s" stubble thing going on and it looks off. one the whole im excited for the first big budget team movie- that said it IS joss whedon so you know exactly whats going to happen. one liner dialogue, strong women emasculating men because all men are only good for licking womens feet, when he doesnt know how to make a scene 'sad' he will kill the blonde haired 'funny' character to artificially force emotion and so on and so forth.

the man can write great characters but even when its not his story he only ever writes the same one.

bassman

29-Jul-2011, 05:33 PM

cap coming to modern times is about as big a spoiler that darth vader is luke skywalkers father and clark kent is actually the last some of krypton and batmans parents where shot when he was a child. its part of the characters 'origin' and has been part of pop culture for longer than most of us have actually existed. id say its kosher to "spoil".

another spoil, he will also throw a shield quite fast at some german men. sorry, i could not keep this eldritch secret in the dark for any longer. :p

Hardy-har-har. :|

Of course any comic fan or movie fan knows that he'll be making it into the present day for The Avengers, but the general audience probably doesn't know yet. Not only that, but it does give away that it happens at the end of Captain America rather than the beginning of Avengers.

Danny

29-Jul-2011, 06:10 PM

Hardy-har-har. :|

Of course any comic fan or movie fan knows that he'll be making it into the present day for The Avengers, but the general audience probably doesn't know yet. Not only that, but it does give away that it happens at the end of Captain America rather than the beginning of Avengers.

one of the big media news stories of last year was the 'death of captain america' though, it was him killed on the steps of congress or something, not 'death by nazis'. that and he is one of the most mainstream advertised ones behind spiderman, superman and batman and enough people absorb this stuff from general background advertising. its really no secret by now. how else could he be in every marvel thing ever with spiderman and wolverine? im sure anyone who has never read a comic doesnt think spiderman was alive during world war 2.

though that would be a good comic to read.

bassman

29-Jul-2011, 06:23 PM

It's not about whether or not he would die in his film. Everyone knows that's not going to happen. It's also not about whether or not he was going to come back at all. The spoiler was when and how he was going to come back. For instance....I haven't seen Captain America yet. I had no idea whether he would be awakened in the present day or if the movie would end with a "sleeping" cliffhanger that leads to the Avengers. Which was very much possible considering how Marvel is doing their best to tie everything together. That's now spoiled for me. It's minor....but a spoiler nevertheless.

Especially when the movie has only been out for a week or so. I haven't seen it yet, so i'm a bit disappointed that I've now seen this. It would have had a much harder impact seeing it in order on the big screen. It's just one of those things that are often given away during marketing, I guess.

wayzim

29-Jul-2011, 07:29 PM

Hardy-har-har. :|

Of course any comic fan or movie fan knows that he'll be making it into the present day for The Avengers, but the general audience probably doesn't know yet. Not only that, but it does give away that it happens at the end of Captain America rather than the beginning of Avengers.

This shows my age ( and I haven't seen the movie yet. )but when I was a kid, my folks got me a Captain America comic along with a 45 record of the comic.
Yes, it was the story of his resurrection and joining The Avengers.
I was so pissed about what I thought happened to Bucky, I didn't follow Capt A too much beyond that.

This is also one of those things you wished you kept as it would be worth some serious coin today - I'm sure.

Wayne Z

Mitchified

03-Aug-2011, 12:39 PM

I was so pissed about what I thought happened to Bucky, I didn't follow Capt A too much beyond that.

Good news, everybody! Bucky didn't actually die! He lived!

...until last month when he died for real.

Neil

04-Sep-2011, 09:10 AM

A couple of new photos - http://www.cinemablend.com/new/See-The-Entire-Avengers-Team-Gathered-In-Central-Park-26569.html

bassman

11-Oct-2011, 02:10 PM

Trailer: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/marvel/avengers/

Looks like a fun time at the movies. Cool to finally see Ruffalo's Hulk.

Neil

11-Oct-2011, 02:43 PM

Trailer: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/marvel/avengers/

Looks like a fun time at the movies. Cool to finally see Ruffalo's Hulk.
Still fear it's going to be too 'busy'...

Danny

11-Oct-2011, 02:47 PM

this is one of those flicks im pumped to see, but dont give a single fuck about the plot, im going to see iron man, thor and caps actors interact. thats really it.

AcesandEights

11-Oct-2011, 02:49 PM

this is one of those flicks im pumped to see, but dont giv e a sginle fuck about the plot, im going to see iron man, thor and caps actors interact. thats really it.

Part of me hopes they just go balls out with the fan service. I get the fears Neil has of the film being busy, but at a certain point you just have to go all in and do your best to balance.

bassman

11-Oct-2011, 04:51 PM

All of Marvel's films have been spectacle at this point, so I imagine this will be more of the same. Nothing ground-breaking, just a fun action film with some laughs. And Johanson in a tight leather suit.:elol:

bassman

06-Feb-2012, 01:02 PM

Superbowl trailer:

rE09rUdpB94

The circle shot of the whole group in the street is pretty damn cool....

rongravy

06-Feb-2012, 08:24 PM

Skeet, skeet, SKEET!!!
Can't wait.

Neil

06-Feb-2012, 08:43 PM

...just never bought into super bouncy high in the sky Hulk for some reason!!?

AcesandEights

06-Feb-2012, 10:19 PM

...just never bought into super bouncy high in the sky Hulk for some reason!!?

But if you're stronger you can jump higher and farther and if you're super, super, super super strong (like you can lift/press a 100 tons over your head) then it stands to reason you might be able to jump kinda far.

-- -------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------

Wow... (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/hulk.shtml)

Neil

07-Feb-2012, 07:48 AM

Wow... (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/hulk.shtml)

LOL! Reems and reems of very VERY impressive formula and calculations etc etc etc... to come up with incredibly scientific conclusion of, "Hulk's got pretty big muscles."

bassman

29-Feb-2012, 04:11 PM

Trailer #2:

tY9DnBNJFTI

AcesandEights

29-Feb-2012, 07:53 PM

Looks pretty decent to me. This could be so much fun, or could go south fast, but I am glad it's being done.

One thing I didn't like was the look of Cap's cowl/headpiece, but hopefully he'll have it off/pulled down for most of the film.

rongravy

29-Feb-2012, 10:07 PM

That new trailer is effing sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. This looks to be pretty epic from that alone.

MoonSylver

29-Feb-2012, 10:26 PM

They've got the action figures @ Toys R Us already. That talking Hulk is e'ffing sweet. I'm sorely tempted to get one. Except it looks creeply like D'onfrio, which kinda weirds me out. :lol:

http://wpc.556e.edgecastcdn.net/80556E/img.site/PHJzKICT5Qe9NM_1_m.jpg

Neil

27-Apr-2012, 01:11 PM

So? Opinions?

My friend saw it last night and said it was very good!

AcesandEights

27-Apr-2012, 01:35 PM

So? Opinions?

My friend saw it last night and said it was very good!

