57 replies to this topic

[DarkJuno]

I could've sworn I made a thread for this back during the teaser release. Ah well, here, actual full trailer.



Hmm. It's certainly a completely differen't vibe from Dark Knight Rises, but I'm looking forward tot his one for entirely different reasons. I actually like (the first 3/4ths of) Captain America a lot and Thor was good too, so I've been wodnering how thi grand mad experiemnt would turn out. Though I once again need to point out to anyone whow atches it - it's Marvel Thor, not Norse Thor. So Loki isn't going to be quite right and I'm sure the Midgar Serpent is being horribly misued. Oh well, can't wait to see this.

Oh, and it's called "Avengers Assemble" because this is the UK version of the trailer.

Edited by DarkJuno, 02 March 2012 - 12:38 AM.

[Game Master JRPomazon]

I'm still a little peeved Edward Norton is not going to be the hulk in this movie, but I think Mark Ruffulo might have been a smart swap. Too many big name actors make it hard to watch a movie sometimes, too distracting. Regardless, the movie looks like it'll be a lot of fun and the perfect warm-up for TDKR.

[Sharpy]

I think Robert Downey Jr. will either make or break this.

[Ikiosho]

The Dude, on 02 March 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

I think Robert Downey Jr. will either make this.

Do want nao.

[Veteran]

On the one hand I'm optimistic because I liked both Thor and Cap movies, but on the other I have my dislike for everything they've done with Hulk since David Banner. I just don't understand why they've bothered with Hulk in this as his build-up has been so poor.

Anyway, since they've had to do another re-cast I guess that means I can still live in hope for the 0.5% chance they've added Spider-Man in secret.

[Sharpy]

I think its a pretty safe bet that Spidey will be saved for a sequel, all us nerds will go see it regardless and you don't waste the kind of hype having Spider-Man in it would create.

[DarkJuno]

Sony will have to lose the Spidey movie license before he can show up in a (New) Avengers movie. Hey, the new one doens't look so hot, so maybe it'll default back like the Fantastic Four did.

Pretty sure Hulk is there because they feel they have to, and since dropping the character after investing money on a movie that only marginally made profits back looks bad, they'll jsut push on. Sorta like how there's going to be a second Green Lantern movie.

Which to be honest wasn't that bad.

[Toan]

Veteran, on 04 March 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

On the one hand I'm optimistic because I liked both Thor and Cap movies, but on the other I have my dislike for everything they've done with Hulk since David Banner. I just don't understand why they've bothered with Hulk in this as his build-up has been so poor.

DarkJuno, on 04 March 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

Pretty sure Hulk is there because they feel they have to, and since dropping the character after investing money on a movie that only marginally made profits back looks bad, they'll jsut push on.

...I liked The Incredible Hulk...

[DarkJuno]

Oh, I did too, and really, I never hated the Ang Lee Hulk either. Still kinda sucked that the last one didn't do much better then the first one, and the recasting is just going to hurt even if Ruffalo is a more then competant actor.

Though I enjoyed the last couple animated appearances of Hulk more then either movie. <.<

[Chief Fire Storm]

I never really understood all of the hate for The Incredible Hulk or Green Lantern.

[Raien]

Chief Fire Storm, on 06 March 2012 - 12:41 AM, said:

I never really understood all of the hate for The Incredible Hulk or Green Lantern.

As far as I'm aware, there has never been any real hate for the Incredible Hulk movie. The problem was always apathy. I really enjoyed the film but I'm free to admit that it was not nearly as striking as Iron Man. I think that the Hulk as a non-speaking character has worn out his welcome. The unfocused roaring and smashing is losing its appeal. The most exciting part of the Incredible Hulk movie was the end scene that teases Banner's ability to control himself as the Hulk. We're living in a more sophisticated age than fifty years ago and a Hulk with character will have more appeal.

The Green Lantern is a different story. The apathy was less but the hate was more. I saw a lot of criticism for the film ranging from the characters to the action and special effects. I haven't seen the film but I got the impression from the trailers that Hal Jordan was a complete dick and that was an immediate turn-off for me. That all said, I honestly don't think Green Lantern would have really succeeded even with a good script. While the costume design is pretty cool, the ring power comes across as childish to me. The whole idea of it being based on "willpower" and he's making turret guns with it just strikes me as something an eight-year old would write. Ironically, the coolest thing about Green Lantern is barely touched upon. He's constantly referred to as a "space cop". I would personally love to see a space cop movie! There's enough superhero movies clogging up the cinemas already but there's no good space cop movies. Green Lantern should be about space cops.

