Kevin's Watch

There were lots of funny moments. I laughed out loud at the hulk spoiler above. It was a blast seeing it with my 11-yr-old son, who couldn't stop saying "Awesome!" over and over. Seeing his joy was worth the ticket price alone.

However, it was extremely juvenile story-telling. Children's movies have more character development than this. Wall-e had more meaning and depth, and that's with a main character who can't speak. Granted, comic book stories don't have to have depth or character development to appeal to their core audience of teen-agers and pre-teens. But for the life of me I can't understand why adults get excited about this.

Maybe I'm just jaded and out of touch with my inner child.

Did anyone who doesn't like comic books love this film, or is it just the comic book fans?

I'm not really into the comics. It was a popcorn flick, not much meat to it - the point is, it was a very well done popcorn flick. It's rare that people actually get things right like that.

It's not a cinematic great. But it's a good film, because it achieves everything it sets out to do.

Zarathustra wrote:Children's movies have more character development than this.

With the exception of Black Widow--whom we now know a little--and Hawkeye--whom we still barely know at all--all the character development was done in their individual films.

We go to know Agent Coulson over the course of several films and I'm not sure there is much more depth to Nick Fury than what we have already seen--he is the man with the plan, doesn't take crap from anyone, and does what we always expect a Samuel L. Jackson character to do--talk smack.

In related news...Mads Mikkelsen (Le Chiffre from "Casino Royale") is likely to be tapped as the villain for "Thor 2" and the budget for "Iron Man 3" has been increased to $200 million. One comes out next May and the other one in November (but I forget which one comes out when).

Good points Hashi and Murrin. It was well done for what it was, and the character arcs were handled in the individual films. I actually thought the Thor movie (which I saw afterwards) was much better. He changed throughout the movie and had a personal journey. I wish I'd seen it before. The Avengers would have resonated with me a bit more, perhaps.

Zarathustra wrote:There were lots of funny moments. I laughed out loud at the hulk spoiler above. It was a blast seeing it with my 11-yr-old son, who couldn't stop saying "Awesome!" over and over. Seeing his joy was worth the ticket price alone.

However, it was extremely juvenile story-telling. Children's movies have more character development than this. Wall-e had more meaning and depth, and that's with a main character who can't speak. Granted, comic book stories don't have to have depth or character development to appeal to their core audience of teen-agers and pre-teens. But for the life of me I can't understand why adults get excited about this.

Maybe I'm just jaded and out of touch with my inner child.

Did anyone who doesn't like comic books love this film, or is it just the comic book fans?

Pixar films tend to be something special. Also, one thing that Wall-E really has a strong focus on a tiny cast (Wall E and Eve) for a pretty good portion of the movie. Hell, I even thought the villain of Wall-E was kind of sad and sympathetic. Of course, it also has gorgeous and imaginative visuals. I can't think of many ensemble action movies that really focus on character development - there's too much time spend on giving the characters awesome action scenes (and the villain[s]). X Men First Class certainly develops some of the characters, but others practically walk on and offstage without any development whatsoever (Darwin joins, chooses his nickname, exhibits his power, then gets killed).

Hell, ensemble movies generally don't do this as well, from what I remember...I didn't see Ocean's 11, but Ocean's 12 was a heist flick about the characters doing neat stuff.

I'm sure there were those of you who didn't like Watchmen very much, but that would be a superhero movie that's much more about developing the characters.

Z, I've never read an Avengers comic. Read less than 20 comics in my whole life. I also missed Thor and Iron Man 2 of the run-up movies. I still enjoyed the hell out of it.

Your criticisms are all valid- it's just they didn't affect my enjoyment of it at all.

Good points about an ensemble cast movie. One positive thing I could say about the Avengers is that it was well balanced between the characters, giving them each a fair share of cool moments and snappy dialog. I enjoyed the in-fighting and character interactions on the flying aircraft carrier.

And about Watchmen ... yes, it did have character development, and was more character-driven, but I hated that movie. It wasn't enjoyable at all for me, while I could at least enjoy this one as being a fun popcorn flick. So character development isn't everything.

Murrin wrote:But it's a good film, because it achieves everything it sets out to do.

Now see, I hate that line of reasoning, because you're automatically giving them a pass for sucking.

I could set out to make a giant steaming pile of crap, and it won't matter that I achieved my goal with flawless accuracy, or had perfect execution... I will still have a giant steaming pile of crap.

At some point, we need to stop making excuses for people. If a studio spends in excess of $220M, as Disney did on The Avengers, it should be expected to excel in all categories... not just the visual effects. After all, you don't buy a $50,000 car and put a $200 sound system in it. If a studio is going to put the time, effort and money into making a movie this expensive, I want them to make every aspect of the movie quality.

But then, we've already established that I'm not the target demographic for this movie. It's very possible that some of the things which would appeal to me (the writing, character development, emotional story, etc) would severely antagonize those who go to see movies like this.

