The Avengers

[Retro_Link]

Although I think the first was equally caused by an explosion going off in his face/pain. Yeah basically he just wasn't in control of anything that first time.

 

I still wonder whether Loki did have some sort of hold on Banner at that point though; it's just the way he subconciously picked up Loki's staff... as if Loki was about to have him bring it to him, or unleash it.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Yeah, I agree. Both good points.

[The Bard]

I saw it again. It held up way worse second time round. The most glaring thing is that I don't understand why it was expected of us to feel empathy for the dead. Why did Iron Man even give a shit? Why would it actually move him enough to join the team, when like half an hour ago he'd been largely against it?

 

Exactly.

 

For emphasis on this point, my Facebook post on Dannyboy's wall:

 

I meant retarded in the sense of how the story was told (or however much of it could actually be called a story as opposed to a slipshod excuse for hit and miss witticisms between characters). There was no real sense of menace, all the visual choices that were made were stylistic rather than there to tell you anything. There was no pathos towards any of the characters; you didn't care about the dumb agent who kept cracking on about the trading cards that kicked it, as if it was supposed to be some sort of galvanising tragedy. It was a film with some great moments here and there, but it didn't stick together.

 

It was dumb as all hell, partly in ways you would expect such a movie to be, but that doesn't excuse poor storytelling. The whole thing was was peddled on the back of the knowledge that manbabies everywhere will lose their shit over it. When the seams cracked it made you realise how absolutely idiotic the whole thing was. How the hell is there supposed to be gravitas and menace with a villain who looks like he's wearing a decapitated rhino beetle for a headdress? Humour was injected at the most inopportune times, and set up so clumsily - oh, so you waltzed into the same room as a homicidal demigod with some sort of blaster looking device eh? Let's get you monologuing to see how many chuckles we can wring from this contrivance.

 

It wasn't terrible, but it had nothing on the first Iron Man, or Captain America, both of which somehow managed to transcend the absurdity of the premise.

 

Also, sticking all the prominent superheroes form the Marvel universe in the same film is a bafflingly idiotic proposition in the first place since it removes the most interesting thing about superheroes; the fact that they're unique and isolated and that they have to situate their identity within the context of all the other ordinary humans that they're forced to be around, as well as the decisions they make. Like, why the fuck has nobody made a film about the Preacher comics - about an ordinary man given the ability to make people unquestioningly do his bidding? The answer is probably because all the Call of Duty generation want is a retarded spectacle for an hour and a half.

[ReZourceman]

Also, sticking all the prominent superheroes form the Marvel universe in the same film is a bafflingly idiotic proposition in the first place since it removes the most interesting thing about superheroes; the fact that they're unique and isolated and that they have to situate their identity within the context of all the other ordinary humans that they're forced to be around, as well as the decisions they make.

 

I would say that is debatable, there are hundreds of different super heroes and hundreds of different situations. And...like....how does this new angle of them all being thrown together make it....not interesting? Instead of these supposed unique individuals and how they fit around normal people (been done for five films) now they have to fit in with others just like them?

 

Like, why the fuck has nobody made a film about the Preacher comics - about an ordinary man given the ability to make people unquestioningly do his bidding? The answer is probably because all the Call of Duty generation want is a retarded spectacle for an hour and a half.

 

A Preacher adaptation has been stuck in development hell for decades.

 

From Wikipedia;

 

Garth Ennis, feeling Preacher would translate perfectly as a film, sold the film rights to Electric Entertainment. Rachel Talalay was hired to direct, with Ennis writing the script. Rupert Harvey and Tom Astor were set as producers. By May 1998, Ennis completed three drafts of the script, based largely on the Gone to Texas story arc.[2] The filmmakers found it difficult financing Preacher because investors found the idea religiously controversial. Ennis approached Kevin Smith and Scott Mosier to help finance the film under their View Askew Productions banner. Ennis, Smith and Mosier pitched Preacher to Bob Weinstein at Miramax Films.[3]

Weinstein was confused by the characterization of Jesse Custer. Miramax also did not want to share the box office gross with Electric Entertainment, ultimately dropping the pitch. By May 2000, Smith and Mosier were still attached to produce with Talalay directing, but Smith did not know the status of Preacher, feeling it would languish in development hell.[3] By then, Storm Entertainment, a UK-based production company known for their work on independent films, joined the production with Electric Entertainment.[2] In September 2001, the two companies announced Preacher had been greenlighted to commence pre-production, with filming to begin in November and Talaly still directing Ennis' script.[4] The production and start dates were pushed back because of financial issues[5] of the $25 million projected budget.[6]