U.S. Premiere is May 4th. :|

Neil

27-Apr-2012, 02:02 PM

U.S. Premiere is May 4th. :|
WHAT! For once the UK is ahead? It's out here now!

HAHAHAHA! We win!

ps: They all die at the end!

bassman

01-May-2012, 06:12 PM

You guys have been getting lots of movies before us lately....

As for the advanced screenings in the US, I'm hearing a general opinion of "good...but nothing special". Basically what I expected from a Marvel film. Still looking forward to seeing it, though.

-- -------- Post added 01-May-2012 at 02:12 PM ---------- Previous post was 27-Apr-2012 at 10:42 AM ----------

Not at all a bad flick. It's still mostly action and the usual summer fair associated with Marvel's name, but probably the best of the bunch. Definitely miles ahead of Captain America.

Surprisingly Whedon did a great job juggling all the characters. They all seem to get just the right amount of screen time and their chemistry together is great. Lots of good laughs. Especially regarding the Hulk who, by the way, is the best interpretation of the character yet. Mark Ruffallo does a fantastic job as Banner.

Nothing particularly deep or meaningful and the ending is very reminiscent of Transformers and superhero flicks of the past, but still a great way to waste two hours with some solid action and comedy.

MinionZombie

02-May-2012, 10:10 AM

WHAT! For once the UK is ahead? It's out here now!

HAHAHAHA! We win!

ps: They all die at the end!

*sings*

United Kingdom - FUCK YEAH!!! :D

...

Saw it last night - LOVED IT - I loved Iron Man, really enjoyed Thor, really enjoyed Captain America, so I was bound to enjoy The Avengers (or "Marvel Avengers Assemble" as it's clunkily called in the UK because of that other movie called The Avengers from the friggin' 1990s :rolleyes:) - however, I didn't know I'd enjoy it as much as I actually did. I had a blast - and so did the audience - numerous moments where everyone laughed hard and loud - some pitch perfect moments of humour to pop the tension at the right moment, and stop the flick from getting to seri-arse.

As bassman said, Whedon did a FANTASTIC job of juggling the characters, even in the action scenes you knew where everyone was, and what they were doing. Michael Bay should take note - this is how you handle a ridiculously huge movie.

I've heard the 3D was post-conversion, and we saw it in 3D (because the 2D times didn't suit unfortunately), however the 3D was pretty well done if it was post-conversion. I saw Thor in 3D and it was fucking awful 3D. Thor's 3D was too dark and barely made any noticeable effect - The Avengers on the other hand was much brighter (even though I've heard some viewers complain that the opening 15 minutes were very dark - not the case in our screening) and the effect was much more evident. 3D is still a gimmick, mind, so my opinion there hasn't changed. :p

The screening was pretty packed, and everybody was really into the flick - so it was a good experience - however the multiplex we go to has definitely gone down in my estimation. The staff are getting dumber and slower, and they weren't smart or fast in the first place. This, and expense, and lack of staff, is why I now only go to the cinema for sure things. There hasn't been much to see recently anyway, but the last time I saw a flick at the cinema, before The Avengers, was going to see The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo at the beginning of January with my Dad (and in that screening the staff were so few they forgot to turn the lights off, so I had to bloody well get up and tell them ... I hate missing even a minute of a film I've paid to see in the cinema, even on bargain tuesday).

bassman

02-May-2012, 11:54 AM

What did you think of the Hulk, MZ? Ruffallo felt like the first "real" Banner/Hulk to me. Somehow it just worked much better than Norton and Bana.

If any character felt kinda out of place it was Hawkeye. He gets lots of screen time, but he just didn't feel fleshed out enough, imo. Then there's the conversations between him and....Black Widow that hint at some sort of turbulent past, but nothing ever really becomes of it?!? I get what they were trying to do, but it just felt rushed and like certain sections were dropped. Perhaps they'll be replaced in a dvd version of the film.

And just for kicks(don't view if you haven't seen the movie):
http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/full/568727648.gif?key=403214&Expires=1335960331&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=OeV91MPDP35~SAewY-GODNwQlkR1uOs49nzEyekAqI26JcLsOv7C67AtCX6SjaoRKDGy f9o4gZXaz2PpWDh-lJdzr8XM8tlE2WEQ4kQUbiR7rjsTumrgIkane3xXbIaT7eC8Tm Uz1wO8dPuNy4zQrry5Hq-IaogA5fZDTpslPzo_

:lol:

MinionZombie

02-May-2012, 12:05 PM

Bassman - I loved the Hulk in this flick. I had zero interest in seeing either previous Hulk films, so I can't really compare to them, but I thought Ruffalo did an excellent job, as did Whedon. When he first turns he's absolutely terrifying, and then he gets really awesome later on - as for your second spoiler tagged thing, haha, yeah, that was amazing - the entire cinema burst out laughing. Perhaps the biggest laugh of them all - everybody loved that moment - it was great. :D

I've heard that there will be an extended version on dvd/br - but that's only second-hand info, so it might not be true, but apparently some extended stuff will give more focus to Captain America adjusting to modern day life. I do also hope there's a bit more for Black Widow/Hawkeye ... perhaps we'll get more for them in The Avengers 2.

MoonSylver

02-May-2012, 05:48 PM

Bassman - I loved the Hulk in this flick. I had zero interest in seeing either previous Hulk films, so I can't really compare to them.

I finally got around to seeing the 2nd one a couple weeks ago, & was surprised that I enjoyed it quite a bit. Not the greatest, but enjoyable. They handled the story & the character properly at least. It was almost enough to wash the bad taste out of my mouth from the horrendous first one. :barf:

MinionZombie

02-May-2012, 06:15 PM

Okay, I put my thoughts together more fully here:

http://deadshed.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/double-bill-mini-musings-assembly.html

Neil

02-May-2012, 08:24 PM

^^ Non spoiler opinion?

Danny

03-May-2012, 02:18 AM

Just watched it and im kinda surprised. I found it really, really dull. generic, unoriginal waste of an opportunity was what i felt as i walked out. and i was pumped. been reading the avengers for a long ass time.
This is honestly another marvel movie in the vein of daredevil, HULK or thor. its competent enough. but it only exists as a vehicle to set up part of a franchise. The acting is good at times, particularly the dude playing banner, but on the whole the plot is just banal crap on the level of transformers 3. with all of whedons usual tropes thrown in.

I went in without reading the reviews and looking at them now i am flabbergasted. people actually consider this better than the dark knight? its not. as a cape movie, a team flick or certainly not as a work of cinema. its basically the same kind of waste of time as green lantern. its a hodge podge of bits from early comics to make an origin flick where the enemy and plot are the flimsiest strings to get the heros together. and it doesnt work.

some clarification after leaving it for a bit longer: this film is boring, utterly. but its boring in most part because its LONG AS SHIT. know the enemy from the trailer? yeah, thats all from the last 20 minutes of a 142 minute runtime. that means almost 2 solid hours of sitting on your ass watching joss whedon at his dollhouse tier worst spouting waspish witticisms through the characters as they argue. thats it. i mean its rare i just say it but this isnt even worth a pirate. its just a popcorn flick, and not a good one at that. i cannot think of any reason to watch this film. downey isnt as good as in iron man or iorn man 2, steve rogers and thor are a waste. the villain is generic when he should be the most hannibal lector level tactician of all cape flick villains and it all comes together as a complete waste of your finite lifespan.