Back to the Avengers, the movie looks decent enough (I'm really just watching it for Iron Man) but so far all the marketing has been, "Look everyone! Iron Man and Captain America and Thor are in a movie together! Isn't that novel?" I'm really hoping that there is more to the film than just the fact that it brings the different heroes together. I'm not looking forward to the Captain America vs Thor fight that was hinted at in the trailer because, let's face it, superhero in-fights have been stupid every time that they've been done because their reasons are always half-assed.

I'm also a bit worried about the long-term implications of The Avengers. One thing I really resent is having to watch Marvel films I don't want in order to understand what's happening in other Marvel films (in other words, having to watch Thor because Loki is the villain in The Avengers). If this sets a precedent and the different films start bleeding into each other (like if Iron Man 3 was tied to other Avengers stories), then I will probably just stop watching them altogether. Iron Man should be about Iron Man, Thor should be about Thor and The Avengers should be about The Avengers. The stories should not be hampered by crossover bullshit. This is why I'm glad that Spider-man and X-Men are kept away from the Avengers films. I'm actually looking forward to the Spider-man movie the most this year.

[Masamune]

I watched Green Lantern, unfortunately. Hal Jordan was an unlikable asshole beginning to end. The ring picked the best humanity to offer and it picked him? I realize Hal isn't the most interesting of protagonists, but making a character unlikable doesn't make him... likable. It just makes him unlikable. Beyond that, the back and forth between Earth and Oa made it hard to take things seriously. Although I did like the Oa parts. The training sequences with Sinestro and Kilowog were pretty awesome. But back on Earth, we were given a villain that couldn't be taken seriously and had no real motivation beyond being suddenly evil now.

And I'm sorry to say, but everything coming down to colors is just impossible to take seriously. I love the Green Lanterns, I really do, but it's hard to play it straight in a film with real people.

[Leo Crimson]

This is exactly what you think it is.

[Stew]

Leo, this may be the cruelest April Fools' day prank ever, or one of the most awesome things of all time.

[Leo Crimson]

I'm not kidding.

http://www.wired.com...minifig-poster/



In any case, it was announced or at least known of a long time ago.

[DarkJuno]

I await the inevitable Lego Marvel/DC crossover series on Youtube. With Star Wars and Harry Potter thrown in for the hell of it starting at Part 7 because the creator loses his mind.

Edited by DarkJuno, 01 April 2012 - 08:05 PM.

[Sharpy]

Masamune, on 06 March 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

I watched Green Lantern, unfortunately. Hal Jordan was an unlikable asshole beginning to end. The ring picked the best humanity to offer and it picked him? I realize Hal isn't the most interesting of protagonists, but making a character unlikable doesn't make him... likable. It just makes him unlikable. Beyond that, the back and forth between Earth and Oa made it hard to take things seriously. Although I did like the Oa parts. The training sequences with Sinestro and Kilowog were pretty awesome. But back on Earth, we were given a villain that couldn't be taken seriously and had no real motivation beyond being suddenly evil now.

And I'm sorry to say, but everything coming down to colors is just impossible to take seriously. I love the Green Lanterns, I really do, but it's hard to play it straight in a film with real people.

That movie infuriates me with horrible writing.

[TheAvengerLever]

Raien, on 06 March 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

One thing I really resent is having to watch Marvel films I don't want in order to understand what's happening in other Marvel films (in other words, having to watch Thor because Loki is the villain in The Avengers). If this sets a precedent and the different films start bleeding into each other (like if Iron Man 3 was tied to other Avengers stories), then I will probably just stop watching them altogether. Iron Man should be about Iron Man, Thor should be about Thor and The Avengers should be about The Avengers. The stories should not be hampered by crossover bullshit. This is why I'm glad that Spider-man and X-Men are kept away from the Avengers films. I'm actually looking forward to the Spider-man movie the most this year.

This a million times this. The reason the Iron Man films are so good is because they stand on their own and they relegate the tie in stuff to post-credits, or they will very subtly hide it in the movie, as opposed to Captain America. Captain America was so good, but did it really need the cosmic cube majiger? It got everything right excluding that: a likeable protagonist (I especially love the war bonds sequence) Nazis as villains, WW2 action, and then the Science is Magic takes all of that away.


After the movie ended I remember rewriting the cosmic cube majiger out in my head and having the plot be that the Red Skull has built the very first atomic weapon. Captain America brings the Red Skull's plane down in the arctic but the Americans being studying the potential of nuclear weapons because of this incident.

There. Now in order to tie it in with the Avengers you get to keep the last scene where he wakes up in the foocher.

