The Avengers (Joss Whedon)

[Dukefrukem]

Imma go with Spinal or Sven. Baby Doll probably won't bother with it. Raiders will yay it.

No way. Irish will be the nay.

Am I on block? Does no one agree with my counter argument to KF's?

[Boner M]

I don't trust this unanimity. Can I change my vote?

[Grouchy]

It's because Marvel characters will kill, and that makes for a tough sell. Pit them against aliens, monsters, or robots, things are gravy.
I was really hoping the Wolverine in Japan movie would change that.

[number8]

Man, I must be the only one who felt he was, well, good enough I suppose.


I thought his performance as Banner was nicely nuanced, but I'm not sure I would have said that if I hadn't known that he also did the physical work for the Hulk, as well. That, and I wanted to make a (bad) Hulk pun.

The best thing about his performance is that you kinda know there's something off about the guy the whole time, but you're not sure what. The restrained smile, the constant hand rubbing, the random changes in volume... and when you find out that he's "always angry," it clicks. Ruffalo played Banner as if he's holding back rage the entire movie.

It's a pretty fantastic performance.

[number8]

No doubt. I also disliked how all three (Avengers, Thor, Iron Man 2) climaxed with the antiseptic destruction of empty cars and buildings. I know these movies aren't to be taken as high drama, but some drama would be nice.

The pseudo 9/11 wall footage at the end is a nice little touch to address that, though. I can't really remember another superhero movie taking a moment after the climax to acknowledge that lots of people died while you were enjoying that big punch up.

[Sven]

The pseudo 9/11 wall footage at the end is a nice little touch to address that, though. I can't really remember another superhero movie taking a moment after the climax to acknowledge that lots of people died while you were enjoying that big punch up.

OMG. I know context is everything and I haven't seen it yet, but that sounds super lame.

[number8]

If you've been reading this thread, I think you already know 80% of the movie. :lol:

[Sven]

If you've been reading this thread, I think you already know 80% of the movie. :lol:

My guess is that I knew 80% of the movie before I even saw the previews.

I don't care about spoilers.

[number8]

I didn't mean the story, I meant all the posts gushing about specific jokes and oh-shit moments.

[Kurosawa Fan]

OMG. I know context is everything and I haven't seen it yet, but that sounds super lame.

It was. Very corny moment.

[Morris Schæffer]

The best thing about his performance is that you kinda know there's something off about the guy the whole time, but you're not sure what. The restrained smile, the constant hand rubbing, the random changes in volume... and when you find out that he's "always angry," it clicks. Ruffalo played Banner as if he's holding back rage the entire movie.

It's a pretty fantastic performance.

Look forward to another viewing then, but might be a while. Like when the blu-ray comes out. I think I get what you're saying though.

[Skitch]

Wow. This may be the first 2.5 hour movie that felt rushed. :) I'd take a longer cut in a heartbeat. Solid stuff all around, I look forward to watching it again.

[number8]

Whoever created this movie theater trivia does not read comics.

http://distilleryimage2.instagram.com/8a9d8c6e97cb11e181bd1231381798 7b_7.jpg

[Rowland]

OMG. I know context is everything and I haven't seen it yet, but that sounds super lame.It was, though it may have worked if the entire climactic action sequence hadn't gone out of its way to not directly show a single civilian being so much as injured.

[Rowland]

What do you know, it turns out that both Walter Chaw (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2012/05/the-avengers.html), who some of you surely recall was bashing Cabin in the Woods, Whedon, and his fanbase a few weeks ago, and Reverse Shot (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/monday_hangover_avengers), who most of you know for those kinda dickish articles they publish at the end of every year, liked this more than it sounds like they want to admit.

Also, a ranking (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2012/05/the-5-pre-avengers-flicks-in-order-of-quality.html) of the pre-Avengers films that I largely agree with (still haven't seen The Incredible Hulk or Thor), especially in regards to the surprise top spot.

[Pop Trash]

http://distilleryimage2.instagram.com/8a9d8c6e97cb11e181bd1231381798 7b_7.jpg

Speaking of super lame...

[number8]

That Chaw review is kind of funny, and somewhat cute. It's like he's really pissed off at himself for enjoying himself greatly with the movie so he frontloaded the first paragraph with the most insults he can think of for Whedon, his peers, and their fans.

[Pop Trash]

I should really watch Ang Lee's Hulk again.

[Wryan]

Whoever created this movie theater trivia does not read comics.

http://distilleryimage2.instagram.com/8a9d8c6e97cb11e181bd1231381798 7b_7.jpg

http://blogs.mcall.com/.a/6a00d8341c4fe353ef015393ca123b 970b-800wi

[Raiders]

Isn't Spider-Man only ever a part of the New Avengers?

[EyesWideOpen]

Isn't Spider-Man only ever a part of the New Avengers?

Nope he's been in the Avengers in the past. Just assume that every Marvel character has at one time been in the Avengers.

[number8]

He's in The Avengers now.

[Boner M]

via twitter:


Congrats to The Avengers for shattering box office records. Condolences to everyone trying to make movies about human beings.

[Acapelli]

no, he's in the adjective-less avengers now

[Henry Gale]

Now that Marvel Studios is no longer the underdog with seemingly lower-end properties (Iron Man, Thor and Captain America previously being nowhere near what they are now in terms of marketability and success), and say The Amazing Spider-Man underperforms even slightly, is there any possibility of Columbia trying to renegotiating their rights of the character to try and force him into the next Avengers? We already know they intend on putting their next Spidey sequel out before the next Avengers in 2015 or so which could allow for some bridging, and Feige is still somewhat involved in that end of Marvel film development, so it's not completely impossible to imagine. I'm not sure how it worked with Hulk and Universal being allowed to keep distribution while Marvel Studios produced it.

It's pretty much now or never in terms of merging them, and now that Avengers is even bigger than the biggest of Spider-Man movies ever were, everyone would likely benefit from bringing in another universally loved hero into the team next time around.

[number8]

Honestly, I don't think Marvel would want to without making their own Spidey movie.

Also, Kevin Feige is not involved in Amazing Spider-Man. You're thinking of Avi Arad, and he quit Marvel years ago and is just a hired producer on their movies now, including on licensed projects. He's more sort of a broker.

[Pop Trash]

Glad we have 8 to navigate these comic-nerd seas.

[Pop Trash]

"Originally Posted by Ti West
Congrats to The Avengers for shattering box office records. Condolences to everyone trying to make movies about human beings."

haha I feel his pain...I posted a mild rec for it on my fb and immediately people were like "WHAT?! YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS FREAKIN' AWESOME?"

[Ezee E]

No condolences here when the superhero movie is better then the shitty human being movie.

[MadMan]

No condolences here when the superhero movie is better then the shitty human being movie.I'm reminded of when Werner Herzog said something about preferring a good kung fu film. Really I would rather watch an entertaining superhero movie than a really boring human being movie. People are mostly dull, anyways ;)


Imma go with Spinal or Sven. Baby Doll probably won't bother with it. Raiders will yay it.I predict that Sven will be bored with The Avengers, Spinal will give it ** 1/2 stars....so yeah it will be Sven, probably. And hey I was gonna say that Baby Doll would completely avoid watching The Avengers also, heh. Beaten to the punch.

[B-side]

I'm no fan of the onslaught of boring superhero movies, but the notion that a film about superheros can't have anything to say about humanity is absurd.

[eternity]

I'm no fan of the onslaught of boring superhero movies, but the notion that a film about superheros can't have anything to say about humanity is absurd.
Yeah, but this one certainly doesn't. In fact, as I've let it sit for a few days, it's a mindless Michael Bay action movie with a few really great scenes that make it impossible for me to dislike it as much as I should.

[B-side]

Yeah, but this one certainly doesn't. In fact, as I've let it sit for a few days, it's a mindless Michael Bay action movie with a few really great scenes that make it impossible for me to dislike it as much as I should.

I've read this complaint about superhero films a number of times; that they shouldn't take themselves too seriously or that they're not real films or what have you. I don't see how a superhero movie has any less of a hand in the minds of humanity than Antonioni. It's all fiction. Nobody accuses Michael Haneke of taking himself too seriously unless he's making a didactic piece of crap like Funny Games.

[Boner M]

I'm no fan of the onslaught of boring superhero movies, but the notion that a film about superheros can't have anything to say about humanity is absurd.
That's not what he's saying.

[Pop Trash]

Yeah, but this one certainly doesn't. In fact, as I've let it sit for a few days, it's a mindless Michael Bay action movie with a few really great scenes that make it impossible for me to dislike it as much as I should.

Na, it has way more personality than Bay. Or at least a better personality. I mean just compare the final smash-em-up scene in Transformers to the one in this.

[B-side]

That's not what he's saying.

He's lamenting the fact that a superhero movie makes hundreds of millions when a movie about "human beings" doesn't, no?

[Winston*]

He's lamenting the fact that a superhero movie makes hundreds of millions when a movie about "human beings" doesn't, no?

That the success of The Avengers is going to mean mean more studio money for superheroes and less for other things.

[Boner M]

He's lamenting the fact that a superhero movie makes hundreds of millions when a movie about "human beings" doesn't, no?
Let's not be naive here. You think that the success of The Avengers is gonna lead to a spate of superhero films that prove the genre is just as capable of being conducive to human experience as [take your pick]? It's gonna make it tougher for more interesting films of a certain scale to get made in an industry that demands humans on screen be equipped with special powers and goofy costumes. It'll most likely be like the Spielberg/Lucas-effect of the 70's all over again. West's a genre filmmaker himself, so presumably he's not suggesting what you're saying.

[Boner M]

I will concede that I do get annoyed when certain folks insist that the highest cinema can aspire to is classical/invisible style, the presentation of rounded, three-dimensional characters and narrative coherence (and that HBO is superior to cinema today for that reason).

[Rowland]

I like The Avengers and The Innkeepers about equally, sorry West.

[Boner M]

I like The Avengers and The Innkeepers about equally, sorry West.
I like the former slightly more. House of the Devil, on the other hand...

[B-side]

Let's not be naive here. You think that the success of The Avengers is gonna lead to a spate of superhero films that prove the genre is just as capable of being conducive to human experience as [take your pick]? It's gonna make it tougher for more interesting films of a certain scale to get made in an industry that demands humans on screen be equipped with special powers and goofy costumes. It'll most likely be like the Spielberg/Lucas-effect of the 70's all over again. West's a genre filmmaker himself, so presumably he's not suggesting what you're saying.