MinionZombie

03-May-2012, 09:31 AM

Okay, I put my thoughts together more fully here:

http://deadshed.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/double-bill-mini-musings-assembly.html

^^ Non spoiler opinion?

Always.

Neil

03-May-2012, 10:51 AM

Always.

Seeing it next Tuesday. Think I'll see it 2D!?

bassman

03-May-2012, 07:52 PM

generic, unoriginal waste of an opportunity was what i felt as i walked out.

Whew. I was beginning to think I was the only one that thought so. My opinion isn't as strongly negative as yours because I still enjoyed it for the summer flick it was meant to be, but the way people are praising this thing across the net is nothing short of ridiculous. They're all saying that it's the greatest superhero film of all time? It's set a standard for which every following superhero flick must meet? A perfect film?!?

The flick will no doubt explode with box office cash, but the contents of the actual film are very, very average. I think they've done a great job at handling so many characters and they've met the usual summer flick quota of explosions and action every 2.5 minutes, but the praise is just WAYYY too over the top right now. This reminds me of The Dark Knight going to number one on IMDB's top 250. I love TDK, but WTF are these people thinking?

It's a fun ride, but the best superhero film of all time, The Avengers is not. Not by a long shot.

LouCipherr

03-May-2012, 08:23 PM

I found it really, really dull. generic, unoriginal waste of an opportunity was what i felt as i walked out.

So, this is just another Avatar? :shifty: :lol:

Danny

03-May-2012, 08:34 PM

So, this is just another Avatar? :shifty: :lol:

YES. you have no idea how correct that statement is. already online this is the new avatar, people saying its meh are being flamed like mad by people yet to see it saying its 'the blockbuster that changes everything forever'.

the thing that i found telling was all my mates said "its good" if they liked it, but that was always followed by "for what it is" or "if you can switch your brain off for about 3 hours" or "compared to spiderman 3"...

MoonSylver

03-May-2012, 10:05 PM

In a world where terrible has become the new mediocre, mediocre becomes the new great. :shifty:

I am looking forward to seeing it, but not overly excited, & have no expectations beyond seeing a bunch of guys dressed up like Iron Man & Captain America playing "superhero" for a couple hours. As long as they get that right & don't screw it up I'll probably reasonably satisfied. :|

Sammich

03-May-2012, 10:51 PM

YES. you have no idea how correct that statement is. already online this is the new avatar, people saying its meh are being flamed like mad by people yet to see it saying its 'the blockbuster that changes everything forever'.

I mentioned in another thread how marketing firms influence public opinion through use of the Asch Paradigm. It is well known that there are companies and governments hire public relations, marketing firms, and even college students to flood discussion forums and other social media sites to create an artficial majority to favorably promote (i.e. propagandize) a product or political position and demean those with an opposing opinion.

Here is a short video explaining how easily the Asch Paradigm works:

iRh5qy09nNw

Remember this when something gets hyped to the stratosphere.

MinionZombie

04-May-2012, 09:41 AM

So, this is just another Avatar? :shifty: :lol:

I don't see any correlation between the two aside from them both being large films.

Not surprised to see Danny slamming it though, he's back to his old self. :sneaky:

AcesandEights

04-May-2012, 02:34 PM

Not surprised to see Danny slamming it though, he's back to his old self. :sneaky:

What, is he making ageist remarks again? Tsk, tsk.

Danny

04-May-2012, 03:02 PM

What, is he making ageist remarks again? Tsk, tsk.

didn't you know dude, we aren't allowed to have standards or dislike media hyped blockbusters anymore. its simply gauche :rolleyes:

AcesandEights

04-May-2012, 03:10 PM

didn't you know dude, we aren't allowed to have standards or dislike media hyped blockbusters anymore. its simply gauche :rolleyes:

Oh, dude, I haven't read most of this thread (avoiding spoilers), so no worries there. I was just taking a best guess based on previous behavior ;)

Neil

04-May-2012, 03:33 PM

Cinema Blend loved it - http://www.cinemablend.com/reviews/The-Avengers-5829.html

LouCipherr

04-May-2012, 03:46 PM

really, really dull. generic, unoriginal waste of an opportunity

So, this is just another Avatar?

I don't see any correlation between the two aside from them both being large films.

I do. Just read Danny's description, it describes Avatar perfectly. I haven't seen the Avengers yet (not even sure I will, I'm not that much of a comic-book-to-live-action-movie-fan), but if it's like what Danny described, I see them as two peas in a pod. :lol:

Sammich - good call on the Asch Paradigm. I've seen this at work many times before.

MinionZombie

04-May-2012, 04:14 PM

didn't you know dude, we aren't allowed to have standards or dislike media hyped blockbusters anymore. its simply gauche :rolleyes:

Or maybe you have a reputation for not liking most things that the masses are into, and a propensity to roll out a rebuttal akin to the above whenever someone suggests the former. :sneaky::elol::p:sneaky:

To each their own, but I'm not surprised you gave it a fetid review. :D

LouCipherr

04-May-2012, 06:29 PM

OMG, heaven forbid someone disagrees with the masses. :lol: :lol: :p

krisvds

04-May-2012, 07:00 PM

the thing that i found telling was all my mates said "its good" if they liked it, but that was always followed by "for what it is" or "if you can switch your brain off for about 3 hours" or "compared to spiderman 3"...

How anyone can go see a movie about costumed superheroes and NOT expect to turn their brains off should have their brains checked. Seriously, what were they expecting?
It is what it is; a guy dressed in the american flag, a billionaire in an iron suit, a green version of mr. Hyde, a norse god, a hot chick and that guy with the bow fighting and tearing up New York.
It was fun though. But a great 'film'? Hell no.

Danny

04-May-2012, 07:09 PM

How anyone can go see a movie about costumed superheroes and NOT expect to turn their brains off should have their brains checked. Seriously, what were they expecting?
It is what it is; a guy dressed in the american flag, a billionaire in an iron suit, a green version of mr. Hyde, a norse god, a hot chick and that guy with the bow fighting and tearing up New York.
It was fun though. But a great 'film'? Hell no.

The Dark Knight proved you can have a competent film from a comic franchise. It raised the bar, clearly too high for this to reach.

rongravy

04-May-2012, 07:29 PM

Seeing this in a little over an hour. My kid saw the midnight showing last night and loved it.
I don't expect it to be anything to make me get all thinky and such, but it looks like it'll be a superfun ride.
Wayyyyyyyyyyyyy better than TDK. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. I'll let ye all know.

MoonSylver

04-May-2012, 09:50 PM

The Dark Knight proved you can have a competent film from a comic franchise. It raised the bar, clearly too high for this to reach.