James Marsden was cast in the lead role as Jesse Custer sometime in 2002. He explained, "It was something I never knew anything about, but once I got my hands on the comic books, I was blown away by it."[5] In a March 2004 interview, Marsden said the filmmakers were hoping for filming to start the following August.[7] With the full-length film adaptation eventually abandoned with budgetary concerns,[5] HBO announced in November 2006 that they commissioned Mark Steven Johnson and Howard Deutch to produce a television pilot. Johnson was to write with Deutch directing.[8] Impressed with Johnson's pilot script, HBO had him write the series bible for the first season.[9] Johnson originally planned "to turn each comic book issue into a single episode" on a shot-for-shot basis. "I gave [HBO] the comics, and I said, 'Every issue is an hour'. Garth Ennis said 'You don't have to be so beholden to the comic'. And I'm like, 'No, no, no. It's got to be like the comic'."[10]

Johnson also wanted to make sure that one-shots were included as well.[11] Johnson refrained his comments, citing new storylines conceived by Ennis. "Well there would be nothing new to add if we did that so Garth [Ennis] and I have been creating new stories for the series," he said. "I love the book so much and I was telling Garth that he has to make the stories we are coming up with as comics because I want to see them."[9] By August 2008, new studio executives at HBO decided to abandon the idea, finding it too stylistically dark and religiously controversial.[12] Columbia Pictures then purchased the film rights in October 2008 with Sam Mendes directing. Neal H. Moritz and Jason Netter are producing the film. The previous scripts written by Ennis will not be used.[6]

 

---------------

 

The Avengers is now the 4th highest grossing movie of all time. Jeez Louise.

[nightwolf]

So erm, totally watching this again today.

 

Just an FYI.

 

...toodles.

[Coolness Bears]

I thought the Hulk was 100% being controlled by Loki and that if he hadn't been then he would have been in complete control of himself as he'd learnt how not to get ragey.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I think what confused me most about that part of the movie was the apparent confusion on Loki's face when Black Widow came to the conclusion that he intended to use Banner; he seemed genuinely mystified, leading me to question whether he actually did have any plans for Banner at all. That could just be him being taken aback by Black Widow's clever play, though. Still, I don't feel entirely clear on what happened there.

[Nintendohnut]

I think what confused me most about that part of the movie was the apparent confusion on Loki's face when Black Widow came to the conclusion that he intended to use Banner; he seemed genuinely mystified, leading me to question whether he actually did have any plans for Banner at all. That could just be him being taken aback by Black Widow's clever play, though. Still, I don't feel entirely clear on what happened there.

 

To be honest that's what I had assumed.

[chairdriver]

So Loki wanted to kill the heroes on a stage, why did he not make provisions to broadcast this to the world? At the end it showed the general public werent even properly clued in (there were various interpretations of what actually happened etc). It makes no sense. If he wasn't going to make it a proper spectacle of it, why didn't he just blow up the helicarrier right off the mark? (I mean, Hawkeye destroyed one of the engines with one arrow, Loki + Hawkeye could have destroyed the whole ship with ease).

[Cube]

You can ask questions like that for 99% of films.

[Mokong]

So Loki wanted to kill the heroes on a stage, why did he not make provisions to broadcast this to the world? At the end it showed the general public werent even properly clued in (there were various interpretations of what actually happened etc). It makes no sense. If he wasn't going to make it a proper spectacle of it, why didn't he just blow up the helicarrier right off the mark? (I mean, Hawkeye destroyed one of the engines with one arrow, Loki + Hawkeye could have destroyed the whole ship with ease).

 

Because he lacks conviction :wink:

[chairdriver]

You can ask questions like that for 99% of films.

 

99% of films are badly written.

 

/ more like 65%.

[bob]

I think it's more like 99% of films that have some sort of fantastical element.

 

Obviously it's easier to write a script for a film about a suburban family being torn apart by drugs and not have any plot holes in it, than it is for a film with magic/superpowers.

 

It's no doubt harder to write how someone would react in a situation where they are taking over the world using an elite force of magic super soldiers, because no-one has ever done it.

 

Trying to come up with convincing dialogue between a alien from outer space and a mind-control wizard and not have people slam it for being ridiculous must be nigh on impossible.