[Veteran]

But you don't need to have seen Thor for Captain America to make sense. It helps, of course, to know that the cube merely transported Skull to Asgard, but it's not necessary to know that. I thought Thor did a very good job. If Loki had suddenly shown up at any point during Captain America, then fair enough, but the cube could've been any old macguffin and still worked. Just happens to be a Thor macguffin.

I like crossovers. I don't think they happen as often as they should. Subtle is best I agree. Michael Keaton playing the same character in Jackie Brown and Out of Sight? Awesome.

We're dealing with comic book movies though. The fact this hasn't happened before is actually surprising. And once the market gets saturated (and it probably has since 2008) the only thing left is to reboot or combine. Do we really need another Spider-Man origin?

[Raien]

Veteran, on 08 April 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

I like crossovers. I don't think they happen as often as they should. Subtle is best I agree. Michael Keaton playing the same character in Jackie Brown and Out of Sight? Awesome.

The problem with crossovers is that they are novelties by nature. Now, I admit that I haven't seen this Michael Keaton character you refer to, but I can bet that if he was playing separate characters, it would barely affect your enjoyment of either film. It sounds like the Stan Lee cameos in Marvel movies; an irrelevant in-joke. It might be funny if you get the joke but it can become a distraction if you don't get the joke. Crossovers like that can be divisive if they become too prominent.

But when an entire movie is built around the crossover novelty, then you get some real problems. It essentially tells audiences that whether they will enjoy the movie depends upon them liking the different characters. Not getting the in-joke is no longer an option. If you like all the characters, you'll have a ball with the crossover. But if you don't know or don't like these characters, you have to sit through their tedious scenes just to get to the character you actually wanted to see. And because the marketing revolves around the crossover novelty, it is difficult for undecided customers to tell whether the film has any real emotional weight that they might enjoy on its own merits. As such, this kind of crossover has such a divisive, alienating effect that most producers quite rightly don't want to risk their money on it. The only reason the Avengers got a pass is because they at least had the long-running comic series to draw from.

Quote

And once the market gets saturated (and it probably has since 2008) the only thing left is to reboot or combine. Do we really need another Spider-Man origin?

Putting aside the fact that almost every major film reboot in the last decade avoids retelling the superhero origin story (with the exception being Batman Begins, which at least gave us a new backstory to enjoy), reboots are at least made with a purpose to make the films more accessible, as opposed to crossovers which make films less accessible.

But that's not the only reason why reboots are a good idea. The main problem with letting a film series (or comic book series for that matter) go on forever is that eventually the story stops moving forward. What people want from sequels is forward progression, seeing the consequences of one film play out in the next film. But writers can only take this so far before audiences realise that the story is spinning round in circles and that there will never be closure. This is a big reason why the success of superhero movies hasn't passed on to the superhero comics. The comics feel like they are constantly spinning their gears. I personally think that Ultimate Spider-man should have replaced the main Spider-man comics back in 2000. And then in 2009, Ultimate Spider-man should have been cancelled and replaced by a new Spider-man series. This is effectively what the films are doing because it is the best way to keep the old characters fresh and exciting.

Edited by Raien, 08 April 2012 - 07:17 PM.

[DarkJuno]

Eh, rebooting and completely restarting comics tends to ahve its own set of problems. While it's true that a lot of fans have an incredibly aggravating sense of self entitlement for stuff they like, there's truth in the idea that you should reward and take care of your long time fans to a certain extent. At the end of the day, it's the stories themselves being well written and making the reader care about what's going on regardless of whether they've been reading for one month or two decades. Post One More Day Spider-man could have easily, easily been done without making the marriage null and void, other then minor things like Peter sleeping with Black Cat. The current Batman (and Superman for that matter) comics are excellent because they're well written, not because everyone's younger and hipper. The stories are strong enough that it being a (soft) reboot doesn't figure into it at all, with the exception that they got a new writer in there. So long as you do a good enough job of establishing who someone is upon entrance and what's going on, you really don't need to know who that one character is and the how's and why's of their first meeting, just that they've met before and whether they're amicable or contentious. If the reader really cares that much, they'll want to look it up, as opposed to how it usually ends up with the reader wondering who that was. Like anything else, writing is the key. In-jokes, like any other time, are only good if they can be passed over and it doesn't bring the story to a screeching halt if you don't get it. Jason Statham showing up in Collateral as his Transporter character is an example, since if you've never seen his series, it's just some scowling bald guy handing over a briefcase like any other extra.