Here's the thing though: even the Dark Knight was great & all, I really don't WANT more superhero flicks to follow in its wake per se. Last thing I wanna see is friggin' Shakespeare in spandex all the time. :rolleyes:

TBH, I thought the first Spider-Man & Iron Man hit just about the right level between story, action, pathos, & acting.

[/insert snarky comment about not liking things here] :sneaky: :lol:

MinionZombie

05-May-2012, 10:22 AM

OMG, heaven forbid someone disagrees with the masses. :lol: :lol: :p

Again, misinterpreting what I'm saying ... what is it with you people? :shifty:

*dissolves into the shadows*

rongravy

05-May-2012, 05:26 PM

It was ok. It did its part, as far as blockbusters go. I wanted more Captain, and they made him seem pretty useless at times. I will say Ruffalo did a good job, better than Edward Norton. It was enjoyable to watch in a crowded theater, but I really didn't jizz all over it like I'd thought I would.
I also do like Loki. That guy is way cool and creepy.
So I guess I recommend it, but more so on a big screen. They had the volume cranked where I was at.
Do I think it could've been done better?
Sure, but we had a good time.

Neil

05-May-2012, 06:37 PM

Again, misinterpreting what I'm saying ... what is it with you people? :shifty:

*dissolves into the shadows*

Didn't you know? It's cooool to hate popular successful films and directors. And I mean 'hate' because it's even more coool to actually berate them ("$hit" / "rubbish" / "crap") beyond any level of reason!?

bassman

05-May-2012, 09:30 PM

How anyone can go see a movie about costumed superheroes and NOT expect to turn their brains off should have their brains checked. Seriously, what were they expecting?

There have been several superhero films that prove the genre can go beyond the usual cliches. Nolan's Batman films, Raimi's first two Spiderman films, Donner's two Superman films, etc. Action and spectacle will always be a cornerstone of superhero movies, but very few of them are able to go beyond that. The Avengers probably could have been much more, but instead it rests comfortably as only a spectacle film.

Didn't you know? It's cooool to hate popular successful films and directors. And I mean 'hate' because it's even more coool to actually berate them ("$hit" / "rubbish" / "crap") beyond any level of reason!?

To be fair, not everyone with negative comments toward a popular film is the same. I have negative comments about Avengers, but i'm not going against it simply because it's popular right now. Although I do know the type you're referring to....

AcesandEights

06-May-2012, 04:14 AM

Just got back from watching it. I don't really know how they could have done a better Avengers movie. Objectively there were some issues, especially near the front end, but I laughed and appreciated the ride so much, I'd definitely say it was the best time I've had in a theater in a long ass time, and definitely a film that was made better by appreciating alongside the rest of the house. A lot of laughs, action that was fairly relentless, but somehow nicely punctuated with the laughter and plot points that it somehow didn't get old for me.

Danny

06-May-2012, 06:45 AM

Didn't you know? It's cooool to hate popular successful films and directors. And I mean 'hate' because it's even more coool to actually berate them ("$hit" / "rubbish" / "crap") beyond any level of reason!?

and again heres that internet backlash again. the 'fan or hater' divide. if you dislike a film then you can ONLY be saying its the worst dogshit committed to celluloid, because you arent allowed to just think something was merely dull. then you must be one of 'the haters' saying its the worst thing ever...

There are varying degrees of liking or disliking a film, and for different reasons as well. be it loving a film for its acting instead of the story, or being disappointed over wasted potential instead of just hating it for stupid parts or something.

Honestly the 'get hype!' marketing schtik that indoctrinates people into defending films because they are, quote, "BIG MOVIES" is a disturbing trend. like removing 'dislike buttons' from facebook and the like its one more sign of the modern media consumer audience being trained like dogs to recognise any dissenting opinion as all part of one big pot of "the haters" who "simply be hating" from a checklist of things such as "because its popular" or "its cool" or "its the recent thing to hate on". Time was you were allowed to be critical about film. Now you are with us or against us and that means you are 'US' a brand loyalty supporter, or 'THEM' the haters who wish to destroy all that is good in the universe then kill your dog.

As a guy with a film degree whos watched a lot of cinema, and whos read the avengers weekly over the last 20 years as well as the back issues i think my opinion of 'it wasnt that great' is little more honest than 'LOL THIS IS POPULAR TIME TO GET HATAN'. The 'hater' witch hunt is a bloody childish idea and as i previously said a disturbing trend in the general public being trained like dogs to be the reactionary marketing damage control defence force for the studios online.

Film is an experience. One you enjoy or do not. It deserves your praise or criticism based on your own standards. There is no clear wrong or right in enjoyment and that is unique to the person. Any idea otherwise works under the assumption that taste can be argued and therefore has a 'right' and 'wrong' taste. If you think thats true you probably fall into the 'us or them' black and white fans or haters rhetoric which means you aren't up for discussion on the merits or faults of film anymore. the advertisers got you, you are part of the machine now, and heresy such a this is the highest of insults to every film you liked forever when all of it stems from- "i thought the avengers was dull, boring and wasted an opportunity its about as good as green lantern" "....HATER!, GET 'IM! PROTECT THE FILM! PROTECT THE FIIIILLLMMMMM!"

I think its telling that nobody goes into threads for blockbusters these days going 'you like the film?! whats wrong with you?"

but the moment someone says they disliked it they are ripe for being told how "wrong" they are.

Because negative opinions aren't allowed. that would be hating and thats simply not done.

Just something to think about.

Neil

06-May-2012, 08:28 AM

Film is an experience. One you enjoy or do not. It deserves your praise or criticism based on your own standards.

There seems to be an approach by some people when not enjoying a particular film or director, to level criticism that seems holy unfair and verging on irrational. Recently we've seen "rubbish" and "$hit" and "crap" levelled at James Cameron and also at Sam Raimi for example.

Now, no one is saying that the director/films in question cannot be criticised, or that their products will please everyone. But it's plain to see for most fair minded people that the films/directors are far from "rubbish", "$hit" or "crap". Maybe someone can find they don't enjoy the results on the silver screen but one would hope they could still realise that there's areas of good solid film making involved that lifts them far out of the bottom of the gutter.

In summary, it seems some people are simply unable to see the greys between black and white, or simply feel the need to level criticism thats complelety over the top and unfair as if reacting to the success of the director/film. ie: The more successful the film/director, the more I have to criticise it because I didn't enjoy it.

MinionZombie

06-May-2012, 10:05 AM

Didn't you know? It's cooool to hate popular successful films and directors. And I mean 'hate' because it's even more coool to actually berate them ("$hit" / "rubbish" / "crap") beyond any level of reason!?

:lol::lol::lol:

Yeah, I hate those kind of folks ... not talking about anyone specific here on HPOTD, but that kind of person out there ... yeah, I can't stand them and their hipster bullshit.

Just got back from watching it. I don't really know how they could have done a better Avengers movie. Objectively there were some issues, especially near the front end, but I laughed and appreciated the ride so much, I'd definitely say it was the best time I've had in a theater in a long ass time, and definitely a film that was made better by appreciating alongside the rest of the house. A lot of laughs, action that was fairly relentless, but somehow nicely punctuated with the laughter and plot points that it somehow didn't get old for me.