I don't see why this film would be any more of a major impetus for more superhero films than the past ten that have made hundreds of millions of dollars. Breaking the opening weekend box office record doesn't even necessarily mean more people saw it. We were going to get 5 superhero movies a year even if The Avengers only did pretty well. The same thing will happen with The Dark Knight Rises. It will do remarkably well and the studios will insists it get rebooted with a new filmmaker.

[Boner M]

I don't see why this film would be any more of a major impetus for more superhero films than the past ten that have made hundreds of millions of dollars.
It's doing much better business that the other superhero movies, and it features more superheros than the other superhero films. 2+2 etc

[B-side]

It's doing much better business that the other superhero movies, and it features more superheros than the other superhero films. 2+2 etc

Studios don't need much incentive to remake and create sequels for something. If it makes a profit, they'll make another. The Avengers' success isn't the death of human-based drama, I assure you.

[Dukefrukem]

Now that Marvel Studios is no longer the underdog with seemingly lower-end properties (Iron Man, Thor and Captain America previously being nowhere near what they are now in terms of marketability and success), and say The Amazing Spider-Man underperforms even slightly, is there any possibility of Columbia trying to renegotiating their rights of the character to try and force him into the next Avengers? We already know they intend on putting their next Spidey sequel out before the next Avengers in 2015 or so which could allow for some bridging, and Feige is still somewhat involved in that end of Marvel film development, so it's not completely impossible to imagine. I'm not sure how it worked with Hulk and Universal being allowed to keep distribution while Marvel Studios produced it.

It's pretty much now or never in terms of merging them, and now that Avengers is even bigger than the biggest of Spider-Man movies ever were, everyone would likely benefit from bringing in another universally loved hero into the team next time around.

I think there's a strong possibility of The Amazing Spider-Man underperforming. I believe it will make the least amount out of all three Raimi movies. But I do wish Spidey would make an appearance in the Avengers. It's been mentioned before in this thread, but it's hard to imagine sitting through another stand alone super hero movie after the Avengers. It would feel so empty.

And technically The Avengers still hasn't produced more than any of the Spidey movies. Each Spidey movie made over $800 mil WW and over $300 mil domestically. The Avengers still has a couple hundred mil to go.

[Henry Gale]

And technically The Avengers still hasn't produced more than any of the Spidey movies. Each Spidey movie made over $800 mil WW and over $300 mil domestically. The Avengers still has a couple hundred mil to go.

Well, the Spider-Man movies got to that point by the end of their entire theatrical run, Avengers will hit those point in a matter of days. Whedon's film will hit a billion, it's just a matter of how soon and how far it goes beyond that. (That last sentence is the one of the more bizarrely awesome things I could have imagined writing even a few years back.)

[Henry Gale]

Even though I wasn't head-over-heels in love with this movie, I'm already oddly compelled to go and see it again (though this time definitely in 2D, as the conversion wasn't too bad, but it was still more distracting than immersing). Also for the first half an hour or so, I didn't feel as into it as I'd hoped, and there were shades of that throughout it even as it got better, but I think that may have been a case of anticipating it so much along with already having seen so much footage that I had already pieced together my own ideal version of the movie in my head before it'd even come out.

I guess I was just most surprised that Joss gave put so much weight on the S.H.I.E.L.D. characters early on and only slowing brought each character in to allow familiarity to us and clash against one another. Basically, once Thor came into the mix, I finally felt like the movie started to find its footing. I'm not sure if it actually became any better, if that had to do with my love of his previous film, or if that's just when the whole gang had finally completed their attendance, but either way, I was finally enjoying the movie as much as I wanted to be.

Now that I know what the movie is (structurally, tonally, thematically, what everyone's arc is, exactly the stakes of each individual scene, etc.), and that I am already positive and relieved that I think it's very good, with my expectations adjusted, I think I could up enjoying it even more a second time.

[number8]

Yeah, Joss Whedon: Billion dollar movie director is incredibly weird to comprehend.

[[ETM]]

Yeah, Joss Whedon: Billion dollar movie director is incredibly weird to comprehend.

And he also wrote that sucker...

[eternity]

Studios don't need much incentive to remake and create sequels for something. If it makes a profit, they'll make another. The Avengers' success isn't the death of human-based drama, I assure you.
I think it is certainly detrimental, at least compared to the "average" superhero movie. Why? It's being hailed as MORE than just a superhero movie; film nerds have a boner for Joss Whedon and they think that he added "substance" and "depth" to this movie, which is absurd. It's clever when it wants to be. Otherwise, it goes out of its way to NOT be a human story. The characters sacrifice nothing, and they avenge very little of consequence.

[number8]

I haven't really heard anyone praising depth and substance for this. In fact, most seem to agree that it's the antithesis to the Nolan Batman films done well.

[eternity]

I haven't really heard anyone praising depth and substance for this. In fact, most seem to agree that it's the antithesis to the Nolan Batman films done well.
That would make sense, considering how the people I get the misfortune of listening to about movies are dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

[Dukefrukem]

Well, the Spider-Man movies got to that point by the end of their entire theatrical run, Avengers will hit those point in a matter of days. Whedon's film will hit a billion, it's just a matter of how soon and how far it goes beyond that. (That last sentence is the one of the more bizarrely awesome things I could have imagined writing even a few years back.)

I guess my point was if the Spider-man movies had 3D releases, I bet it would come close to a $200 mil opening weekend and easily exceed a billion as well.

[Grouchy]

It's always been a running joke that "the Avengers" is a meaningless monicker. They aren't really avenging anything.

[number8]

Aw, apparently Jed, Zack, Kai and Drew Goddard all did uncredited work helping Joss on the script. That's cool.

[number8]

It's always been a running joke that "the Avengers" is a meaningless monicker. They aren't really avenging anything.

Yeah, Stan Lee said he didn't give it any thought. It just sounded cool to him. At least in the movie they're avenging

Coulson

But it still doesn't make sense since they had the name already from all the way back in the first Iron Man.

[dreamdead]

Aw, apparently Jed, Zack, Kai and Drew Goddard all did uncredited work helping Joss on the script. That's cool.

Full names?

[number8]

Full names?

Whedons, all of them.

[dreamdead]

Whedons, all of them.

Gotcha, thanks. I'm not enough into the Cult of Whedon to know these things unless someone tells me. :)

[number8]

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/129/b/f/80s_movie_avengers_by_iliaskrz s-d4z2a5e.jpg

[Mara]

Gotcha, thanks. I'm not enough into the Cult of Whedon to know these things unless someone tells me. :)

Actually, Kai's last name is Cole. She didn't change it when she married Joss.

/cultofwhedon

I thought, "Gee, they had all the Whedons involved and left out Maurissa Tancharoen?" So I googled it, and it's unclear if she helped or not. She has been very ill. (Yes, I follow her blog. I'M CONCERNED.)

[megladon8]

I think it is certainly detrimental, at least compared to the "average" superhero movie. Why? It's being hailed as MORE than just a superhero movie; film nerds have a boner for Joss Whedon and they think that he added "substance" and "depth" to this movie, which is absurd. It's clever when it wants to be. Otherwise, it goes out of its way to NOT be a human story. The characters sacrifice nothing, and they avenge very little of consequence.


I don't think anyone has claimed any of that.

[Mr. McGibblets]

The Dark Knight is the one that was supposed to be MORE than just a superhero movie. It was hailed by legions as one of the best films of all time and clearly was thought to have substance and depth.

[Pop Trash]

Unless it's surprisingly really great, I don't think the new Spider-Man is going to do so hot. Most of the people in I know IRL and the reactions to the previews are pretty ho-hum about it.

[Kiusagi]

I think when people say this movie had substance and depth, they just mean that they liked the script.

[number8]

Unless it's surprisingly really great, I don't think the new Spider-Man is going to do so hot. Most of the people in I know IRL and the reactions to the previews are pretty ho-hum about it.

Yep. It was dead silence for the new trailer at my midnight screening of The Avengers. The Batman trailer after it got a huge reaction.

[Sven]

I think when people say this movie had substance and depth, they just mean that they liked the script.

Yeah, there are contingents quick to afford things "depth" that they just really like. Some still are uncomfortable responding positively to surface pleasures.

[Dukefrukem]

Awesome


Dear Friends,

Well, it's been quite a weekend. Someday, long from now, I will even have an emotional reaction to it, like a person would. I can't wait! But before I become blinded by this "emotion" experience, there's a few things I'd like to say. Well, type.

People have told me that this matters, that my life is about to change. I am sure that is true. And change is good—change is exciting. I think—not to jinx it—that I may finally be recognized at Comiccon. Imagine! Also, with my percentage of The Avengers gross, I can afford to buy ... [gets call from agent. Weeps manfully. Resumes typing.] ... a fine meal. But REALLY fine, with truffles and s#!+. And I can get a studio to finance my dream project, the reboot of Air Bud that we all feel is so long overdue. (He could play Jai Alai! Think of the emotional ramifications of JAI ALAI!!!!)

What doesn't change is anything that matters. What doesn't change is that I've had the smartest, most loyal, most passionate, most articulate group of—I'm not even gonna say fans. I'm going with "peeps"—that any cult oddity such as my bad self could have dreamt of. When almost no one was watching, when people probably should have STOPPED watching, I've had three constants: my family and friends, my collaborators (often the same), and y'all. A lot of stories have come out about my "dark years", and how I'm "unrecognized"... I love these stories, because they make me seem super-important, but I have never felt the darkness (and I'm ALL about my darkness) that they described. Because I have so much. I have people, in my life, on this site, in places I've yet to discover, that always made me feel the truth of success: an artist and an audience communicating. Communicating to the point of collaborating. I've thought, "maybe I'm over; maybe I've said my piece". But never with fear. Never with rancor. Because of y'all. Because you knew me when. If you think topping a box office record compares with someone telling you your work helped them through a rough time, you're probably new here. (For the record, and despite my inhuman distance from the joy-joy of it: topping a box office record is super-dope. I'm an alien, not a robot.) So this is me, saying thank you. All of you. You've taken as much guff for loving my work as I have for over-writing it, and you deserve, in this our time of streaming into the main, to crow. To glow. To crow and go "I told you so", to those Joe Blows not in the know. (LAST time I hire Dr. Seuss to punch my posts up. Yeesh!) Point being, you deserve some honor, AND you deserves some FAQs answered. So please welcome my old friend and certainly not-on-my-payroll reporter/flunky, Rutherford D. Actualperson!

