Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Captain Craig, Apr 20, 2012.
You would think that would be of interest to somebody.
I suspect it might have something to do with just the peculiarities of making all of the adjustments for inflation and then exchange rates, etc.
That would be a bit of an undertaking.
There you go.
Even though I was not overwhelmed by the movie, it looks like im going to see it again, this time in 3D with some friends. I very rarely see movies twice. The only movie I've ever seen in the theater more than twice was ST09 (4 times).
That scene makes me giggle like Homer Simpson
Yeah, I did need to ask because, I'll be honest, I don't see this huge difference that everyone else sees. The only movies in the last 10 years or so that did things a little differently were Hulk, The Dark Knight and Watchmen. Everything else pretty much blends together and looks the same. Big summer movies with the same kind of action, special effects and humor. They all have the same ingredients. Does The Avengers have something of a "heart" that touches people a certain way, as some of you have alluded to? Maybe that's it, because pretty much all the surface/structural qualities aren't that different. When it comes to these types of movies, action is action and gags are gags.
Anyway, thanks to all of you who answered my question and shed some light on the matter. And like I said, I enjoyed the movie and have many of the same positive observations that most of you have, it's just the "best movie ever" part and the near perfect ranking that I don't get fully. For you Babylon 5 fans out there, I feel like Lochley at the Rebo & Zooty show right now.
I like Shia LaBeouf, by the way. He's pretty good with the fast talk and thr wise-cracks.
But it's how those gags are played, what they are, and how connected to the characters we are.
The Transformers movies failed to properly connect the audience to the characters considering much of the focus was spent on the bullshit with Sam Whitwicky and the action scene(s) were a jumbled mess of metal colors.
Here our main characters are central focus of the movie, we see them develop and grow, learn to work together as a team and then do battle together to come out on top.
Transformers had none of that. We get two hours of bullshit nonsense -some of time spent on... DUN DUN DUN!! Sam getting a job- unfunny antics (Bumblebee playing grabass with John Malkovich) and very little time with the characters we're there to see (the Transformers.)
Here the characters are developed and at the end we know where they all stand (even if you've not seen the lead up movies) and how they "work together" then we get a battle of them coming together as a team and seeing them fight.
Not jumbled messes of metal fighting intercut with scenes of Shia LeBouf bullshit.
Structurally both movies, yes, are made the same especially when it comes to the final act. The reason why this works and Transformers didn't is because this movie used better quality pieces, left out the bullshit pieces and put them together in a better way.
In Avengers there's not one scene that stands out to me as un-needed, superfluous, or just offensive or stupid. The first couple hours of the last two transformers movie are nothing but all of that nonsense.
And, again, the characters we go in to see (the Avengers) are front and center and get developed. If they did it the Transformers way we'd have spent the whole movie with the Avengers fighting and arguing in the background while we follow the "Asteroids" playing Helicarrier crewman struggling with his undeserved girlfriend, his asshole parents, while he screams like an idiot.
Oh, look the Avengers are fighting over there! Meh. Let's see how Asteroids Guy is doing on his next job interview!
Actually it was Galaga, but good point nonetheless
Another reason Avengers stands out above those other movies is its heart. Joss Whedon was brilliant in making this huge movie with gods and monsters and men of metal and super-soldiers and aliens all come down to being about "a guy named Phil."
I was just checking the poll results to see who voted what and I noticed that there was only one F vote from an Xavier Storma. Oddly enough I didn't see any post indicating why Xavier voted that way. Now, I'm not saying he was wrong to vote that way but...
An F is so dismissive. It's also so far against the voting grain that I'm wondering if Xavier even saw the movie. Is the F just a troll vote meant to slant the results or was it meant to register a genuine dislike of the movie?
I'm just fascinated that anybody could hate such a universally liked movie and would love to know why it didn't work for them.
Anybody ever read Harlan Ellison's negative review of Star Wars, circa 1977? Fascinating reading and well reasoned. Especially considering the popularity of that seminal flick.
Of course I didn't agree with Ellison anymore than I agree with Xavier.
