EEVILMURRAY Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Just looked up what it means and it's an awesome word lol. I think he got away with it in a pg-13 movie because not many people know what it means? I didn't know what he said until you mentioned it there. Same here, doesn't seem that bad actually. I'd consider cunt more offensive.
Iun Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Quim is like the number 1 most offensive/disgusting word in the whole English language. Actually sounds horrid and slimy, where cunt just sounds aggressive. Oh, stop being such a mewling quim.
EEVILMURRAY Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Oh, stop being such a mewling quim. I was saving that for a few posts time... Fucking quim...
Iun Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) I was saving that for a few posts time... Fucking quim... Ah, stop being such a big wet quim, you quim. In fact, I heard that Quimland was going to elect a Quim-Mayor, and it had to be the quimmiest quimmer in Quimland and you were generally thought to be the only one quimmy enough to take the post (up the quim). Edited May 7, 2012 by Iun
Shorty Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Other countries had a second post-credits scene. Not sure why we didn't but I stayed til the lights came on and didn't see this http://www.vidvir.com/watch/CVi#.T6d7DuhYtoh
Happenstance Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 It was filmed after the world premiere so there wasnt time to add it to our versions of the film
Cube Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 It wouldn't take much, just someone who can actually write properly to write the script, It had one of the best working on it.
chairdriver Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) It had one of the best working on it. I feel X-Men and X-2 are both better in the sense they actually have depth to the script (worse in the sense they're in parts cheesy and awkward and have worse comic timing); they actually make an effort to explore themes. I guess this is partly because X-Men is obviously an allegory for LGBT oppression, but that doesn't mean the characters of Avengers couldn't have been written in such a way to make you actually think about things. All the following could have been incorporated into the Avengers easily, and would have infused the film with actual content, rather than just being a popcorn flick. - Masculinity and femininity / male vs. female - Myth / reality, utopia, deism - War - Military as a form of operation/government - Change since 1940s, or lack of it - Mind control, loss of control over your own actions, what it means to have agency / humanity [this could have been done nicely if Hawkeye had had a conversation with Bruce Banner] - Capitalism, and its interaction with war/military/government etc etc And I wish Loki actually had a proper motive, rather than just being a megalomaniac. Edited May 7, 2012 by chairdriver
Ellmeister Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 I thought his motive was to take over the world/destroy earth. Seems like a pretty standard one to me.
Nintendohnut Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 I don't know about anyone else but when I went to see the Avengers I expected there to be a shitload of explosions and some funny one-liners. I feel like discussing deism and femininity would have probably lowered the number of explosions and funny one-liners. I am happy with the current balance.
chairdriver Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) I don't know about anyone else but when I went to see the Avengers I expected there to be a shitload of explosions and some funny one-liners. I feel like discussing deism and femininity would have probably lowered the number of explosions and funny one-liners. I am happy with the current balance. I feel that's you misconceiving how comics are written though. Most of the time they are way more than explosions and laughs, many comic writers actually are stunning; it would have been nice to have this reflected in the film. Edited May 7, 2012 by chairdriver
Gio001 Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Avengers Documentary coming soon!!!! Featuring politics & the meaning of life!! Prepare to be bored Quimless.!!!
Jamba Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 I feel X-Men and X-2 are both better in the sense they actually have depth to the script (worse in the sense they're in parts cheesy and awkward and have worse comic timing); they actually make an effort to explore themes. I guess this is partly because X-Men is obviously an allegory for LGBT oppression, but that doesn't mean the characters of Avengers couldn't have been written in such a way to make you actually think about things. All the following could have been incorporated into the Avengers easily, and would have infused the film with actual content, rather than just being a popcorn flick. - Masculinity and femininity / male vs. female - Myth / reality, utopia, deism - War - Military as a form of operation/government - Change since 1940s, or lack of it - Mind control, loss of control over your own actions, what it means to have agency / humanity [this could have been done nicely if Hawkeye had had a conversation with Bruce Banner] - Capitalism, and its interaction with war/military/government etc etc And I wish Loki actually had a proper motive, rather than just being a megalomaniac. Its strange that you wanted these things because I don't think that anyone was expecting them. Not every feel has to have depth and I think that the things that it set out to do it did very well. Also, fitting all of that in would have have screwed the pace and made the film 20 hours long. There's plenty of other films to watch which cover this material but very few where a single act of physical violence leads to the entire cinema wetting themselves. Also you do realise they made it that way to make money right?
EEVILMURRAY Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Ah, stop being such a big wet quim, you quim. In fact, I heard that Quimland was going to elect a Quim-Mayor, and it had to be the quimmiest quimmer in Quimland and you were generally thought to be the only one quimmy enough to take the post (up the quim).