RDA: So good to see you, young Joss! is it possible you've gotten more attractive since we last spoke, and less fungal in odor?

JW: Thanks for noticing. Let's talk.

RDA: The Scavengers is a huge success! Does this mean you have changed the very fabric of existence?

JW: Dude, it's just a movie. Also, yes.

RTA: I've seen a lot of a talk about The Availers vs The Dark Knight Rises. How will you feel if you're eclipsed by Nolan?

JW: I'm glad I made you ask that. I will feel sad. But let's look at the bigger picture, and I can't say this enough: THIS IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. Our successes, whoever has the mostest, are a boon to each other. We're in the business of proving that superhero movies aren't just eye-candy (they're eye-TRUFFLES!). People seem intent on setting us against each other, and though I'm proud to be Woody Strode to Nolan's Kirk Douglas, I think they're missing the point. Whatever TDKR does on its first weekend, the only stat that matters to me is the ticket I'M definitely buying. Nolan and Raimi INVENTED the true superhero flick, yo. (Special mention to Jon Favreau and James Gunn.) Happy to be in the mix.

RTA: What does this mean for your upcoming slate of tiny independent films/Internet shenanigans? Will they fall by the wayside?

JW: There may be new ideas realized—I always leave myself open to that—but my commitment to Wastelanders and Dr H.2 does not waver. Those stories bubble on my stove.

RTA: And TV?

JW: TV is my great love. To tell stories with that alacrity, intensity, and immediacy... Nothing quite like it. I imagine it's not dissimilar to the feeling great poker players have: "Here's what I got, here's where I'm going... How to trick everybody into thinking I know what I'm doing?" [Full disclosure : Joss hates poker. He is probably talking about bridge. But it should apply nonetheless.].

RTA: What message would you give fans of The Lavenders who are not so familiar with your previous work?

JW: Cabin In the Woods: still in (some) theaters!

RTA: Is The Ravengers a perfect movie? It did get an A+ cinemascore...

JW: There are very few perfect movies. The Court Jester, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Godfather I & II... The list does not go on and on. The Avengers is notably IMperfect, which makes its success mean so much more to me—because it's striking a chord that matters MORE than its obvious flaws. Like the team, it appears to be more than the sun of its parts. Boo-yah!

RTA: What do you feel is the greatest achievement of The Avoiders?

JW: Getting "mewling quim" out there to the masses. Also, Hulk.

RTA: Anyone in particular you'd like to thank?

JW: [Reads from notecard]. I couldn't have done this myself. Part of this Saturn Award belongs to Jeremy Latcham, Kevin Feige, and the fine Marvel folk... But the secret ingredient is my closest peeps: J-Mo, who did uncredited punch-up work (carrier battle, yo!), Z-bro, Drew "I am Loki only taller and foppier" Goddard, and Kai, all of whom worked the story with me. Without them (and Jeremy), I'd still be figuring out how the Wasp fits in to this, and where to put Red Hulk.

RTA: What's next for Joss "finally got it right for a change" Whedon?

JW: Can we not call me that?

RTA: Just deal. Whut up?

JW: I really think we should discuss that nickname, but I'm finishing Much Ado About Nothing this month. If you liked The Avengers, you'll love... I can't. It's Shakespeare. And not in the park. I hope it gets watched.

RTA: Any message to your precious "Whedonesk?"

JW: Whedonettes?

RTA: Weeble-eque?

JW: I'm not aware of that group.

RTA: Didn't they know you when?

JW: I'm not sure who you mean. I'm discarding my old fans so I can concentrate on fame, Euro-trash guy-jewelry and my precious Air Bud reboot. But, dude, don't print that!

RTA: You have my word.

So, that's our post! Hope you enjoyed it. Hope you'll continue to carry the banner even though other people may have joined the parade. (Kind of a gay pride/Newsies vibe: sentence accomplished!) Hope you understand how I feel. Cliff notes: grateful.

"Here's to us. Who's like us? Damn few"
-- Stephen Sondheim, "Merrily We Roll Along".

"It took a dog playing Jai Alai to teach us humanity!"
--Me, in that awesome film I'm gonna make.

-j., 5/9/12

[Derek]

Yeah, there are contingents quick to afford things "depth" that they just really like. Some still are uncomfortable responding positively to surface pleasures.

And some contingents are still uncomfortable responding positively to anything but surface pleasures. [/veiled, vaguely directed insult]

[[ETM]]

Aw, apparently Jed, Zack, Kai and Drew Goddard all did uncredited work helping Joss on the script. That's cool.

Don't forget Mo!

[Sven]

And some contingents are still uncomfortable responding positively to anything but surface pleasures. [/veiled, vaguely directed insult]

Vaguely misdirected, I can't help but feel. Are your years of experience with my taste actually suggesting that my rubric of quality eschews depth?

[Derek]

Vaguely misdirected, I can't help but feel. Are your years of experience with my taste actually suggesting that my rubric of quality eschews depth?

Oh, come on, I'm half-joking obviously. :) Didn't like the tone of "some contigents" so had to rib you a bit.

[Pop Trash]

Sven's a total Paulette.

[Sven]

Oh, come on, I'm half-joking obviously. :) Didn't like the tone of "some contigents" so had to rib you a bit.

Re-reading my post, I feel your pain. I was being a little snooty.

[MadMan]

I don't really understand what the hell "Surface Pleasures" is even supposed to mean....

Knowing my tastes, I'll willingly go see The Amazing Spider-Man in theaters and find it to be better than any of Rami's installments save for maybe Spiderman 2, and even then I might say its close to equaling that one. Yet the film will probably do weak business, so I agree about that. I could see it being this year's Superman Returns-good movie, but doesn't do great enough at the box office to truly justify how much money was put into it. They should have cast Donald Glover in the role instead :P

[Morris Schæffer]

Ok, gotta ask, the mewling quim joke in the movie went over my head. Explain! Is it merely random gibberish, invented language as a replacement for fucking cunt?

[Irish]

Quim is just British slang for .. the vagina.

Mewling just means to cry or whimper, like a baby or a kitten.

[Boner M]

Can't wait to buy Avengers Unrated: Simpering Cunt Edition on bluray later this year.

[Ezee E]

If this were to really happen, some disaster recovery company said that the damages and cleanup repair would cost $160 billion. To compare, WTC was half that, and the Japan tsunami was $120 billion.

[Mysterious Dude]

On Sunday, I learned this wasn't another remake of the 60's TV show.

[Morris Schæffer]

okidoki! :)

[number8]

On Sunday, I learned this wasn't another remake of the 60's TV show.

Stop lying.

[number8]

If this were to really happen, some disaster recovery company said that the damages and cleanup repair would cost $160 billion. To compare, WTC was half that, and the Japan tsunami was $120 billion.

I love this quote:


"Most insurance policies have special provisions for acts of war, civil unrest or terrorism," KAC adds. "Given the involvement of individuals considered deities in some cultures (Thor, Loki), there is even the potential to classify the event as an 'act of God,' though that designation would be subject to strenuous theological and legal debate."

[number8]

Look forward to another viewing then, but might be a while. Like when the blu-ray comes out. I think I get what you're saying though.

By the way, that quick laugh you keep talking about? I don't think it's a slip up like you thought. I think it's Banner, again, holding back being angry like I said. Another example that Ruffalo was golden.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3jqtkfx6B1qaybgdo1_250 .gif

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3jqtkfx6B1qaybgdo4_250 .gif

[Morris Schæffer]

Aaaah. Perhaps. Very cool of you to find the gif. Rep's on the way. I still don't think it's a difficult, demanding performance, but there's probably more nuance there than my first viewing has revealed.

[Yxklyx]

Just me eh?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Just me eh?

I was close, but yes, just you thus far. My complaints are earlier in the thread.

[Boner M]

TripZone didn't like it, and according to its Mubi page origami_mustache gave it 1 star, dunno if that was to counterbalance the rating or not...

[Dukefrukem]

Just me eh?

You couldn't just say "yay" for 42-0 & MC history could ya?

[Pop Trash]

TripZone didn't like it, and according to its Mubi page origami_mustache gave it 1 star, dunno if that was to counterbalance the rating or not...

No. We all know match-cut ratings reign supreme over the interwebz.

[[ETM]]

Statistical error.

[Sxottlan]

Saw it again. Loved it even more.


;418832']Statistical error.

Statistical error of +/- 1.

So we're still good.

[[ETM]]

Pretty good piece on the absence of Black Widow in most major reviews by male critics. (http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/grey-matters-black-widow-spins-a-web-around-the-avengers)

[Winston*]

Found Johansson to be noticeably lacking in charisma or comic timing in this movie. Makes sense to me that people wouldn't donate more than a few words to her in a 500 word review. Manufatured outrage IMO.

The writer gives three female reviews to illustrate his point about a male female divide on the character. I clicked on the first five reviews on metacritic written by women and none of them gives Johansson more than a mention.

[Boner M]

I'm in the pro-ScarJo camp and thought she was really good in this, mostly for a few key scenes (Loki's interrogation namely).

Weird piece, though.

EDIT: n/m, Winston*

[slqrick]

Yeah, the majority of the reviews I read leading up to opening night felt like they gave Black Widow her due. She kicked a lot of ass in this movie, but her big moments were still behind the likes of the other dudes.

The most impressive was that opening interrogation scene, because I was expecting the action to be shot like a model's photo shoot, since that's what it essentially was in her one scene in Iron Man 2.

[TGM]

This was even better the second time.

[[ETM]]

I actually noticed the lack of mention of her character in the few reviews I read before seeing the movie.

Speaking of female characters, it's funny how Paltrow had the most revealing outfit of them all. I liked how, even though they were definitely form fitting and sexy, neither Black Widow's nor Maria Hill's catsuits were too tight or looked impractical as believable gear, as is most often the case. There was none of that sexist advertising in the actual film, not more than the story required, anyway. And Smulders should always wear her hair up.

[EyesWideOpen]

Clarifying this is from someone who hasn't seen the movie yet:

I think the lack of mention of the Black Widow character is more due to her lack of interesting powers more then any sort of because she's female reason. I think if they would have gone with Wasp, Valkyrie or Ms. Marvel they could have done more with them as characters.