 

@The Bard is right when he said that Iron Man managed it better than others though.

[Dan_Dare]

That's probably because Iron Man, when taking out the actual suit from the equation, is about something much more grounded: Tony Stark is a brilliant mind with a poor moral compass and a misguided philosophy. Confronted by the end results of that philosophy, he's horrified and sets out to use his intellect to undo the harm he's created. That's a very human and real character arc and it just so happens that in this particular case 'undoing harm' is achieved with a mechanical suit of armour / fusion powered super-weapon.

[heroicjanitor]

The more powerful a superhero/supervillain is made to seem, the more situations there will be when you ask "why didn't he just...". The best stories are the more human ones, like Spiderman. I think the movies about the more powerful heroes should just go balls to the wall action, and Avengers did just that.

 

It's actually impossible to write a sensible story about Superman.

[ReZourceman]

It's virtually impossible to write a good story about Superman.

 

Fixed for you.

[chairdriver]

It's actually impossible to write a sensible story about Superman.

 

I feel All-Star Superman is good/sensible, since it feels like Superman's just being Miley, like saving people but also having a lol in his life. And that's one of the more powerful versions of Superman.

[ReZourceman]

All Star Superman is easily one of the best Superman stories. It says it all that one of the best stories is also not in continuity.

 

And.....we need a new thread (I, or someone will make one) but @Daft and I were talking today - will Man of Steel be the start of DC's cinematic universe? How good would Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan turning up in a post credits scene be. Or rather Superman helping him out. Regardless of what you thought of the GL movie, its gotta be going through DC's head.

[Cube]

Don't they also plan on re-booting Batman fairly soon after TDKR? It'll probably go for a more action/much less dark approach. Although I doubt that Man of Steel will be anywhere near as good as Green Lantern.

[Daft]

Goyer is writing it. He knows his shit. Nolan is producing it. He also knows his shit. Snyder is directing it. I love his shit.

 

If there was ever going to be a good Superman film, this has to be it.

 

I'd go for a Batman reboot after a Flash and Wonder Woman film. And why not, a freaking S!H!A!Z!A!M! film.

 

And actually in the case of a Flash film I think it should be a Flash and Green Lantern film because they are awesome together.

 

But none of that will happen. Because it would be too good.

[EddieColeslaw]

Don't they also plan on re-booting Batman fairly soon after TDKR? It'll probably go for a more action/much less dark approach. Although I doubt that Man of Steel will be anywhere near as good as Green Lantern.

 

ANOTHER reboot? Are they going for the world record in highest number of franchise reboots?

 

Not that I'm complaining, if it turns out to be good. It's just amusing that it's going to be rebooted like...straight away!

[Cube]

ANOTHER reboot? Are they going for the world record in highest number of franchise reboots?

 

Not that I'm complaining, if it turns out to be good. It's just amusing that it's going to be rebooted like...straight away!

 

It lets Warner Bros. continue making films while giving Nolan complete freedom with finishing his trilogy.

[Daft]

ANOTHER reboot? Are they going for the world record in highest number of franchise reboots?

 

Not that I'm complaining, if it turns out to be good. It's just amusing that it's going to be rebooted like...straight away!

 

There are so many different takes on a lot of comic book characters I don't mind that they reboot them so often. The Nolan trilogy has reached its logical conclusion so why not a new series. Currently there are four different on going Batman titles, all with different tones (Batman Inc has a completely different tone - not to mention Batman in Justice League works very differently) and Batman: Death by Design is out like next week and that's again quite different.

 

Hell, I'd love it if they started doing Elseworlds like Red Son...but then I'm kind of in love with that book.

[Dan_Dare]

I'm with @Daft. Comics reboot, play around and generally diverge on tone and continuity all the time. It's how these ancient characters stay fresh- The X-Men have been going for years but their current iteration is nothing like how it used to be. It's how individual writers make their mark, so why not apply the same to film makers?

 

I'd fucking love a Red Son movie. It's too good.

[Retro_Link]

ANOTHER reboot? Are they going for the world record in highest number of franchise reboots?

 

Not that I'm complaining, if it turns out to be good. It's just amusing that it's going to be rebooted like...straight away!

Hasn't Batman only had 1 reboot anyway?... Batman Begins?

 

The originals were so long ago (40's/60's) that they can't really be counted,

And Batman/Returns/Forever/& Robin, were all part of the same story/followed on from one another didn't they? even though they had different actors/directors.