Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Really I think the problem with Spider-man as an Avenger in the comics wasn't his being on the team or being outclassed. He makes a far better addition to the team than Hawkeye. It's the writing direction, because for the majority of his tenure as an Avenger, Bendis has been writing the Avengers books he was on. Which means lots of talking around for everybody and less dealing with big giant threats like a purple guy who wants to bone Death or a crazy omnicidal robot.
You know, given Alk's taste for the brazen and sense of phrasing, he'd probably make a good Spiderman.
I think Rogue fits him pretty well though.
On one hand I have the raging insecurity and lack of direction issues held in check by commitments to various people I care about. On the other hand, I lack that delicious southern drawl and boobs.
Come on, there's gotta be al alternate male rogue, right? Also, what the fuck is brazen?
Descarado.
Hmmmm...Thanks, I guess.
Alk: That's a good point. I might have liked it more if Avengers were written by someone who could make the voices of characters actually distinct.
That said, while I agree he's a better choice than fuckin' Hawkeye, Spider-man's always struck me as more of a loner by trade.
Let us just declare Hawkeye the Boxbot of the Marvel universe and call it a day.
poor boxbot. he is the hawkeye of gunnerkrigg court
Just saw the movie.
Good bits: Some great lines ('Shakespeare in the park') and some cool action sequences (that oner during the Manhattan fight, holy shit).
Bad bits: Could have used a lot of editing, and Whedon's weird issues with female characters showed up again.
You know, it's funny. the other day, I was reading that Whedon said that the movie lost about 30 minutes of footage give or take and that the director cut would be about 3 hours but I'm pretty sure the movie was at the very least 3 hours long.
you needed to know this.
The movie started at 12:05 and I got at 2:45 with preview stuff, so it was probably more around two and a half hours.
Also, as long as it was, I can't think of a single scene that wasn't necessary.
Thor vs. Iron Man.
I mean, it was one of my favourite scenes, but still.
A good percentage of the yammering aboard the helicarrier, for a start, and both the action sequences and dialogue tended towards the overlong and indulgent. This was one of the few rare films where I could take a loo break and miss nothing of real significance, and as someone who's done a fair amount of proofreading, I kept reaching for my red pen.
I think the fights at the forest were necessary at the very least to establish an early rivalry dynamic between the three top guns.
"Doth you know that you wear thy mother's drapes?"
Really, this film is rather quotable.
^^ Captain America didn't really fight, though, even if Thor slamming his hammer against the Captain's shield was pretty awesome.
And personally, I was a little disappointed with Thor's introduction. It made reasonable sense, but he sort of just shows up out of the blue when every other member of the team got a good introduction. Although, as usual, Bruce Banner got the best of it.
Well, yeah, the captain didn't fight, but he put both Thor and Tony under control because he's Captain America and he has a commanding personality and blah blah blah, which adds to Tony's contempt for him at first, which is another one of the blocks he has to get over in order to actually help during the battle at NYC.
>A good percentage of the yammering aboard the helicarrier
What.
>both the action sequences and dialogue tended towards the overlong and indulgent
I guess, maybe, but the whole point of an epic superhero film is... well, epic superhero spectacle. If the fights were repetitive I'd see a problem, but they never run out of new stuff to do.
^^I think he got a decent introduction in his dialogue with Loki. It set up who they were rather well.
Yeah, I don't think the talk in the helicarrier was unnecessary, unless you really dislike exposition and prefer the Tesseract to be called "Blue energy thingie that we find through blue energy thingie finding methods" or something.
Yes, yes, funny, quirky character interactions... but not to the point where they slow down the film.
Brevity = wit, remember?
^^I mean it's not like it's set in the DC Universe...
^Establishing character interactions is actually kind of important. You have to care about what happens to these characters, after all.
I always found it somewhat dogmatic to assert that just because something is longwinded, it's necessarily not witty or enjoyable. Sure, chances are, it probably will, but making it all brief without any of the dialogue and interactions you're calling longwinded would make The Avengers as a cast much more boring.
Let's face it, nobody goes and watches this movie just because of the plot. They go because they want to see Robert Downey Jr berating Chris Evans while Chris Hemsworth laughs and Mark Ruffalo is staring at them wondering why the hell would someone think it's a good idea to put them all together in the same ship.
Exactly, and I mean what established Marvel (but particularly Spider-man, FF, and Avengers) from their Distinguished Competetition is the emphasis on the character interaction while Superman and friends tended to be breezy reads that generally more focused on puzzles of how Superman was going to solve this or that problem. (The shitty ones gave him a new power, the good ones had him use his brain)
Considering it's Joss Whedon, I was suprised the Tesseract wasn't described as this at some point.
So, I saw the movie, and it was awesome.
But am I the only one who was bugged by the fact that Bruce Banner seemed like a completely different guy than in his movie? Yeah, a different actor is going to have a different interpretation of the character, I can forgive that, but he really felt more like an entirely new character than a different guy playing the same character slightly differently.
He is just not played differently. He has changed, since the ending of the incredible hulk up to the avengers he has done a radical shift in how he deals with the hulk. He is no longer avoiding strong emotions but actually fostering them and harboring them.
Context is key. Thor had an entire movie to himself, in which he established his character. Within the Avenger's Movie, he wasn't setting up his own character, as he's already been established by then, he was setting up his dynamics with the team.
While that's true, I have to say that under that logic, Iron Man, who already had two movies, Captain America who already had one and so on shouldn't have gotten their own vignette scene where they are recruited and where we get a taste of who they are and what they do. I don't think Thor needed one, though, mostly because it's an interesting idea that he's the only one who didn't need to be called to fight Loki. He just does because that's what Thor does. And he don't need no eyepatched motherfucker to tell him what to do, no siree.