As for this movie, if you only really watched Iron Man, you probably at least know the names of everyone else and they're heroes - of course there are always going to be some people who've never heard of Captain America or that Thor was also a comicbook character, but they probably also didn't care for Iron Man and wouldn't watch this movie anyway. Despite evidence to the contrary, viewers aren't morons, a guy watching a superhero movie would at least be able to figure out that those other guys are also heroes. Frankly, if you're watching The Avengers, you've certainly have gone and seen at least one of the prior movies. So long as the movie does a decent, but brief, enough job of establishing who everyone is (especially Hawkeye and Black Widow) it should be fine. Mark Rufallo is the main thing I think will throw people off, since he's the third Bruce Banner in recent memory.

For origin stories, you know, there comes a point where a superhero is so ingrained in pop culture that even non-fans know the basics of his origin. Everyone knows Superman is from a dying planet, and Batman had his parents killed, and almost everyone knows Spider-man was bitten by a spider. I don't think any reboots of these absolutely need the origin story unless, like in Batman Begins, you put a different spin on it that ties directly into the "current" time period of the rest of the movie. If enough time passes, then yes, reboot away - Superman Returns probably should've been its own movie, for example. Something like Amazing Spider-man though doesn't have to be. Yes, you run into the "Why's everyone being played by different people" problem, but James Bond got away with it pretty well, and at the very least you could pull what The Incredible Hulk and Punisher: Warzone did and briefly touch upon the origins in the opening but just get on with the story.

[Raien]

I'm sorry for chopping off your first paragraph, DarkJuno, but aside from the fact I don't want to drag this discussion off-topic, I'm also not in a good place right now to have such a lengthy debate (I'm going on Easter holidays tomorrow). In any case, I think I was able to make the most important point below.

DarkJuno, on 08 April 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

As for this movie, if you only really watched Iron Man, you probably at least know the names of everyone else and they're heroes - of course there are always going to be some people who've never heard of Captain America or that Thor was also a comicbook character, but they probably also didn't care for Iron Man and wouldn't watch this movie anyway. Despite evidence to the contrary, viewers aren't morons, a guy watching a superhero movie would at least be able to figure out that those other guys are also heroes. Frankly, if you're watching The Avengers, you've certainly have gone and seen at least one of the prior movies. So long as the movie does a decent, but brief, enough job of establishing who everyone is (especially Hawkeye and Black Widow) it should be fine. Mark Rufallo is the main thing I think will throw people off, since he's the third Bruce Banner in recent memory.

The danger isn't that audiences won't understand the story but that they won't find the story compelling. This is a point I keep making about comics. Just because the writers take steps to diminish continuity does not mean that audiences will immediately start caring about what's happening. Making audiences care for characters is something you do through storytelling, and therefore you cannot expect audiences to skip those important stories and still share the same passion that long-term customers have. If people go into the Avengers not knowing or liking half the characters, that is going to make the film worse in their eyes, even if they can follow the plot perfectly fine.

Quote

For origin stories, you know, there comes a point where a superhero is so ingrained in pop culture that even non-fans know the basics of his origin. Everyone knows Superman is from a dying planet, and Batman had his parents killed, and almost everyone knows Spider-man was bitten by a spider. I don't think any reboots of these absolutely need the origin story unless, like in Batman Begins, you put a different spin on it that ties directly into the "current" time period of the rest of the movie. If enough time passes, then yes, reboot away - Superman Returns probably should've been its own movie, for example. Something like Amazing Spider-man though doesn't have to be. Yes, you run into the "Why's everyone being played by different people" problem, but James Bond got away with it pretty well, and at the very least you could pull what The Incredible Hulk and Punisher: Warzone did and briefly touch upon the origins in the opening but just get on with the story.

The origin story is actually one of the most worthless parts of a superhero. Once it has done its job of establishing the character and the context they appear in, people don't want to see it again. The story of how a superhero begins is not nearly as compelling as the superhero stories themselves.

Edited by Raien, 09 April 2012 - 05:47 AM.

[DarkJuno]

Not a problem, I was wary of even bringing that first part up.

I do agree about origin stories though, since I wasn't too clear about it in my last post. For a superhero who's brand new to the public's eyes, or possibly one who hasn't been around for a long, long time, then go ahead. But at this point, a lot of these guys are known enough that the origin story is just a retread, and just getting on with the story one wants to tell is better then feeling like a writer has to do an origin. I used Batman as an example of it being done right because it didn't dwell on it for super long and it made it directly relevant, plot-wise, to the actual story.Damn, Batman from 1989 didn't do a full origin story at all, but it still did a decent job conveying what it had to, for that matter, and is probably a better example then either Incredible Hulk or Punisher Warzone. Origins are important, but taking from Begins again, it's what a hero - or any character - actually does that makes them who they are, not what they are inside or where they came from, even if those affect their decisions. Which is why I think AMazing Spider-man being another origin is just silly.