[Irish]

Couldn't this just be attributed to her being a minor character, not all the well known to the general public? How often do those same reviews mention Hawkeye?

[Qrazy]

People seem to be asking the Hulk question a lot.

My take on it is that Whedon's intention was to subvert the usual "I can control it THIS time" plot point and make it a twist. See, we were intentionally led to believe the whole time that when Banner goes Hulk, he can't do anything about it. That's why there's the running line of his "secret" to keep from going Hulk. We assume that when he went on a rampage on the Helicarrier, that's how he usually is. But everyone was under Loki's staff's influence at the time. Cap was ready to beat the shit out of Iron Man. Imagine what that did to Hulk. Separating Banner from the others right after that whole sequence prevented Banner from explaining that, so the others (and the audience) didn't realize until Banner rejoined them in Manhattan that, actually, he can totally control the Hulk.

Awesome that you liked it, Mara.

That's pretty ridiculous and doesn't mesh with Iron Man's conversation with Banner.

[Pop Trash]

Couldn't this just be attributed to her being a minor character, not all the well known to the general public? How often do those same reviews mention Hawkeye?

My thoughts exactly. Hawkeye is given a lot less screen time than ScarJo.

[Qrazy]

It isn't as though I disliked the film because of this conflicting message, but it's worth pointing out, as far as I'm concerned, that it doubled back on its original assertion that using weapons of mass destruction against an enemy is wrong. And it did so by using a weapon launched by our own people to kill the enemy, not a weapon launched by the enemy at us.

This wasn't the original assertion. The original assertion was don't use the tesseract to create more weapons of masser destruction.

[Qrazy]

I enjoyed this quite a bit but I find Whedon lenses everything too tightly in general and the dramatic beats are often deeply average. Also the staging in the scene between Loki and the enemy leader is so TV lame.

[Pop Trash]

I enjoyed this quite a bit but I find Whedon lenses everything too tightly in general and the dramatic beats are often deeply average. Also the staging in the scene between Loki and the enemy leader is so TV lame.

Yes, but the comedic beats are often deeply above average.

[Kurosawa Fan]

This wasn't the original assertion. The original assertion was don't use the tesseract to create more weapons of masser destruction.

That's a pretty flimsy, semantic-driven argument. There is a direct line of dialogue (don't remember who said it) decrying entering into an arms race with alien civilizations, and someone even calls out Stark for the hypocrisy of his stance. That entire conversation is anti-WMD, not only developing more from the tesseract, but also condemning our previous arms race. To then move from that argument to the conclusion we're given is, in my eyes, an argument for the use of WMDs against a strong enemy.

[Qrazy]

That's a pretty flimsy, semantic-driven argument. There is a direct line of dialogue (don't remember who said it) decrying entering into an arms race with alien civilizations, and someone even calls out Stark for the hypocrisy of his stance. That entire conversation is anti-WMD, not only developing more from the tesseract, but also condemning our previous arms race. To then move from that argument to the conclusion we're given is, in my eyes, an argument for the use of WMDs against a strong enemy.

They used the tools at their disposal as generated by the council, no one said they were happy about it.

And yeah the film comes down on the side of sometimes a nuke gets the job done.

[Kurosawa Fan]

And yeah the film comes down on the side of sometimes a nuke gets the job done.

Right, which I thought was antithetical to the Avengers original stance. Again, didn't hate the movie because of it, just found it to be a strange way to end the battle, especially when they could have defeated the enemy without the use of the nuke.

[Qrazy]

Right, which I thought was antithetical to the Avengers original stance. Again, didn't hate the movie because of it, just found it to be a strange way to end the battle, especially when they could have defeated the enemy without the use of the nuke.

I don't think it's a semantic argument. I think the original stance is don't produce greater weapons of mass destruction and don't enter an arms race. Using a nuke in the heat of battle that was fired already is a different issue and Fury had tried to stop it from being fired initially.

They hold true to their original position by giving up the tesseract to Thor.

[number8]

especially when they could have defeated the enemy without the use of the nuke.

That's why I thought Whedon handled it smartly. He didn't have the nuke be the Avengers' bailout. They were already winning by the time the nuke came into play. Introducing the nuke is simply to have an "Iron Man finally puts away his selfish ego to sacrifice himself for a greater good" moment, which is even more significant because, as Fury called him out on earlier, he used to make the very thing that's about to kill him. It's a retread of the first Iron Man, sure, but it's one of those simple arcs you gotta have in an action movie.

[Kurosawa Fan]

But the same arc could have taken place without using the nuke against the enemy, with him just taking it up as far as he could into the atmosphere and letting it detonate there.

[Qrazy]

But the same arc could have taken place without using the nuke against the enemy, with him just taking it up as far as he could into the atmosphere and letting it detonate there.

They wouldn't have had a way to wrap up the battle.

[number8]

But the same arc could have taken place without using the nuke against the enemy, with him just taking it up as far as he could into the atmosphere and letting it detonate there.

What? Come on, now you're not making sense. You're flying with a nuclear fucking missile, and your suit's AI is saying your power is under 10% and depleting fast. Do you chuck it into a convenient hole on top of a building that will transport the nuke to the other side of space, or do you fly past that hole and continue for a few more minutes so you can detonate a nuclear bomb in the Earth's atmosphere?

[Rowland]

I think he's saying that the sequence is written in a manner so that the nuke is the obvious means of defeating the enemies, which is implicitly in favor of military might, a direct contradiction of the anti-WMD material in the film up to that point. The sequence could have been written in some manner so that the use of a WMD was not implicitly justified; as is, I can understand the argument that the film sorta has its cake and eats it too.

[number8]

I think he's saying that the sequence is written in a manner so that the nuke is the obvious means of defeating the enemies, which is implicitly in favor of military might, a direct contradiction of the anti-WMD material in the film up to that point. The sequence could have been written in some manner so that the use of a WMD was not implicitly justified; as is, I can understand the argument that the film sorta has its cake and eats it too

No, I got that that's what he's saying, which is why in my previous post I said Whedon was smart in how he had his cake and ate it too by deliberately showing that the Avengers was already winning—Loki's defeated, Chitauri army's waning, and Natasha's just about to close the portal—when the nuke suddenly came into play. I would understand the flip-flopping accusation if the nuke was a gamechanger, but Whedon could've written the nuke out completely and it wouldn't really change the outcome. As it is, the nuke comes into play merely as a last minute save-New-York thrill and, as I said, completing Tony's arc.

[Qrazy]

No, I got that that's what he's saying, which is why in my previous post I said Whedon was smart in how he had his cake and ate it too by deliberately showing that the Avengers was already winning—Loki's defeated, Chitauri army's waning, and Natasha's just about to close the portal—when the nuke suddenly came into play. I would understand the flip-flopping accusation if the nuke was a gamechanger, but Whedon could've written the nuke out completely and it wouldn't really change the outcome. As it is, the nuke comes into play merely as a last minute save-New-York thrill and, as I said, completing Tony's arc.

Well it's also a means of ending the battle immediately so you don't have to have your heroes running around dispatching all the rest of the creatures.

[Kurosawa Fan]

What? Come on, now you're not making sense. You're flying with a nuclear fucking missile, and your suit's AI is saying your power is under 10% and depleting fast. Do you chuck it into a convenient hole on top of a building that will transport the nuke to the other side of space, or do you fly past that hole and continue for a few more minutes so you can detonate a nuclear bomb in the Earth's atmosphere?

You act as though the deployment of a nuke was something that HAD to be written into the script. It was done intentionally, and I thought that including the nuclear strike and having it redirected at the enemy when so much of the dialogue had been against the use of nuclear force (or any other WMDs they could have created with the tesseract) was cheap, hypocritical, and bothersome. Simple as that.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Well it's also a means of ending the battle immediately so you don't have to have your heroes running around dispatching all the rest of the creatures.

At the rate they were destroying the enemy, it wouldn't have had to be long after the portal was closed that the rest of the enemy was vanquished.

[Raiders]

The nuclear strike makes prefect sense given that SHIELD and the shadowy figures had been using the tesseract specifically to engineer such weapons against incoming alien forces. Since that is exactly what is happening, of course they would authorize such an action. The Avengers, this time through Fury, protest the use of it and he tries his best to prevent it, showing that this is not the correct course of action, that it should not be used, but he is unsuccessful. Stark intercepts it and decides the only logical place he is certain will not have any fallout is through the portal to the other side of space. He isn't "using" the weapon but sending it as far away from Earth as possible. That he winds up destroying the huge enemy ship is thanks only to his own sacrifice. The use of the weapon itself would not have accomplished this feat. The weapons were engineered to be detonated in our own atmosphere and present a kind of power that should never have been tampered with and that is specifically what was being argued against.

[Sxottlan]

I just love the details in this film:

1. The first time we see Banner, there's two of him. And we're not looking at the real one. We're drawn to the reflection because that's the Banner that is staring directly at us.

2. "We don't always get what we want," says Banner a few minutes later as he pushes on a child's crib splattered with green paint. Perhaps a reference to the parental abuse/neglect of Ang Lee's Hulk?

3. Monitoring all cameras and communications worldwide is mentioned offhandedly and Captain America looks disturbed.

4. Perhaps this was due to the recasting of Bruce Banner, but The Avengers in many ways works as Hulk's origin "prequel" film unto itself. There's really only two references to the Norton film.

5. And how freaking good is Mark Ruffalo? Banner is such a juicy role, the modern Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, it's no wonder Oscar nominees have wanted it. Ruffalo was kind of a strange choice, but he owned the role. It made me regret the few references to the last film because even though I enjoyed Norton's film, the references kind of broke the spell The Avengers had cast on me as it just reminded me of the revolving door of actors who have played Banner within the last decade. But Ruffalo nailed it. Not too many performances will put me on the edge of my seat just because a character stumbles through a sentence, but his did. And his Hulk just looks right. I think it might be the jaw.

6. Stark trying and failing to get a hold of Pepper was strangely moving.

7. "You want me to put the hammer down?"

8. The camera holds on Steve Rodgers while Fury is talking about promises. Nice.

9. I really noticed and enjoyed "That Shot" on my second viewing. However, I really liked the shot in the lab roving around everyone arguing only to drift and then flip over Loki's staff.