Very true. I loved Nick Fury's version of a "Win one for the Gipper!" speech. That's what this movie came down to, one man's dream.
I suspect it is a "troll vote" any internet poll is going to have a certain margin of error when it comes to stuff like this. Indeed when you've got some 97% of your votes over the middle grade(s) and then a scramble few negative votes, then they may need to be considered "troll votes." (But even then probably just the "F" votes since the "D" votes would be weak poll trolling.)
Xavier did, however, post something of his thoughts on the movie.
I was going to further elaborate on my "same ingredients" analogy, suggesting that perhaps The Avengers mixed its ingredients and cooked it up better, and that's pretty much what you said. I can see that as a factor. And I only used Transformers as one example. A lot of these summer/superhero movies get panned in one way or another which is why I was surprised that The Avengers wasn't.
If you read through the thread you should be able to find his review of the movie. He actually considers it closer to a C- but says that his browswer screwed up and voted F.
Whether or not you believe that is up to you, but he did say it was average.
Avengers just managed to cook everything up right so that your first serving was awesome. As time goes on and you keep pulling those left-overs out of the fridge opinions will likely change as the Summer wears on and the movie arrives on DVD but right now it stands up because it lived up to all of the hype and the four years of build-up.
Yes all the ingredients and stuff are here that are there in pretty much every Summer block buster, like I said in the build-up thread I already knew pretty much what was going to happen in this movie. I knew there'd be a lot of inner-clashing from their various egos, I knew something big would happen that would force them to see the error of their ways and then afterwards they'd rally together, learn to work as a team, and save the world.
It's all there. The movie is full of tropes.
But, as you said, the movie uses the right quality of ingredients and mixes them together in the right way that somehow, right out of the gate, it just all worked. Nearly perfectly.
If I really thought about it I could come up with complaints on this movie but right now nothing great beyond nitpicking stands out.
The movie left me wanting more, a LOT more. I wanted things to keep going. I can't wait to go see this again! This movie somehow just "clicked."
In Whedon We Trust.
I believe that about as far as I can toss Mjolnir. Yeah, his browser screwed up and caused him to click a radial button several ones below the one he wanted and then click "submit."
No reason to disbelieve him. My votes have come out wrong before. A C-vote makes more sense to me. Thanks.
Changed my mind. I don't believe him. Still interesting to see why he didn't like it.
I found Tony Stark strutting around for a good chunk of the movie in a "Black Sabbath" t-shirt just awesome.
Which reminds me... Why didn't the helicarrier crash when two of its engines failed?
I actually have a clearer version than the one posted in the thread. Will try posting it later. ImageShack won't let me unless I pay for upgrade and my Photobucket account is maxed out on hits it seems now.
I'm confused. You know who Ronan is but don't recognize that as Thanos? Also, Ronan would be tied up with Fox for Fantastic Four I'd think.
I didn't buy the "browser trouble" story, I think he just didn't realize the thread was public and was back peddling a bit.
I honestly don't see how anyone could give it less than A-, you'd have to invent reasons like the tag line Avengers Assemble not being uttered. The line not being there doesn't affect the awesomeness of what was delivered, it's just not there. Since they are now somewhat unified and of a team mind it will make sense in TA2. I mean Stark was really the only one(as noted by Fury) to be aware of the term Avenger. Cap heard it here, now post Coulson, but it wasn't mentioned by name, Avenger Initiative in Thor or Hulk. So NOT saying Avengers Assemble in context of the film makes sense really.
I do like reading how people are warmed back up to the idea of a solo Hulk film following this path as laid out by Whedon. Also, a solo Black Widow film. However, not just anyone could write it. It would have to be Whedon imo. We've seen what happens when others write Elektra or Catwoman, they fuck it up for whatever reasons.
I would love a Joss written Hulk flick but he's not necessarily the only person who could write a good Hulk movie. Peter David might be able to write an interesting Hulk movie based on the post-Avengers version. Then again PAD has minimal experience in screenwriting and NO experience writing big budget productions...He does however have TONS of Hulk writing experience. I would prefer that Joss write it, though.
Separate names with a comma.