Glad you dug it. I had an absolute blast with it too - the whole audience was really into it, which made up for the lacklustre over-the-counter service from the staff (who have got dumber and slower since the last time I was there, and even then they weren't that switched on). There were uproarious moments of laughter, at just the right times (as you said above), which really brought the audience together to appreciate it.

And what's more, no mouthy four-year-old gobshite like last year when I went to see Captain America. There was some father with his shouty little progeny, who at one point leaped up and screamed "HULK SMASH!" (wrong franchise, dope :rolleyes:), and just wouldn't shut the hell up - really ill-behaved - so in all the quiet moments you had that chattery little git jabbering away like a Jakovasaur or something just as annoying. At least the loud bits masked him ... ... but in The Avengers there was no such interruption, which was sweet-as. :)

In summary, it seems some people are simply unable to see the greys between black and white, or simply feel the need to level criticism thats complelety over the top and unfair as if reacting to the success of the director/film. ie: The more successful the film/director, the more I have to criticise it because I didn't enjoy it.

Referring back several days - like how Danny commented about 'Amazon reviewers' - the sort of folks who give bile-fuelled 1 star reviews. I wouldn't disregard 4 or 5 star reviews as he seemed to suggest though - if they're just "oh this was awesome" and that's it, then that's not much help, but I've seen many well written and reasoned 4 and 5 star reviews on Amazon and other such websites. 1 and 2 stars are also only useful if there is actually a proper reason - or a consitent enough problem (e.g. if it's a gadget, or tech thing) - that is put forth properly.

That is all. :D

Neil

06-May-2012, 11:10 AM

1 and 2 stars are also only useful if there is actually a proper reason - or a consitent enough problem (e.g. if it's a gadget, or tech thing) - that is put forth properly.

That is all. :D

Is a one star review for a film that's clearly reasonably well made and executed, ever useful? Is an opinion of "$hit", "rubbish" or "crap" ever of any use when levelled at a film or director clearly which/who, at worse, could be average?

All such (exteme) opinions/views are based of on "standards" so removed from what others would consider fair or logical, IMHO to be seen practically worthless!

shootemindehead

06-May-2012, 03:35 PM

There seems to be an approach by some people when not enjoying a particular film or director, to level criticism that seems holy unfair and verging on irrational. Recently we've seen "rubbish" and "$hit" and "crap" levelled at James Cameron and also at Sam Raimi for example.

Ok, well this is a swipe at me, obviously.

I've already said that I don't think that Cameron is that great a director and explained why I didn't think 'Titanic' was the greatest movie experience in the world. They're opinions based on having watched his films and being critical of them. He did hit the mark, with 'The Terminator' and 'Aliens', however, as stated previously. Cameron takes the helm of large projects usually and for that he seems to get accolades that focus beyond his directorial umph. But, when the shininess of the new tech wears off, you're left with characters, pacing, dialogue and acting. These are the final and most important marks for a director and in that, I think cameron fails more than he succeeds. His limitations as a director of people becomes clearer when the smoke settles.

I've also explained why I think Raimi is a "rubbish" director and one only has to look at his output (of which I've seen everything, bar the two student films he made before 'The Evil Dead'). They aren't good films by a long shot, although, I have said that I liked 'A Simple Plan' (even if it isn't that memorable) and again, there isn't a doubt in my mind that his new 'Poltergeist' effort will run the gamut of mediocre to woeful. Because, simply put, his previous efforts don't promise much. Maybe Sam has a great film in there just waiting to burst out, but I'm not holding my breath.

Again, these are opinions based on having viewed the directors material, in some cases more than once. It's not based on any zeitgeist, or a popularity contest. I couldn't give a fuck what people thought of what I think. But, it's what I think nonetheless.

I even watched 'Titanic' again, after the Cameron thread and my opinion hasn't changed. While it's accomplished effects wise, it a failure in other departments, like characterisation, pacing, script, dialogue and acting and that won't change no matter how many times I watch it. The same can be said for 'Avatar', which I only watched a few months ago for the first time. So, I completely avoided the humdrum of it being the "greatest film evar!!!". The same criticism of 'Titanic' can be laid at 'Avatar' too, although it's probably better acted. But, even the effects, this time weren't that stellar.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that I don't rate Cameron or Raimi in an effort to generate some sort of "kewl". I can assure you, nothing is further from the truth. I am not trying to avoid "shades of grey" either. I am simply just being honest with my opinion.

EvilNed

06-May-2012, 03:56 PM

Meh, yeah. I'm sort of with shootemindehead here. There seems to be some kind of elitist attitude when it comes to these guys. James Cameron or Sam Raimi (and Peter Jackson!). Are they suddenly above making a shitty film? I like most of what these guys have done. But Avatar is the worst cinema experience I've had since I saw Star Wars Episode 3. I haven't seen it since, and probably never will, but is it so strange that one's views are simply amplified when seeing them in the cinema? I remember seeing Inception and thinking "This is the best film eveeeeer!!!" when walking out, but now after seeing it again I realize that it was probably just me being overly excited. Same goes for Avatar / Lord of the Rings. I hate paying for expensive cinema and seeing something that just turns out to be a big stinking turd.

And don't speak to me about "objectivity". That word doesn't exist in this context. There is no way that any film is every objectively good or bad. That's rubbish. Nonsense. Avatar is neither good nor bad. It's a film. What matters to me is my opinion of it, and that opinion is based on the experience I had watching it and I had a helluva bad time watching it because everything was so horrible about the film... Everything. And that's my opinion. I ain't a hater of it because it's popular. It certainly irks me when people start creaming their pants left and right whenever someone mentions the CGI, which is still obviously CGI. Or the thin plot. Or the seen-it-before creature designs. I forgot why people even liked it. Probably because of the 3D. Which was shit too (and to this day, 3D is still shit).

krisvds

06-May-2012, 04:42 PM

And don't speak to me about "objectivity". That word doesn't exist in this context. There is no way that any film is every objectively good or bad. That's rubbish. Nonsense. .

Troll 2 would like to have a word with you. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4

Danny

06-May-2012, 05:27 PM

Troll 2 would like to have a word with you. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4
troll 2 is transcendant, its literally so fucking awful it is something uniquely amazing because of it. a rarity, but not alone.

Plz-bhcHryc

EvilNed

06-May-2012, 06:10 PM

Troll 2 would like to have a word with you. ;)

I've seen the whole film. Had a better time than many (not all) Hollywood blockbusters as well.

CoinReturn

06-May-2012, 06:11 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/avengers-smashes-competition-box-office-breaks-box-office-opening-weekend-records-article-1.1073341?localLinksEnabled=false

Marvel Studio's "The Avengers" stomped all over box office records on its way to earning $200.3 million in its debut - the greatest opening weekend of all time.

http://i.imgur.com/RuDkt.png

Good lord.