10. A muzzle on Loki. Heh. :lol:

[Spinal]

Taken strictly on a narrative level, this film is pretty bad. The threat to humanity is fairly generic -- mysterious glowing thingamabob and an army of soulless baddies from beyond. (Though, to be fair, Loki does have personality.) The all-star approach to heroism creates a collision of worlds that never really works for me. It is difficult to view the members of the coalition as equals when their abilities are so disparate. Clearly, this is not an issue for most of the people who watch this film and appreciate the heterogeneity. For me, I lose the overall arc and fight boredom wishing for a compelling story focused on one hero's battle to preserve morality in a corrupt world. Spiderman 2 in particular succeeded in using its fantasy protagonist to approach big questions of how to address real-life violent threats in a way that didn't force a good person to lose their core humanity.

The Avengers is something altogether different. It's more like a sand-box royal-rumble nerdgasm in which loyal fans get the opportunity to see various enticing scenarios. What if Thor's hammer met Captain America's shield? What would happen? What if Tony Stark and Bruce Banner had a chance to get to know each other on a personal level? Would they get along? Taken for what it is, The Avengers is a successful film, aided by a solid, charismatic cast (though Chris Hemsworth REALLY stands out in this one as not being able to keep up) and some really funny jokes (Stark's dismissal of Thor and Loki's elevated speech being a highlight).

There are numerous characterizations here that are compelling and rich. Robert Downey Jr. clearly leads the pack, though Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson and Gwyneth Paltrow provide strong support. Chris Evans' 'hip-to-be-square' Captain America is the butt of many of the film's best jokes and his old-fashioned attitudes clashing with Tony Stark's more cavalier approach is probably the best thematic excuse for this film existing in the first place.

All in all, the film doesn't leave me with a whole lot to consider. It's too busy giving each of the heroes face-time to really delve into thematics in a meaningful way. Mostly, I just found myself wondering how long it would be before we got a live-action film based on the Wonder Twins. Perhaps Andy Serkis could play Gleek.

[Rowland]

No, I got that that's what he's saying, which is why in my previous post I said Whedon was smart in how he had his cake and ate it too by deliberately showing that the Avengers was already winning—Loki's defeated, Chitauri army's waning, and Natasha's just about to close the portal—when the nuke suddenly came into play. I would understand the flip-flopping accusation if the nuke was a gamechanger, but Whedon could've written the nuke out completely and it wouldn't really change the outcome. As it is, the nuke comes into play merely as a last minute save-New-York thrill and, as I said, completing Tony's arc.Good argument. *thumbs up*

[Pop Trash]

However, I really liked the shot in the lab roving around everyone arguing only to drift and then flip over Loki's staff.


Right, that really stuck out to me too. It actually reminded me of what Robert Altman would do with sound and ensembles. What was going on with the glowing staff? Was it like the negative slime in Ghostbusters II where if you get near it, it just turns everyone into an asshole?

[Qrazy]

At the rate they were destroying the enemy, it wouldn't have had to be long after the portal was closed that the rest of the enemy was vanquished.

I don't agree with that, the shots showing the number of creatures pouring out seemed to demonstrate that there were already many more there than the avengers could handle. They were tiring.

[Lucky]

Man, I saw this on its second weekend and I feel like I'm late to the game here. I liked it enough, the final throwdown was sublime. Also really liked Black Widow's interrogation fight. This was lacking compelling drama as a majority of superhero movies do which keeps it from reaching the upper echelon of this genre. As far as recent sci-fi blockbusters go, Star Trek still holds the crown.

[Grouchy]

It's more like a sand-box royal-rumble nerdgasm in which loyal fans get the opportunity to see various enticing scenarios.
Loyal fans of the characters have already read and seen these scenarios and a lot more. I don't think that's the only appeal of this movie. Its main appeal is that it's well-made.

[Pop Trash]

This just made over a 100 mil. on it's second weekend. That's insane.

[Spinal]

Loyal fans of the characters have already read and seen these scenarios and a lot more. I don't think that's the only appeal of this movie. Its main appeal is that it's well-made.

I have to imagine that loyal fans of the characters have probably read scenarios that have more specificity and thematic weight. This plot felt pretty generic and inconsequential to me. It's well-made in the sense that the performances are good and the dialogue is frequently witty. In terms of making a film with a captivating story to tell with resonance beyond the cineplex, though, I'd say it falls well short.

[Sycophant]

It's too light and inoffensive for me to hate, and I'd even say I liked it well enough when it was happening. It's got fun things in it! The film isn't about anything to speak of. Some moments are real eye-rollers (the Wold War II allusions in Germany), almost all of the Whedon-brand comedy fell flat with me ("He's adopted.") and the action sequences occasionally felt a bit overstuffed and silly (but were often pretty good).

KF brings up some solid points about the nuclear issue. The way it played out seemed consciously designed to keep it from actually saying anything about anything. This film has nothing to do with real humans or their world. It has a few character beats (that feel like character beats rather than developments, with as little time as is possible to spend with any one character) that feel satisfying. There's the highlight reel of a good Hulk movie in here (Ruffalo was great, by the way). The film doesn't feel imbalanced so much as it feels wholly inconsequential.

The whole news footage montage highlights this and makes it feel like the film isn't wholly satisfied with being about nothing (the civilian rescue scenes breaking up the battle for New York also felt largely out of place). The mourning of the dead feels too much an afterthought to have any impact on the film, and the anguished news anchor cries about whether or not the public can embrace the Avengers felt so out of place because the film wasn't about that for even a second.

Also, what a dumb Stan Lee cameo.

But yeah. It was a brisk, mostly entertaining 2.5 hours that delivered quite a bit of spectacle and maintained (for the most part) enough whimsy to make sure its slightness wasn't deadly.

And there were a bunch of not-actually references to great things like Evangelion (Nick Fury answers to SEELE), Gunbuster (giant military space whales), and Gundam (mid-air transformation!) that I enjoyed privately.

[Sycophant]

I have to imagine that loyal fans of the characters have probably read scenarios that have more specificity and thematic weight. This plot felt pretty generic and inconsequential to me. It's well-made in the sense that the performances are good and the dialogue is frequently witty. In terms of making a film with a captivating story to tell with resonance beyond the cineplex, though, I'd say it falls well short.

The appeal may not be to see these sorts of scenes so much as it is to see these scenes made with a quarter of a billion dollars.

[Henry Gale]

This just made over a 100 mil. on it's second weekend. That's insane.

Not to mention it's crossed a billion worldwide already.

I guess it really is just the right event movie at the right time with anyone who was even a mild fan of any one of the previous movies (or possibly even not) feeling the need to see all of it come together, and on top of that, in the theatre as soon as possible. I don't think I've heard one person I know say they don't want to see it. The closest has probably been "I haven't seen it yet", which is usually followed by someone else jumping in with "Me neither!" and them going to see it the next day.

Dark Shadows has already all but flatlined under Avengers' shadow. So how many more weeks will the studios have to wait before something else cracks a $100 million weekend. If this were any other summer, I'd say Battleship would probably pull in about $70 million opening weekend, but this year, with Whedon's movie being the mammoth it is (yup, still feels weird to say), I don't see Berg's movie doing much more than just over $100 mill. total domestically, despite what it's already done overseas since April.

[Winston*]

All in all, the film doesn't leave me with a whole lot to consider. It's too busy... to really delve into thematics in a meaningful way.

Would you apply this same critical standard to something like Speed Racer?

[Watashi]

The Avengers is a fun movie, but Speed Racer is full of emotional depth and socio-political commentary. It's not all pretty colors and lights.

[Pop Trash]

Dark Shadows has already all but flatlined under Avengers' shadow. So how many more weeks will the studios have to wait before something else cracks a $100 million weekend. If this were any other summer, I'd say Battleship would probably pull in about $70 million opening weekend, but this year, with Whedon's movie being the mammoth it is (yup, still feels weird to say), I don't see Berg's movie doing much more than just over $100 mill. total domestically, despite what it's already done overseas since April.

Yeah, I'm sure some others (Battleship, maybe MIB3) will do OK but I don't see any other sure fire colossal blockbusters happening until Batman.

I think Brave and Spider-Man will depend on the reviews/w.o.m. Despite the tepid buzz, Spider-Man might be helped out by its July 4th spot that is generally reserved for Will Smith or Transformers.

[Winston*]

The Avengers is a fun movie, but Speed Racer is full of emotional depth and socio-political commentary. It's not all pretty colors and lights.
I think it is all pretty colors and lights and I don't think that's a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with escapism.

[megladon8]

I thought Speed Racer was all colours and lights, no substance whatsoever, and could have been about an hour shorter.

But I think a big part of my differing opinion on that versus The Avengers is my inherent dislike of the former IP, and like of the latter.

[TGM]

So in just two weeks, already just as many people on match-cut (and probably more that've gone unrecorded) have seen The Avengers as the #1 most watched movie of last year, The Tree of Life.

[Pop Trash]

So in just two weeks, already just as many people on match-cut (and probably more that've gone unrecorded) have seen The Avengers as the #1 most watched movie of last year, The Tree of Life.

We need a new wide release monumental artsy auteurist film pronto.

[Irish]

We need a new wide release monumental artsy auteurist film pronto.

PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON DIRECTS: JUSTICE LEAGUE AMERICA, STARRING DANIEL DAY LEWIS AS SUPERMAN, CHRISTIAN BALE AS BATMAN AND GINA CARANO AS WONDER WOMAN. COMING SOON TO A THEATER NEAR YOU.

WHY AM I TYPING IN ALL CAPS. THIS LOOKS LIKE A RANSOM LETTER.

[kuehnepips]

I watched this movie in Stuttgart, Germany.

[Spinal]

Avengers invites critiques on its substance because it dances around ideas of heroism and fascism and terrorism without really having a lot of focus on a particular target. Occasionally, we get a flash of insight, like when it is suggested that the overt flag-waving on Captain America's uniform might be something people need or desire. But how does that fit into the whole? It doesn't really, because Avengers is mostly about 'being awesome'.

Speed Racer's focus to me is very clear. It's about family and the pressures of living up to high expectations when you have extraordinary talent. It's a frivolous film, to be sure, but it's much better constructed than Avengers from a narrative perspective.

[Derek]

Avengers invites critiques on its substance because it dances around ideas of heroism and fascism and terrorism without really having a lot of focus on a particular target. Occasionally, we get a flash of insight, like when it is suggested that the overt flag-waving on Captain America's might be something people need or desire. But how does that fit into the whole? It doesn't really, because Avengers is mostly about 'being awesome'.