Anyway, on topic, I still think this can be good so long as the writing is good, though I won't lie, that's my big concern. Thor was pretty good, and Captain America was very good until the second half when it got Action Montages and Cardboard Cut-out villain who wants to destroy the world. It really wasn't bad, but compared to how really well done they set up Steve Rogers as a character and the situation he was in, and showinig off how heroic he was both before and after the serum without being cheesy or unbelievable, "Super Nazi's" just fell kinda flat. I really wonder which of the guys will suffer.

[Raien]

DarkJuno, on 09 April 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

Which is why I think AMazing Spider-man being another origin is just silly.

I agree with you that I don't understand why Marvel are revisiting the Uncle Ben origin story, but the trailers make me optimistic that the film will revolve around George and Gwen Stacy rather than the Parkers. In fact, this focus has me really excited. While the Lizard was clearly included just for action-fodder, Captain Stacy's presence sets up a good human conflict to lend the film some real emotional weight. And then there is Gwen Stacy, who does not carry the baggage of being the predictable love interest like Mary-Jane Watson. There is every chance that she could die or otherwise just not develop the steady relationship we expect from Mary-Jane. That makes the plot unpredictable and therefore exciting. If my instincts are correct, I expect that the Spider-man movie will surpass the Avengers hype, just like X-Men: First Class surpassed Thor. Emotional weight only makes a film more timeless.

Quote

Anyway, on topic, I still think this can be good so long as the writing is good, though I won't lie, that's my big concern. Thor was pretty good, and Captain America was very good until the second half when it got Action Montages and Cardboard Cut-out villain who wants to destroy the world. It really wasn't bad, but compared to how really well done they set up Steve Rogers as a character and the situation he was in, and showinig off how heroic he was both before and after the serum without being cheesy or unbelievable, "Super Nazi's" just fell kinda flat. I really wonder which of the guys will suffer.

When I look at Avengers trailers, I ask myself two questions:
1) What are the emotional stakes in this film?
2) Oh god. They're not really going to make the Avengers fight each other, are they?

So far, almost every dialogue scene between the Avengers in the trailers has amounted to penis-waving. I'm getting serious Green Lantern vibes from it. So inevitably they're going to fight each other over their huge penises (either that or the cliched "misunderstanding") before they take on the main baddie. So who do I root for? Why should I care about these characters? Even Tony Stark, my favourite character, seems to be getting dangerously close to being an asshole. But if action is the ultimate point of the film, then congratulations, Marvel. Your film looks as compelling as Battleship.

I will give the Avengers a chance but my instincts tell me it will underwhelm. The trailers just raise too many red flags for me to get excited.

Edited by Raien, 09 April 2012 - 05:43 PM.

[DarkJuno]

Going and rewatching all the movies this week in my scant freetime (typically before bed) in preperation for the movie on Friday. Iron Man/Iron Man 2 on Monday, Incredible Hulk yesterday, Thor right now, and Captain America tomorrow, and noticing all the little things they did after the fact to try and tie the earlier movies in a little better. It is rather nice that they took things and made them work even if it was never intended to be that way, like the sudden and really kind of inexplicable thunderstorm in The Hulk having to do with Thor using his hammer off in New Mexico, or having the news report from the same movie play in Iron Man 2. And you know, even though these movies aren't perfect I really do like all of them in hindsight, the worst of the lot is Iron Man 2 for reasons explained beyond all need on the net, but even then it didn't really bother me that much. It was like ordering a steak medium, and they overcooked it to medium well, and they appologized and let me have it for free and gave me my proper medium steak on top of that. Yeah it's not what I usually eat, but it's free steak, and at least it's not well done.

Ah well. Going into this cautiously optimisstic, trying to ignore all the hype it's getting from the UK premiere and the RT rating.

[Showsni]

Heh, I saw it the day it came out here... Having seen none of the other movies. Stood up pretty well even though I hadn't seen any of them!

Edited by Showsni, 05 May 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[Leo Crimson]

I've only seen the Iron Men, and none of the others. If I didn't have a bio test/quiz tomorrow I'd watch the earliest one possible.

[Twinrova]

Make sure you at least watch Thor at some point.

Edited by Twinrova, 03 May 2012 - 08:43 PM.

[Sharpy]

DarkJuno, on 02 May 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

but it's free steak, and at least it's not well done.

Sounds like Hulk to me.

[Ikiosho]

Guys. Hoooooh my good golly gosh. Watch this movie.