Also; Troll 2? The Room? Both great, but I believe Samurai Cop to be the king of awesomely bad movies:

9KFKnQcvgLY

shootemindehead

06-May-2012, 07:22 PM

Wow...just wow.

By the way, my all time favorite shit/good film is 'Space Mutiny'. If you ever get a chance to see it, you should. That and 'Strike Commando', is a night in to be sure. Stock up on the beers though...or whatever else might get you through... :shifty:

Space Mutiny. The trailer's auf Deutsch, but you'll get the idea.

uiZ2XyYLXbE

Strike Commando

UtAyJPuKuMY

CoinReturn

06-May-2012, 08:18 PM

A Reb Brown fan, eh? :D

His scene where he's telling the kid about Disneyland as the kid is dying, seriously one of the funniest things ever filmed:

ptNdU8x2YfQ
JAKOGAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Also, if you like Space Mutiny, the guy who played MacPhearson was in a really cheesy action movie in the early 80s called "Kill and Kill Again". Definitely recommended for shitty movie buffs.

shootemindehead

06-May-2012, 08:33 PM

I thought his name was Big McLargehuge?

:P

bassman

07-May-2012, 01:19 AM

I thought his name was Big McLargehuge?

:P

RFHlJ2voJHY

clanglee

08-May-2012, 05:08 AM

Sorry to get back on topic, but yeah. . .Avengers. I saw it on the midnight opening. Absolutely loved it. Havn't enjoyed a movie that much in the theater since I saw Fellowship of the Rings. Granted, they are both movies that I was looking foward to and franchises that I had followed for a long time. So perhaps I went in biased. But I had a huge dopey grin on my face throught both movies. There were some slow parts and some things that didn't quite gel (had a problem with Hawkeye being a badguy for so long and the whole "oh yeah we can fix this because of some unmentioned failsafe" ending) But on the whole I found the movie so. . .I don't know. . .satisfying I guess. Like on a primal level satisfying. It was just a damn fun movie for me.

In my youth I used to rail against certain directors, Speilburg specifically, because of the obvious and cliched attempts at emotional stringpulling. I could see it happening and therefore it pissed me off. It wasn't magical anymore because I was . . .aware. That awareness, the knowledge that I was being manipuated and seeing the method of the manipuation pissed me off and caused me to poo poo all sorts of movies. I don't know If I just got past it in my old age, or I just don't care anymore, but I hardly even notice or worry about obvious film cliches now. I even feel a sense of nostagia about the stuff I used to hate. Case in point. . I loved Super 8 mostly because it felt like an old Speilburg movie.

I dunno. . .but whatever. . .Avengers was good stuff. . . . that is all.

MinionZombie

08-May-2012, 09:04 AM

^^^
I loved Super 8 too. A touching story, beautifully told, and it made me feel pleasantly nostalgic even though I wasn't even alive, let alone a tween, in the 1970s. Spielberg, being a producer on the flick, certainly had a little bit of a guiding hand in it, but not quite as much as it could appear - but then again JJ Abrams wanted to do a Spielberg-like movies from the 1970s anyway, so the influence is certainly there regardless of the beard's actual level of involvement.

Got it on blu-ray for Xmas, well worth getting if you're a fan of the movie. Saw it in the cinema too and was spirited away by it. Big fan of that flick. :)

shootemindehead

08-May-2012, 09:47 AM

A great director can manipulate the crap out of you without you even knowing it and Spielberg is a great director. But, I agree with you on the schmaltz thing. His early work is still clearly his best material. 'Duel', 'Jaws', 'Close Encounters'...they were all adult-oriented efforts, with an incredible amount of tension deftly sprinkled throughout. Even 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' retained an "adult" approach. It's after 'E.T.', that Spielberg changed the game and started making stuff for his "inner child" and "infantilizing the audience", as Peter Biskind put it. Although, 'E.T.' is still a great film, it's hard not to watch it and see all those strings being plucked in the most obvious way, even at 10 years of age.

I agree with Pauline Kael's assertion that Spielberg had fallen into the role of "melodramatist" in his later work, although I certainly wouldn't go as far as calling him a bad director, like she did.

Even great directors have their limitations, I suppose.

bassman

08-May-2012, 11:41 AM

Neil

08-May-2012, 09:24 PM

Have to say, just watched it, and found it rather clunky, paint-by-numbers and generally all a bit "meh"...

Yes, a good fun watch at the cinema, but it all felt just too scripted and on rails... The "meh" results from all the predicable big action with lots of pretty meaningless big bangs and crashes and not really one moment of actual real concern or risk :confused:

Only high points for me were one or two slap stick moments involving "The Hulk". Would have to say I felt "Captain America" was a far stronger film for example; There was actually some character exploration and depth to it, which is why it resulted in a far stronger experience (for me at least).

If I gave Captain America a 7.5/10, I'd give "The Avengers" maybe a 6.5?

-- -------- Post added at 10:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------

A great director can manipulate the crap out of you without you even knowing it and Spielberg is a great director. But, I agree with you on the schmaltz thing. His early work is still clearly his best material. 'Duel', 'Jaws', 'Close Encounters'...they were all adult-oriented efforts, with an incredible amount of tension deftly sprinkled throughout. Even 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' retained an "adult" approach. It's after 'E.T.', that Spielberg changed the game and started making stuff for his "inner child" and "infantilizing the audience", as Peter Biskind put it. Although, 'E.T.' is still a great film, it's hard not to watch it and see all those strings being plucked in the most obvious way, even at 10 years of age.

I agree with Pauline Kael's assertion that Spielberg had fallen into the role of "melodramatist" in his later work, although I certainly wouldn't go as far as calling him a bad director, like she did.

Even great directors have their limitations, I suppose.

Watched Jaws recently, and God it's a good film, but who ever did the lighting needed to be shot. It's like people have got super bright torches pointed at the faces (in the day time scenes) :)

-- -------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------

I enjoyed Super 8, but felt it probably tried a little too hard to be a nod to Speilberg. If anything, Jon Favreau made something closer to the mark with Cowboys and Aliens(also produced by Spielberg).

I enjoyed Super 8. But I felt like it was just "trying too hard" full stop :) Not sure why some folks give it such a hard time, as it's certainly got some nice aspects to it!

Danny

08-May-2012, 10:08 PM

Would have to say I felt "Captain America" was a far stronger film for example; There was actually some character exploration and depth to it, which is why it resulted in a far stronger experience (for me at least).

same here, in my opinion captain america is a far stronger film than the avengers. Better pacing better acting, the combination of the super hero flick juxtaposed with the typical american ww2 flick just had this rare chemistry that was so more unique and engrossing than 'Michael bays transformers but with super heros'. It was not as good as dark knight but id say its the best marvel cape flick aside from spiderman 2.