Speed Racer's focus to me is very clear. It's about family and the pressures of living up to high expectations when you have extraordinary talent. It's a frivolous film, to be sure, but it's much better constructed than Avengers from a narrative perspective.

Yeah, but it didn't make a billion dollars nor has it been seen by 48 Matchcutters SO FUCK OFF SPEED RACER AND OTHER MOVIES!!!

[Watashi]

This conversation just makes me want to watch Speed Racer again.

[Sxottlan]

We need a new wide release monumental artsy auteurist film pronto.

The Dark Knight Rises will be here soon enough.

[EyesWideOpen]

I feel like I'm the only one who hasn't seen this.

[number8]

I feel like I'm the only one who hasn't seen this.

I think you literally are.

[Mara]

("He's adopted.")

I meant to mention: I found this joke to be in poor taste.

[Dukefrukem]

Irish hasn't seen it yet either. At least, he hasn't voted yet. I predict a Nay.

[Irish]

Irish hasn't seen it yet either. At least, he hasn't voted yet. I predict a Nay.

Correct! I haven't seen it. Might go this week, if I can drag myself out to the theater.

I'll probably like it well enough, as I liked most of the other Marvel movies outside Iron Man 2. They're solid popcorn flicks.

[Raiders]

Ha. Just realized that the Polish criminal Black Widow is "interrogating" is played by Jerzy Skolimowski. Very strange.

[Boner M]

Ha. Just realized that the Polish criminal Black Widow is "interrogating" is played by Jerzy Skolimowski. Very strange.
Yeah I nearly jumped out of my chair. Has a nice meta-dimension seeing him getting beaten up her, considering the criticisms of misogyny that his films have been subject to over the years. I first doubted it was intentional, but he also played Naomi Watts' dad in Eastern Promises, whose London-underbelly subject matter loosely recalls his own Deep End, so maybe his casting choices are cannily calculated...

[number8]

Welp. Officially $1 billion now.

[number8]

I would want this so hard. (http://davesgeekyideas.com/2012/05/13/avengers-collection-blu-ray-case/)

[Fezzik]

I meant to mention: I found this joke to be in poor taste.

I wondered how others would take it. One of my best friends has four adopted children, so I asked him about the joke. He said that in the context of the scene, it didn't bother him (or his kids, which is what I was more curious about). He said that it's one of those things that can be used sparingly, but you have to be careful with it.

[Mara]

From a structural standpoint, it worked as a joke.

A: Condemnation of individual.

B: Fierce defense of individual!

A: Explanation of condemnation.

B: Instant emotional distancing from individual.

But to use "adoption" as an explanation of emotion distance makes me uncomfortable.

[Raiders]

But to use "adoption" as an explanation of emotion distance makes me uncomfortable.

I don't get it. It's not emotional distance anyway, it's a common quip used to explain away obvious differences in family members. He's distancing himself from the 80 million people Loki killed, which is selfish sure, but it's also quite a natural reaction. It's giving reason, in a comedic beat, why he and Thor are so radically different. The entire film does nothing if not show Thor's emotional connection to Loki and desire for him to not go through with his plan not only for Earth's sake but Loki's as well.

It isn't any different than someone stating a bad relative came from the shallow end of the gene pool. Wanting to not be tied to stupidity and evil is pretty natural, apparently even for gods from Asgard.

[Mara]

Well, I found the joke a little uncomfortable, but three seconds of googling turned up several dozen pages by people who were livid about it.

The fact is, traditionally in myths, fairy tales, etc. adoption is an easy explanation for why a character is evil. (Or, from an alternate viewpoint, being a step-parent is an explanation for bad parenting.) The assumption is that a lack of blood ties will lead to a violent, loveless family dynamic.

But I thought we'd kind of moved beyond that.

[number8]

I dunno, I don't really find it to be an emotionally distancing device nor a reasoning for why they're fundamentally different, either of which would make me find the quip uncomfortable because it would suggest that Thor's a better person because he's the real son.

I saw it as more of a retraction of a previous sentence as a defense mechanism, which is a very common comedic beat. The most important thing in what made the joke work was Thor's line before it and the timing of the delivery.

"He is my brother!"
"He killed 80 people."
"He's adopted..."

The joke isn't on Loki, but on Thor, who stands by his family's pride only until someone points out a flaw. It's like that guy who arrogantly boasts about a new gadget until someone points out that it's missing the newest feature and he goes, "Yeah, but it's a gift, I didn't have a choice."

[Sycophant]

For myself, it's not so much I find the joke offensive, just lame. It maybe betrays the character a bit, too. I understand this is Whedon's trademark "don't take this too seriously" humor in the face of his plots about the end of the world and undercutting his self-serious characters, but it's a kind of humor that doesn't work very well for me very often.

[Mr. McGibblets]

I think the way Loki is treated (in the movie Thor at least) by his father and brother is more than a bit problematic. Thor gets to be king, gets to lead his band and it appears that his parents care more about him. Loki gets to be a member of his brother's retinue. This could just be an older/younger distinction, and not an adopted distinction, but it's there.

[number8]

I think the way Loki is treated (in the movie Thor at least) by his father and brother is more than a bit problematic. Thor gets to be king, gets to lead his band and it appears that his parents care more about him. Loki gets to be a member of his brother's retinue. This could just be an older/younger distinction, and not an adopted distinction, but it's there.

Why is that problematic? That's the whole motivation of him being a villain. And the jealousy was there before he even found out he's adopted.

[Mr. McGibblets]

Why is that problematic? That's the whole motivation of him being a villain. And the jealousy was there before he even found out he's adopted.

Not problematic from a storytelling point of view, but certainly from a fathering one.

[Sycophant]

Fuck yeah primogeniture. :cool:

[Pop Trash]

You guys are ridiculous.

EDIT: then again I had to explain to one of my friends why I thought the "gingers have no souls" episode of South Park was pretty offensive, so I could see why that line would make adoptees cringe.

[Sycophant]

About an hour into the movie, I suddenly got excited at the prospect that Nic Cage could suddenly show up on his motorcycle. Is that a possibility for the sequel, or is the Ghost Rider property tied up elsewhere?

[number8]

Owned by Sony.

[Sycophant]

Well, I'll just have to hope he teams up with Spider-Man at some point then.

[Irish]

Well I caught this at a matinee and for $6, I certainly feel I got my money's worth.

Kinda torn on rating it, or even talking about it. The spectacle of the thing is flat out amazing. They obviously spent a lot of time, attention, and money, to get this to look pitch perfect, and it does. (My god, the action is so fluid and every time the Hulk was on screen, I wanted to stand up, pump my fists, and cheer).

The writing was terrible, and the story nonexistent. That was something of a surprise coming from Joss Whedon. It was offset by tons of humor and a good balance of screen time among all the characters but still, I think the movie needed more than two beats (ie: Loki comes to earth, the Avengers beat the hell out of him). The final act here felt like a great opening to a better movie. Or the opening to probably dozens of Marvel comic books.

I found the movie entertaining -- gah, it just looked so great -- but like a few other Marvel movies, it seems almost too easy for the heroes to do what they need to do. It's pretty shallow and uninteresting, the kind of fluff that's easily forgettable.

[number8]

Well, I'll just have to hope he teams up with Spider-Man at some point then.

:lol: I wonder if other studios would actually try to do this. Like have the Fantastic Four show up in the Wolverine sequel or something.

[Dukefrukem]

:lol: I wonder if other studios would actually try to do this. Like have the Fantastic Four show up in the Wolverine sequel or something.

Both those examples sound so crappy. I propose a Spider-man/Punisher mashup. Sony can afford the rights to Punisher from the struggling Lionsgate.

[number8]

The Punisher rights reverted back to Marvel last year.

[Ezee E]

The Punisher rights reverted back to Marvel last year.
Punisher could certainly fit in with SHIELD, but would probably suffer in the same way that Hawkeye/Scarlet Widow did.

[number8]

I assume that the reason there hasn't been any news yet on a new movie is because they're still debating whether or not to connect it together, since I think they want to keep Punisher R-rated and they may not want an R-rated movie to be linked to the kid-friendly Avengers movies.

Same with Blade, which they also got back from New Line.

[Pop Trash]

The Punisher rights reverted back to Marvel last year.

So what's the best Punisher movie? I used to love those comics back in middle school. I'm going to guess the Dolph Lundgren one because...Dolph Lundgren.

[Ezee E]

Surely Punisher can be lowered down to PG-13. And would make for a next foil to Nick Fury. Blade... Well, I just hope they don't try to get Twilight-absorbed.

But would they ever consider adapting Ennis' work?

[number8]

But would they ever consider adapting Ennis' work?

The Tom Jane one is, basically. Half of the movie is right out of "Welcome Back, Frank." They also sort of did in Punisher: War Zone. All the characters and some of the scenes in that movie with the exception of Jigsaw are right out of Ennis' Punisher MAX run.

[number8]

So what's the best Punisher movie? I used to love those comics back in middle school. I'm going to guess the Dolph Lundgren one because...Dolph Lundgren.

Dunno. None of three are particularly good, but they each got something right. For the Lundgren movie, it's the premise of the movie being just a "day in the life of Punisher" rather than an origin story or a big villain showdown. It's just him killing gangsters. For Jane, I think he's probably the best actor of the three and the movie has some of the right dark humor tone. The Stevenson one got the Punisher's efficiency in violence right, but not much else.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Mara, agreed on the adoption gag. My theater exploded at that line, and I kinda chuckled, but no matter how you slice it, the joke's meant to separate Thor from Loki, and I don't like the idea of adoption being used to that effect.

No biggie, but kinda disappointing.

[Irish]

The adoption line is funny. The film self-critically refers to the Thor-Loki elevated dialogue as 'Shakespeare in the Park'. Questions of birthright and legitimacy are frequently present in Shakespeare, as well as other myths and legends.

This, to me, is similar to Captain America handing Nick Fury money because he assumes that a black man is a servant that should be tipped. It reveals something honest and true about the character and his motivations.

What? That was because of the bet they made in a previous scene.

[dreamdead]

This, to me, is similar to Captain America handing Nick Fury money because he assumes that a black man is a servant that should be tipped. It reveals something honest and true about the character and his motivations.