Jon Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 WHY DID IT HAVE TO END?!! I was ultra when the credits rolled up. Then i realised they'll be plenty more where that came from.
Iun Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 [HDYT][/HDYT] More reliable than a garden strimmer! True story: when I was patrol leader in the scouts many years ao, we had a guy called Steve Rimmer in my patrol. He WAS. A fantastic swimmer.
Agent Gibbs Posted May 8, 2012 Posted May 8, 2012 I think if they'd had lots more of what you describe Chair, the movie would then be bogged down in needlessly politicised dialogue ans it wouldn't have done well at all it would have bombed, it wouldn't have been what a large majority of the fans wanted and we certainly wouldn't see another Avengers movie. That sort of thing is best left for literature, thats where i want it, and that's where i read it, i wouldn't want it shoe horned into a movie that does need or require it! if you read between the lines there are elements of all that in there anyway. There is only so much you can fit into a movie, Comics can fit all those in easily as they can have little narratives about how a character feels. A film would require dialogue to do this; spoken by the character can you imagine the Banner going "I'm struggling with my inner rage at this situation Fury, Natasha you must understand struggling as a woman in this masculine society" Come on that would be so boring and out of character for every single character to suddenly become a bleeding heart emo going on about all that. X-men 1+2 had none of that either they sure implied things just like Avengers did, but the didn't delve into theological debates as you suggest it did and Avengers should
Jon Posted May 8, 2012 Posted May 8, 2012 It's a summer blockbuster with men in spandex, not an art deco feature.
chairdriver Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 All I'm saying is that it could have easily been something more than a popcorn flick, and still be great. Like Watchmen, V For Vendetta, etc etc.
Oxigen_Waste Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 I think the point here is, this had the potential to be a memorable film. Instead it's "that movie where Thor, Hulk and Iron Man kick some ass". It's just another blockbuster that'll fade into obscurity after ir's served it's purpose. Which is kind of sad considering what could've been. It didn't even need to be that deep... All it needed was a properly menacing villain (like Thanos, lol) and a decent script. The whole thing felt rushed in that regard, very unpolished. Oh well... at least they nailed the Hulk perfectly.
Iun Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 All I'm saying is that it could have easily been something more than a popcorn flick, and still be great. Like Watchmen, V For Vendetta, etc etc. Y'see, I absolutely hated both of those films. They attempted to be far too cerebral with ridiculous subject matter. The high point of Watchmen was the actor playing Rorshach and the saving grace of V was the fact that it did, eventually, have an end. This was an excellent melding of a superb ensemble cast with some really tight direction, good editing and superb action sequences. I genuinely did not want this movie to end. The biggest plus for me was seeing Iron Man as... Iron Man. In both of the movies he was incredibly underpowered when compared to the comics. In terms of his abilities, only Thor and Hulk are consistently stronger and able to kick more ass. In his movies "oh not enough power/the guy with the silly string can beat me, let's high-five!" was the order of the day. Thor was much better here - interested but aloof, strong as a horny bull on steroids and well-underplayed by Chris Hemsworth. I find the character of Captain America to be so "Vanilla" but in this film it showed his unwavering decency was a worthwhile force for good, he was a mature leader. Everyone almost immediately deferred to him. And yeah, Hulk. It was so difficult to sympathise with either Bana or Norton - they both really acted the part. But it was like there was no connection between Banner and the fact that he transformed into the Hulk. Ruffalo talked about "The Other Guy" as a separate entity, but it was fairly clear that they were two sides of the same coin. As for the script, actually, it was clever enough to satisfy me. If I wanted Shakespeare... well, I never do, but still. Certainly there were little drags in places, but as an overall product, I can't see how it could have been better. The Avengers has always been about a strong team dynamic, the interplay of the characters and amazing fight sequences. Anyone claiming anything more than that, is probably reading too much in something trying to entertain.
EEVILMURRAY Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 All I'm saying is that it could have easily been something more than a popcorn flick, and still be great. Like Watchmen, V For Vendetta, etc etc. People do enjoy going to the cinemas for just a fun filled no nonsense action popcorn film, not everything needs to be dark and have undertones that make you think about life to enjoy it. Yes, some comic people enjoy putting some heartfelt messages about how you feel about certain issues, but these are developed over story arc's that can take months, maybe years [?] Here are six reasons why it was apparently so successful: http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/blogs/editors/six-reasons-avengers-assemble-huge-success-152637600.html
Happenstance Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 Not surprising at all but Disney and Marvel have confirmed Avengers 2 is in development already.
Cube Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 Hopefully they'll get Joss Whedon back for it, so he can help make another near-perfect script and manage the characters - especially as there will probably be a few more.
Recommended Posts