MoonSylver

08-May-2012, 10:52 PM

In my youth I used to rail against certain directors, Speilburg specifically, because of the obvious and cliched attempts at emotional stringpulling. I could see it happening and therefore it pissed me off. It wasn't magical anymore because I was . . .aware. That awareness, the knowledge that I was being manipuated and seeing the method of the manipuation pissed me off and caused me to poo poo all sorts of movies. I don't know If I just got past it in my old age, or I just don't care anymore, but I hardly even notice or worry about obvious film cliches now. I even feel a sense of nostagia about the stuff I used to hate. Case in point. . I loved Super 8 mostly because it felt like an old Speilburg movie.

http://skypoweraz.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/the-man-behind-the-curtain-01.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Xuyo9DDkL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

:lol:

I must be like you. I started turning into a little bit of a movie snob for a while, but found myself swinging back the other way. You can't have steak for every meal. Sometimes you're just in the mood for a hamburger. ;)

mista_mo

09-May-2012, 12:05 AM

Christopher Jon

09-May-2012, 12:14 AM

the Avengers broke my theater washroom virginity.
The Hulk popping your cherry. I do not envy this.

rongravy

09-May-2012, 03:08 AM

It was not as good as dark knight but id say its the best marvel cape flick aside from spiderman 2.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
Cap was awesome, TDK was a snoozefest.

I enjoyed it quite a lot. It was very satisfying and I was never bored once during the film. The only time that I noticed the length was when I could no longer hold in my piss, and thus I had to get up and walk to the bathroom before my bladder exploded. I've never had to do that during a film before...the Avengers broke my theater washroom virginity.
Whoa, didn't have a large cup handy to covertly shake the dew off the lily?
Noob.:sneaky:

Neil

09-May-2012, 07:37 AM

same here, in my opinion captain america is a far stronger film than the avengers. Better pacing better acting, the combination of the super hero flick juxtaposed with the typical american ww2 flick just had this rare chemistry that was so more unique and engrossing than 'Michael bays transformers but with super heros'. It was not as good as dark knight but id say its the best marvel cape flick aside from spiderman 2.

If I had to pick my recent best half dozen super hero flicks, it would along the lines of:-
Batman 1&2
Spiderman 1&2
Captain America
Iron Man

(I've missed out "Kick Ass" because it's not a traditional comic book film I guess. But I'd put that right up the top of the list, head and shoulders about "The Avengers").

Many of the rest, especially the Green Lantern just felt too wishy washy. And the Avengers, while fun, just felt like it was a film looking for a purpose. It's biggest flaw (IMHO) was the lack of any real threat; All the characters just felt invulnerable and many of the situations/action just too scripted and seemed there purely for eye-candy than any real logical plot development or necessity.

Question: Why did Loki go (let himself be taken) to the super duper daft flying aircraft carrier? What was his aim again?

mista_mo

09-May-2012, 12:40 PM

Whoa, didn't have a large cup handy to covertly shake the dew off the lily?
Noob.:sneaky:

Even if I did, my fiance and her entire family were there with me. I do not believe that I will further relations with them by urinating into a coca cola cup.

Question: Why did Loki go (let himself be taken) to the super duper daft flying aircraft carrier? What was his aim again?

His aim was to try and separate and destroy the tenuous alliance that they had formed, and to destroy the shield fortress by causing the hulk to let loose.

Danny

09-May-2012, 12:45 PM

Question: Why did Loki go (let himself be taken) to the super duper daft flying aircraft carrier? What was his aim again?

loki is the god of mischief, he works through manipulation and subtlety. that bit was the only sign of it in a movie where he just stabs everything instead. The original avengers story its based on has it appear as though loki is an enemy but he is actually working to push them together because his goal the whole time was to form the avengers to stir up some chaos in the universe. Something that you could construe from the after credits scene 'maybe' but in the film proper its barely there at all in favour of 'LOL REVENGE'.

Neil

09-May-2012, 01:09 PM

His aim was to try and separate and destroy the tenuous alliance that they had formed, and to destroy the shield fortress by causing the hulk to let loose.
OK:-
1) Why would him (Loki) being there (locked in a cell) affect their "tenuous alliance"?
2) Why when Hawkeye blew up one propeller, didn't he - shock horror - blow up one or two more? That would have been fairly good at achieving the mission/objective?

mista_mo

09-May-2012, 03:59 PM

Neil

11-May-2012, 09:47 AM

OK:-
1) I thought that it was pretty obvious that he had wanted to be there. He could directly interact with the Avengers this way, and bring about the infighting that almost led to them separating. He was locked in the cell, but that really didnt interfere with his aims, as Thor played into his hands pretty easily. He jumped into the cell, attacking the hologram Loki and became trapped within. Loki has made it clear that he wanted Thor dead in the past, and the fall in the cylinder may have stood a pretty good chance of killing him, so this would eliminate one member of the team, and the object of his revenge. I am also lead to believe that Loki had wanted on the helicarrier because he knew that Banner was onboard, and that his aim was to awaken the Hulk.

Didn't seem clear to me. Seemed the only real reason was so they/he could locate the flying aircraft carrier and destroy it!? Which brings us onto...

2) I do not know, as this was the part of the movie I left to use the rest room. Maybe he was unable too because he was intercepted by Black Widow?
No Hawkeye flew upto the super duper flying aircraft carrier and blew one engine up with an arrow, and then landed!?!?!?!? Why not just fire three more arrows (for the other three engines) and fly away? The entire thing would be destroyed, along with many/all of the SHIELD staff/operatives? Job done!?

AcesandEights

11-May-2012, 01:23 PM

No Hawkeye flew up to the super duper flying aircraft carrier and blew one engine up with an arrow, and then landed!?!?!?!? Why not just fire three more arrows (for the other three engines) and fly away? The entire thing would be destroyed, along with many/all of the SHIELD staff/operatives? Job done!?

I think, but may have to re-watch it that...

Loki was on board and Hawkeye (and crew) had orders to see Loki off the Helicarrier. That's why he landed. The purpose of initially damaging the SHIELD Helicarrier was to create a distraction and state of confusion that would allow Hawkeye to extract Loki. Any long term damage to the Helicarrier, ancillary crew and SHIELD's capabilities would just have been a side benefit of Loki's initial plan to sow dissent amongst his opponents and possibly take Thor out of the picture. Now if the damage to the Helicarrier helped the Hulk, manipulated into a rage at this point, take out the helicarrier and many or all of the crew and Avengers, then even better, but that was not Hawkeye's main part in the plan.

Wish I could remember where Clint was headed when he ran into Natasha for their fight.

Neil

11-May-2012, 02:18 PM

I think, but may have to re-watch it that...

Loki was on board and Hawkeye (and crew) had orders to see Loki off the Helicarrier. That's why he landed. The purpose of initially damaging the SHIELD Helicarrier was to create a distraction and state of confusion that would allow Hawkeye to extract Loki. Any long term damage to the Helicarrier, ancillary crew and SHIELD's capabilities would just have been a side benefit of Loki's initial plan to sow dissent amongst his opponents and possibly take Thor out of the picture. Now if the damage to the Helicarrier helped the Hulk, manipulated into a rage at this point, take out the helicarrier and many or all of the crew and Avengers, then even better, but that was not Hawkeye's main part in the plan.