Huh, I had just read that moment as one concerning the whole "bet you 10 dollars" thing. I almost like this reading more, since it makes the film more interesting and contradictory.

Having seen it opening day, I can affirm that it's already largely faded from memory. It's well made, but doesn't seem to have any one superlative moment that will force it to linger in my imagination. Also, I think the biggest weakness is the whole forced Holocaust reference in Germany. It feels contrived to aspire toward thematic grandeur, but lacks any follow-through to properly resonate.

[Spinal]

What? That was because of the bet they made in a previous scene.

My mistake. I'm dumb.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The adoption line is funny. The film self-critically refers to the Thor-Loki elevated dialogue as 'Shakespeare in the Park'. Questions of birthright and legitimacy are frequently present in Shakespeare, as well as other myths and legends.

This, to me, is similar to Captain America handing Nick Fury money because he assumes that a black man is a servant that should be tipped. It reveals something honest and true about the character and his motivations.

One of the things I admired about the Thor movie was that both Odin and Thor embrace Loki as family, and the person most fraught with emotion over the adoption was Loki himself. I suspect that's why nobody complained about the adoption elements in that film. It rebukes the history of "othering" the adopted. This movie cashes in on that for an easy zinger.

[Raiders]

Also, I think the biggest weakness is the whole forced Holocaust reference in Germany. It feels contrived to aspire toward thematic grandeur, but lacks any follow-through to properly resonate.

Wasn't this brought up by Captain America who had (in his own mind/timeline) just lived through the Nazi regime? There are similarities, which is all that was implied. Didn't seem that forced to me.

[Spinal]

Huh, I had just read that moment as one concerning the whole "bet you 10 dollars" thing. I almost like this reading more, since it makes the film more interesting and contradictory.



Clearly, I've been watching too many Lars von Trier movies.

[Irish]

My mistake. I'm dumb.

I don't think that makes you dumb, just oddly imaginative and somewhat ballsy.

Would you try and tip the guy when you know that, after meeting Loki face to face for the first time, his first response is to coolly threaten to bury everyone in the room under a gross ton of rubble? Including himself?

You're gonna throw this guy a couple of bucks like he's a hotel porter? :P

[Spinal]

I don't think that makes you dumb, just oddly imaginative and somewhat ballsy.

Would you try and tip the guy when you know that, after meeting Loki face to face for the first time, his first response is to coolly threaten to bury everyone in the room under a gross ton of rubble? Including himself?

You're gonna throw this guy a couple of bucks like he's a hotel porter? :P

I wouldn't but I thought Captain America would. They established him as an arrogant white guy out of step with the time period. I guess my mind was just running with that. But as you've already pointed out, it doesn't fit.

[Raiders]

I didn't remember the bet either really, until I thought about it for a minute. The only reason I didn't jump to the unequal racial issue is because Captain America had already met with Fury on multiple occasions... he wouldn't suddenly think he was "the help."

[megladon8]

I never got a feeling of arrogance from Captain America.

[Spinal]

Note that I haven't seen the Captain America film. Just going off of the stuff in this movie.

[Sxottlan]

Note that I haven't seen the Captain America film. Just going off of the stuff in this movie.

When did you feel he was arrogant here?

One of the things I've liked about Evans' portrayal is that I think he comes across as quite humble. Arrogance was one of the things I was worried about going into his solo film.

[Sycophant]

Wasn't this brought up by Captain America who had (in his own mind/timeline) just lived through the Nazi regime? There are similarities, which is all that was implied. Didn't seem that forced to me.

It felt awkward to me, too. Especially on the heels of the groanworthy mini-speech from the old dude who was probably supposed to be a holocaust survivor or something.

[Spinal]

When did you feel he was arrogant here?

One of the things I've liked about Evans' portrayal is that I think he comes across as quite humble. Arrogance was one of the things I was worried about going into his solo film.

Maybe I should see it. I was probably projecting my expectations onto his work here.

[number8]

Maybe I should see it. I was probably projecting my expectations onto his work here.

You just don't like the name Captain America, do you?

[dreamdead]

It felt awkward to me, too. Especially on the heels of the groanworthy mini-speech from the old dude who was probably supposed to be a holocaust survivor or something.

This. Whedon is appealing to base history, but it's an anonymous extra--and in that moment, the anonymity deprives the moment of power. It's doing so much narrative shortcutting that it's just structurally weak. Furthermore, it does a lot of allusion, and I suspect the alien invasion is meant to echo the first instance, but the coherence--the link--isn't tidy enough. Rather than draw on history to make a thematic ripple through and through, the film believes this first level of scaffolding is significant enough to justify sociocultural merit.

[Winston*]

"Hitler was a bad man, we stood up against the bad man" is a fairly bothersome way of looking at WWII.

Far less egregious than the use of the Holocaust in the latest X-Men film though. Gross.

[Ivan Drago]

Fuck yeah primogeniture. :cool:

He's posting on this site now?

[Pop Trash]

Far less egregious than the use of the Holocaust in the latest X-Men film though. Gross.

The Holocaust has been a big part of the X-Men world long before the movies even.

[Winston*]

The Holocaust has been a big part of the X-Men world long before the movies even.

Maybe some of the comics treat the subject with the seriousness it warrants. The film just invokes Mengele for half-arsed gravitas.

[BuffaloWilder]

Well, Hitler was a bad man.

And, we did stop the bad man, you know.

[Dukefrukem]

The Punisher rights reverted back to Marvel last year.



I assume that the reason there hasn't been any news yet on a new movie is because they're still debating whether or not to connect it together, since I think they want to keep Punisher R-rated and they may not want an R-rated movie to be linked to the kid-friendly Avengers movies.

Same with Blade, which they also got back from New Line.

Interesting. A PG-13 Punisher could definitely work. They almost succeeded with the Jane film. You don't have to make him the main focus of the movie. But if you stick him with Captain America, I can see them jiving the same way Cap and Stark do... opposite personalities, opposite morals.... Marvel should definitely consider this.

Edit: Ah, i see you guys already broke down each movie. I agree with 8's assessment. I own the Jane one just because it's Jane and I can stomach the whole movie with the exception of the last 10 minutes.

[Dukefrukem]

But would they ever consider adapting Ennis' work?

Every time you guys talk about Garth I feel like you're talking about me.

[number8]

But if you stick him with Captain America, I can see them jiving the same way Cap and Stark do... opposite personalities, opposite morals.... Marvel should definitely consider this.

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/8/82851/1557870-3818548055_8fe77a4119_b.jpg

[Dukefrukem]

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/8/82851/1557870-3818548055_8fe77a4119_b.jpg

Giant Bomb is blocked by work but I Google Image search and it looks like Cap battling Punisher? I approve this for a movie.

[Acapelli]

so what do people think of the theory of agent coulson not actually being dead. introducing the concept of the life model decoy in a throwaway line certainly hints at it. plus it's comics. no one ever really dies

[Raiders]

The morbid thought I had was...

How did the blood get on the cards? Did Fury take them from his locker and smear his blood on them?

[number8]

The morbid thought I had was...

How did the blood get on the cards? Did Fury take them from his locker and smear his blood on them?


That was exactly the implication.

[Grouchy]

Hahah, one of my friends I went to the theater with made the same mistake about the ten dollar scene. I think that would've been a ballsier, more meaningful joke.

[number8]

so what do people think of the theory of agent coulson not actually being dead. introducing the concept of the life model decoy in a throwaway line certainly hints at it. plus it's comics. no one ever really dies

Dunno. Whatever. I hate the idea and think it would be immeasurably stupid for a movie to do that without any set-up, but of course they can do whatever they want. For what it's worth:

Are you worried about perpetuating the "Joss Whedon kills your favorite character" stigma, with what you did to Agent Coulson in The Avengers?

Joss Whedon: In our first meeting Kevin Feige said, this is what we're gonna do and I said, "Oh but you have to go out there and tell everybody that it was your idea because this is going to get me so much shit. Because they are all going to be like, "Oh he did it again!" It was stipulated from the beginning, and I completely agree that it was the right thing to do, and so did Clark. Who said in the early days, when I was busy apologizing for it, "In a movie like this, with what's going on if there isn't some toll, it's just irresponsible story telling."

[Mara]

That stigma is based on reality. Whedon is a sick, sick man who makes us love things only to take them away in the most heartless way possible and then feeds on our tears.

I mean, I love him, but it's true.

[Sycophant]

I didn't have the connection to the character that maybe some people had? But it just felt like a cheap, easy way for Whedon to indulge his kink for shock deaths. It doesn't feel like the cost of telling a story, but the cost of having Whedon write your story.

And if it was a fake death, just lol.

[number8]

A lot of fans have known the character for 3+ movies. He's a refreshingly genial character and surprisingly well received given that they invented him for the movies, and Whedon upped the likability quotient even more in this movie.

[Raiders]

I didn't have the connection to the character that maybe some people had? But it just felt like a cheap, easy way for Whedon to indulge his kink for shock deaths. It doesn't feel like the cost of telling a story, but the cost of having Whedon write your story.

Except Whedon didn't come up with the idea. And it didn't feel cheap since as the character himself was about to say before he died, at least his death finally gives them something to "avenge," which was missing in the first place.

You could argue that the potential takeover of Earth and deaths of millions should be sufficient, but I think it is astute that ultimately, people are able to get through things and focus when the impact is personal.

[Dead & Messed Up]

A lot of fans have known the character for 3+ movies. He's a refreshingly genial character and surprisingly well received given that they invented him for the movies, and Whedon upped the likability quotient even more in this movie.

I liked him quite a bit and saw him in the previous movies, but his death felt more like necessary punctuation. Someone should die right around there.

[Mr. McGibblets]

My only problem with the death was that they didn't ever show him at a point where he's absolutely dead. People are always coming back in superhero movies and it's hard for the death to have any impact when the audience is expecting him to pop back out at any second.

[slqrick]

Someone mentioned a rumor of him maybe coming back as Vision, but I'm not sure how that would work.

[Sycophant]

I liked him quite a bit and saw him in the previous movies, but his death felt more like necessary punctuation. Someone should die right around there.

I guess this is more what I'm getting at. It's true that I'm missing six out of nine hours of backstory for the character. As presented in the movie, yeah, he's cute and sympathetic, but he's no one's friend. He doesn't seem to have much personal meaning to any of our heroes or even Fury. Perhaps we can frame this as a lesson about taking people for granted or something like that, but it's really kinda sanitary and safe. The hundreds of casualties aboard the chopper might've provided the same impetus for the heroes' realization they need to band together and get over their egos to save the world. It keeps anyone from having to feel any actual interpersonal human feelings, which I guess fits, because this is not a story about humans.