Zarathustra wrote:GI enjoyed the in-fighting and character interactions on the flying aircraft carrier.

Heh, it's called the Helicarrier.

Zarathustra wrote:Did anyone who doesn't like comic books love this film, or is it just the comic book fans?

I tried reading comics when I was young, but couldn't get into them. In other words, my referent for the Avengers was the previous movies. I made my wife watch Thor (despite her tepid interest in seeing it) the week before she went to see Avengers because I knew she wouldn't get the dynamic between Loki and Thor, or Loki's motivations in the first place.

And yes, we thought Avengers was fantastic. I prefer the popcorn fun to the angst and dark themes of the Dark Knight.

Finally saw it. I have two questions for people who know these things.

Spoiler

Was the revelation that Bannor was working on the Captain America formula cannon, or a movie add-in? It stuck out like a sore and stinky thumb.

Who was the villian revealed at the end?

Anyway, it was very enjoyable. Probably better than any of the lead-in movies. Loved the post-credits scene.

Spoiler

I know everyone likes Avenger's Hulk, but I thought they took away all his dimension. Still like Ang Lee Hulk the best. Me and that one other guy in Mongolia.

No, the first thing is not canon to the comic books; it was a plot fiat only to tie the characters together. According to the movies, even the Ang Lee one (which I also liked), his father was researching for super-soldier projects, but more about trying to make them stronger and able to regenerate wounds quickly.

The villain in the reveal at the end was

Spoiler

Thanos

. You can look him up online for more information but he is definitely a major threat.[/spoiler]

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:No, the first thing is not canon to the comic books; it was a plot fiat only to tie the characters together. According to the movies, even the Ang Lee one (which I also liked), his father was researching for super-soldier projects, but more about trying to make them stronger and able to regenerate wounds quickly.

The villain in the reveal at the end was

Spoiler

Thanos

. You can look him up online for more information but he is definitely a major threat.[/spoiler]

Yeah that's gonna be really good. One of my favorite story-lines in all the comics when I was younger!

Thanks, Hashi. I looked that dude up in Wikipedia, and immediately spotted a connection to the Gap Series.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:hrm...I'm not following you there, wayfriend. Perhaps you can fill me in on your train of thought at some point.

Spoiler

The character's name is a derivation of Thanatos ... Thanatos Minor was the planetoid where Billingsgate resided ...

wayfriend wrote:

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:hrm...I'm not following you there, wayfriend. Perhaps you can fill me in on your train of thought at some point.

Spoiler

The character's name is a derivation of Thanatos ... Thanatos Minor was the planetoid where Billingsgate resided ...

Hehehehe, in French,

Spoiler

"La Petit Mort," or "little death," is a euphemism for orgasm. "Thanatos Minor" would be something like "little death" in Greek.

SoulBiter wrote:.Yeah that's gonna be really good. One of my favorite story-lines in all the comics when I was younger!

And it got better! There was a bunch of stories involving the Infinity Gauntlet. It went overboard, as they tend to when they get a good thing going. But it started with something called the Thanos Quest. That's as good as comics gets. Only a couple issues. Written by Jim Starlin, who did the stuff you remember from childhood. Drawn by Ron Lim, who is superb. It has Thanos, the Inbetweener, and the Elders of the Universe.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Let's be realistic--The Dark Knight wasn't really about Batman/Bruce Wayne at all, that movie was 100% Heath Ledger Joker. The problem here, which is the same problem in every Joker story, is that the plot is too contrived, even for a comic book character. *shrug*

I have to admit that I would enjoy seeing a dialogue between the Joker and Hannibal Lecter.

I saw The Avengers, it was a great movie and I really enjoyed it. In a way it was the roided-up ne plus ultra of the very comic-booky Spiderman I & II type superhero movie, and certainly the most entertaining of that type thus far produced. By that I mean superhero movie as pure escapism. For let's not fool ourselves: despite the superficial ethical paradoxi surrounding Loki's megalomaniacal drivel and the existence and methods of S.H.I.E.L.D., the subject of power and the ethical responsibilities that are implied by it are not considered with any depth. Here there is no distinction between personal and collective interests, all must survive or perish together amid stark, really dualistic choices. So about all you can say to sum up the moral landscape of The Avengers is They Did Their Duty. Philosophically therefore there is no comparison with TDK.

And I disagree with you again, Hashi: TDK is not about Joker. TDK is about Julius Caesar. It is about the temptations inherent within power, wrapped within the question of whether humanity is a worthy repository for the fraternal inclinations of the exceptional. The answers provided are hypothetical, existential, provisional. Based not on transcendent faith, but on personal faith that becomes heroic as it persists despite abiding vulnerability, uncertainty, ambiguity. So I have yet to see a movie that does a better job of rendering the meganarrative of the age. And when it comes to meditating the big questions, Spiderman II is much more profound than The Avengers.

That said I do look toward the next offering with anticipation, and believe it will be as entertaining as any film you are likely to see. But the series isn't likely to be a cultural watershed.