Wish I could remember where Clint was headed when he ran into Natasha for their fight.

I'll have to watch it again, as I don't recall Hawkeye helping Loki escape, or even implying it!?

MinionZombie

11-May-2012, 04:57 PM

I'll have to watch it again, as I don't recall Hawkeye helping Loki escape, or even implying it!?

There's so much in the flick that it'd be easy to forget such things, you can never possibly have a whole movie locked down in one viewing when it's at such a scale as this with so many characters. It takes multiple viewings to cover all the bases.

Neil

12-May-2012, 07:05 PM

Yes, a good fun watch at the cinema, but it all felt just too scripted and on rails... The "meh" results from all the predicable big action with lots of pretty meaningless big bangs and crashes and not really one moment of actual real concern or risk :confused:

LOL! So my main criticism was no one really seemed in any danger or ever felt under threat... and now there's a rumour surfacing that the one character who did actually suffer in some way, may not even be dead after all - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55655

AcesandEights

12-May-2012, 08:50 PM

LOL! So my main criticism was no one really seemed in any danger or ever felt under threat... and now there's a rumour surfacing that the one character who did actually suffer in some way, may not even be dead after all - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55655

You never read comic books growing up, did you? :D

Neil

12-May-2012, 08:54 PM

You never read comic books growing up, did you? :D

?? 2000AD! Was there anything else? :)

MinionZombie

13-May-2012, 10:28 AM

?? 2000AD! Was there anything else? :)

According to schools these days it'd have to be 2000CE ... :rolleyes: ... dates in schools are now "BCE" and "CE" aka Before Christian Era, and Christian Era ... just ain't as catchy though, is it?

shootemindehead

13-May-2012, 03:08 PM

^^ You're feckin joking.

What the hell?

CoinReturn

13-May-2012, 03:44 PM

http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/bo_numbers/studio_estimate/2012-05-13

$103,163,000 for it's second weekend domestically.

Domestic: $373,182,000
+ Foreign: $628,900,000
Worldwide: $1,002,082,000

Avengers has passed The Dark Knight to become the highest-grossing superhero and comic book movie worldwide.

:eek:

acealive1

13-May-2012, 04:45 PM

I enjoyed it quite a lot. It was very satisfying and I was never bored once during the film. The only time that I noticed the length was when I could no longer hold in my piss, and thus I had to get up and walk to the bathroom before my bladder exploded. I've never had to do that during a film before...the Avengers broke my theater washroom virginity.

there were so many people getting up to use the bathroom.......scratch that....the same 8 or 9 people kept getting up for various reasons and it pissed me off to no end. one guy pissed about 3 times, got a few refills of soda and got at least 3 LARGE POPCORN refills......everyone had to go down my aisle....

MinionZombie

13-May-2012, 05:15 PM

According to schools these days it'd have to be 2000CE ... :rolleyes: ... dates in schools are now "BCE" and "CE" aka Before Christian Era, and Christian Era ... just ain't as catchy though, is it?

^^ You're feckin joking.

What the hell?

Nope - I ain't jokin', Sir. I edit a lot of educational DVDs, and that's how I first discovered it - I thought it was a mistake at first in the script, but I was informed that for a few years now in schools it's no longer BC/AD, but BCE/CE. Seems pointless to me personally - I'm decidedly non-religious, but I have no problem with "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" - but whatever. Despite the change, I'd say BC/AD is still the norm in the wider world.

http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/bo_numbers/studio_estimate/2012-05-13

$103,163,000 for it's second weekend domestically.

Domestic: $373,182,000
+ Foreign: $628,900,000
Worldwide: $1,002,082,000

Avengers has passed The Dark Knight to become the highest-grossing superhero and comic book movie worldwide.

:eek:

:stunned: Wow - The Avengers is kicking box office arse - Joss Whedon must be feeling pretty chuffed, and he deserves it. :)

Andy

13-May-2012, 05:27 PM

I been wanting to see this but im having a hard time convincing the girlfriend :lol:

shootemindehead

13-May-2012, 06:32 PM

Nope - I ain't jokin', Sir. I edit a lot of educational DVDs, and that's how I first discovered it - I thought it was a mistake at first in the script, but I was informed that for a few years now in schools it's no longer BC/AD, but BCE/CE. Seems pointless to me personally - I'm decidedly non-religious, but I have no problem with "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" - but whatever. Despite the change, I'd say BC/AD is still the norm in the wider world.

I'm not in the slightest be regligious myself, but that's just ridiculous.

It kind of smacks of that idiotic idea to stop calling Christmas Christmas.

Neil

16-May-2012, 10:02 AM

Robert Downey Jr earns 50 squillion dollars!

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Robert-Downey-Jr-Paid-Way-More-Than-Fellow-Avengers-He-Worth-It-30948.html

According to The Hollywood Reporter, once bonuses are factored in, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans and Jeremy Renner will likely earn between two and three million. Scarlett Johansson and Samuel L Jackson should rake in five to six million, and Robert Downey Jr will swagger off to his bank with around fifty million dollars. In case you suck at math, that means Marvel values Iron Man’s presence roughly twenty-five times more than Captain America’s.

MinionZombie

16-May-2012, 11:53 AM

:stunned: *jaw drops*

I wouldn't half mind fifty million... *drools*

shootemindehead

16-May-2012, 02:27 PM

It's obscene.

Neil

16-May-2012, 07:45 PM

It's obscene.

Is utterly daft isn't it! From a limited role in a single film!

MinionZombie

17-May-2012, 08:28 AM

Is utterly daft isn't it! From a limited role in a single film!

Maybe it's some deal relating to the Iron Man films, like some sort of combo-bonus or something?

**edit**

Yep:

Why the difference? When Marvel’s Iron Man grossed a surprising $585 million worldwide in 2008, Downey’s reps at CAA and the Hansen Jacobson law firm renegotiated a deal to include what multiple sources say is a slice of Marvel’s revenue from future movies in which he plays Iron Man (one source puts it in the 5 percent to 7 percent range; another source disputes the percentage. Marvel and Downey’s reps declined comment).

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/marvel-moolah-robert-downey-jr-avengers-pay-set-224616846.html

Christopher Jon

17-May-2012, 08:58 AM

Is utterly daft isn't it! From a limited role in a single film!
It's good to be Iron Man.

bassman

17-May-2012, 12:05 PM

Maybe it's some deal relating to the Iron Man films, like some sort of combo-bonus or something?

That's what I had figured. If that is the case, I wonder what Samuel L Jackson got for his nine picture deal, or whatever it was?

Also, I've just read this quote from Joss Whedon about the possibility of returning for the Avengers sequel:
“You know, I’m very torn.It’s an enormous amount of work telling what is ultimately somebody else’s story, even though I feel like I did get to put myself into it. But at the same time, I have a bunch of ideas, and they all seem really cool.”

Sounds to me like he's planting that little seed with the studios. "It made a bazillion dollars, you have to win me back. Start the negotiations."