Also, his death scene includes a hilarious joke where he shoots the bad guy in the chest, though it doesn't actually accomplish anything real. It characterizes the scene weird and it makes the emotional pacing of the death feel off.

That's my take, anyway.

[Sycophant]

Beeteedubs, I liked the moment where Tony Stark tells Loki that even if he causes the end of the world, the Avengers will still find him and fuck him up because they'll "Avenge the earth." They figured out how to get them to avenge something, and that's pretty glorious.

[[ETM]]

Someone mentioned a rumor of him maybe coming back as Vision, but I'm not sure how that would work.

It could somehow fit with the rumors for the next Iron Man movie.

[Ezee E]

Indeed, I basically think we should look at these movies lIke $100 million dollar episodes of a tv show.

[D_Davis]

I feel like I'm the only one who hasn't seen this.

I haven't!

[number8]

Indeed, I basically think we should look at these movies lIke $100 million dollar episodes of a tv show.

It's not unprecedented, really. That's basically what Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter were.

[megladon8]

With regards to Coulson, I'm still confused about...

...how Gregg has apparently signed on for umpteen movies in this series. Is he going to have flashback roles in every movie from here on out?

The only explanation I can think of is that he's not dead.

[number8]

That doesn't mean anything. A contract is not a guarantee that you will be in a movie.

[Biff Justice]

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/8/82851/1557870-3818548055_8fe77a4119_b.jpg

This is the story I'd like to see them ultimately work their way toward for an Avengers movie. They could do it easily without the rights to X-Men, no Spider Man would call for a fairly serious re-write, but wouldn't really change the stakes or themes much. They would need to get back the Fantastic Four rights, though. I can't see this story being done properly without them.

[Sycophant]

I mean, yeah, LoTR and HP were long series with multiple installments. But those are also finite stories that have some continuity of creative people working on them (original author, at least). Marvel Universe movies are prepared to go forever if they keep raking in the box office. I also suspect they're more make-them-up-as-you-go than people like to say.

[Raiders]

That doesn't mean anything. A contract is not a guarantee that you will be in a movie.

Exactly. When the contract is signed, I'm sure that the exact direction of the Marvel Universe films was not specifically known and so to cover their bases and allow for his possible involvement in an unknown number of films, they contractually bound him to be in X number but if he isn't needed, then he isn't cast. The contract isn't guaranteeing he will be in the films, just that if he is needed, he is bound to do it.

[megladon8]

I didn't know that. I thought signing a contract was like saying "you will be in this number of movies."

[Raiders]

I didn't know that. I thought signing a contract was like saying "you will be in this number of movies."

Well, the exact structure of the deal is not known to us. I would guess that he is given some amount of money for the films regardless of whether he is cast (either upfront or back-end). I know that more general studio deals for X number of pictures are usually made to guarantee a certain amount of production on both sides, but this is usually for behind-the-camera talent. Not sure exactly what the norm is for actors.

[megladon8]

I'm anxious to hear Sven's thoughts about his "Nay".

I know he despised Thor, but I thought he dug several of the other Marvel films (Iron Man and Cap, in particular, I thought he liked a lot).

It's too bad he disliked it since he's so far down the rabbit hole with comics now. I thought he would have dug it, with its bringing in so many of Marvel's cosmic elements and teasing at this enormous, almost Kirby-esque universe.

[Irish]

I would guess that he is given some amount of money for the films regardless of whether he is cast (either upfront or back-end)

That actor has been around for awhile, but I would be extremely surprised if he has pay-or-play clauses in his contracts, or any kind of points on deals. He's a character actor, not a lead, and not a marquee name.

My guess is that studios might be intentionally misreporting these agreements, to throw a monkey wrench into speculation.

I can't imagine any actor, though, signing a contract that would lock him out of other work (ie, he'd be put in a position where he'd have to turn down roles because of obligations to Marvel) without knowing for sure that the work will be there.

They'd be willing to screw writers that way :lol:, but actors? I dunno. Doesn't sound right.

[Raiders]

That actor has been around for awhile, but I would be extremely surprised if he has pay-or-play clauses in his contracts, or any kind of points on deals. He's a character actor, not a lead, and not a marquee name.

You may be right, though I can't imagine someone signing on for such a potential commitment without some incentive, but as you note, Gregg is not a marquee name.


I can't imagine any actor, though, signing a contract that would lock him out of other work (ie, he'd be put in a position where he'd have to turn down roles because of obligations to Marvel) without knowing for sure that the work will be there.

I would guess he is given notice well before whether he is cast or not, or if the contract will even be carried forward, and if not would be free then to pursue other roles outside of Marvel.

[Irish]

You may be right, though I can't imagine someone signing on for such a potential commitment without some incentive, but as you note, Gregg is not a marquee name.

I would guess he is given notice well before whether he is cast or not, or if the contract will even be carried forward, and if not would be free then to pursue other roles outside of Marvel.

Fair points -- you may be right. His role isn't that big. It's entirely possible he was locked down & didn't have a problem with it because it really only involved a week or two of work (at most) for any given movie.

[number8]

Well, the exact structure of the deal is not known to us. I would guess that he is given some amount of money for the films regardless of whether he is cast (either upfront or back-end). I know that more general studio deals for X number of pictures are usually made to guarantee a certain amount of production on both sides, but this is usually for behind-the-camera talent. Not sure exactly what the norm is for actors.

Well, for one thing, the movies are not usually specified in the contract, so Gregg may be under contract to Disney/Marvel for say 10 movies, but it's nowhere stipulated that they have to be superhero movies or as Agent Coulson. It's just a "you're going to work for us for this amount of productions" thing.

It's kind of a one-way deal where an actor agrees to make himself available to the studio if they ask, but the studio is not obligated to deliver productions right away (unless an expiration date is set). For example, when Edward Norton was cast in Primal Fear, Paramount saw his potential and made him sign a 3-picture deal, but Norton then kept passing on scripts for years. Eventually Paramount threatened to sue the shit out of him if he wouldn't star in The Italian Job.

[number8]

Fair points -- you may be right. His role isn't that big. It's entirely possible he was locked down & didn't have a problem with it because it really only involved a week or two of work (at most) for any given movie.

It's like Sam Jackson's contract. Marvel locked him down for a 9-picture deal and he's fulfilled 5 already, but he only had to do real work in one of them.

Similarly, Ruffalo signed a 6-picture deal with them, but it would be silly to think that they're actually going to make 6 more Hulk movies with him.

[Dukefrukem]

According to "multiple knowledgeable sources," [Downey] could end up with somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 million. Yes, you read it right. Fifty million dollars. For one movie. As for the rest of Earth's Mightiest Heroes, Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Jeremy Renner and Mark Ruffalo will reportedly earn $2-3 million each, while Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johansson used their somewhat bigger names to rake in somewhere in the $4-6 million range. That's a lot of money, but those paydays look like loose change compared to Downey's earnings.

Scarlett Johansson is a "bigger" name?

[Raiders]

Scarlett Johansson is a "bigger" name?

Yes, without question, and certainly when these deals were inked probably what, two years ago. Hemsworth and Renner nobody knew, Ruffalo has been mainly a supporting/small-scale actor and Evans is recognizable but not a household name.

[number8]

Scarlett Johansson is a "bigger" name?

How is that even questionable?

[Irish]

Scarlett Johansson is a "bigger" name?

She's got far more exposure than any of those other guys prior to these movies. Slap her on the cover of US Weekly or People, and everyone recognizes her. Not quite as true for Mark Ruffalo or Jeremy Renner a couple of years ago.

The catch here is that her quote will remain more or less the same forever, while Ruffalo's will skyrocket if he makes a single successful Hulk movie.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Of course, Hemsworth and Evans are gonna make bank on their respective series' new installments with the success of Avengers. I know Marvel's been trying to keep costs low, but they've become too successful now.

[Dukefrukem]

Well Evans was in a couple of $100 mil grossing movies (three). That seems like a good reason to question it since Scarlett hasn't been in a single one. I don't see Scarlett getting her own stand alone movie either...

Renner went in this order: The Hurt Locker, The Town, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol... and still isn't as big as Scarlett?



How can you not question this?

[Dukefrukem]

In fact, other than Lost in Translation, I can't think of anything else she was in off the top of my head.

I also don't like her, so my bias may be getting in the way.

[number8]

She's been consistently starring in Oscar nominated Woody Allen movies for the past 10 years, ever since Lost in Translation put her on everybody's map. Then add in the fact that she's been on the covers of every major entertainment magazines, multiple times over the years.

[Sycophant]

I also don't like her, so my bias may be getting in the way.

It is. Very much so.

Johansson has been pretty well-known since 2001 when she did both Man Who Wasn't There and Ghost World. Lost in Translation made a pretty big splash two years later with Lost in Translation. She starred in a Michael Bay movie and a string of fairly successful Woody Allen pictures. She's been a definite presence in Hollywood for the last decade-plus. And unlike her co-stars, it's usually been as a lead.

Meanwhile, Renner had The Hurt Locker, true, but that was really recent and that's the first time most had heard of him, and was Ghost Protocol even made before the contracts for Avengers were signed? Evans might have been in some big-grossing movies, but his name was never really the draw. I guess he had the Fantastic Four movies?

[Grouchy]

Yeah, Scarlett Johansson and Sam Jackson are clearly the two biggest movie stars in the cast. I don't see how that's difficult to perceive.

[number8]

Evans might have been in some big-grossing movies, but his name was never really the draw. I guess he had the Fantastic Four movies?

Nobody went to see FF for him, and the horrible reception of those movies did him no favors. In fact, when he was cast as Captain America, most people balked at the idea.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeah, Scarlett Johansson and Sam Jackson are clearly the two biggest movie stars in the cast. I don't see how that's difficult to perceive.

I just explained why it was difficult. Were you not paying attention?

[Sycophant]

What we're saying is you're wrong.

[number8]

Very wrong.

[Dukefrukem]

What we're saying is you're wrong.

No, I understand NOW why I am wrong. But I clearly posted why I was questioning it to begin with.

[Pop Trash]

Told you Sven would nay it.