The Avengers

«134567

Comments

  • AxelWilkinson
    AxelWilkinson Posts: 5,252 Staff
    And it will be awesome.
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    Can't say I'm particularly excited for this, though I did enjoy it's constituent films (haven't seen Captain America yet, though). I still feel like there's going to be way too much going on, but I'm happy to be proven wrong on release. :)
  • RodyPolis
    RodyPolis Posts: 612 Just Starting Out*
    Why couldn't Edward Norton return??? That alone takes away points for this. I hate recasts.
  • mikeQ76
    mikeQ76 Posts: 65

    Why couldn't Edward Norton return??? That alone takes away points for this. I hate recasts.
    Wasn't ed norton a recast :P This is looking amazing though, I finally watched thor the other day, really enjoyed it. But surely he would be more than a match for anything from this world, especially his hammer versus cap america's shield,
  • AxelWilkinson
    AxelWilkinson Posts: 5,252 Staff
    Yeah, Norton was a recast himself, so unless they brought Bana back for the Avengers, there was going to be a certain lameness to the Bruce Banner aspect. The more time he spends as the Hulk, the less relevant it is though.
    Aculag - if you get a chance, read the Astonishing X-men story arc that Joss Whedon wrote. Aside from being among the finest comics ever created, Whedon clearly demonstrates his ability not only to juggle a large cast of characters, but to handle the individual characters deftly, making each of them unique and essential to the plot. If he can handle Avengers half as well, it will be staggeringly awesome. And I'm pretty sure he can.
  • RodyPolis
    RodyPolis Posts: 612 Just Starting Out*
    Norton wasn't a recast per se because Hulk (with Bana) wasn't related to the Incredible Hulk (with Norton). It's just that since Norton was supposed to be in the same universe as the other guys, it'll be weird seeing someone else. I really liked him as Hulk so that's why I'm mad Lol
  • AxelWilkinson
    AxelWilkinson Posts: 5,252 Staff
    Considering that the Norton Hulk picks up right where the Bana one left off, I'd disagree. But Bana also made a much better Bruce Banner, if you ask me. So I've been peeved about the recasting since Norton was announced, even though I like Norton in general.
  • 3dmus
    3dmus Posts: 117
    ...and there was me thinking it would be featuring Diana Rigg and would involve Mrs Emma Peel...w/o that..meh
  • Looking forward to this very much having enjoyed all of the solo films, besides Cap Am as I've yet to see that one.
    However, having been enjoying the animated series that my son watches I can say that I'm going to miss Wasp and Antman in this. With Whedon at the helm though I'm expecting some kind of cameo from them at least.
    I'm looking forward to a full trailer on this with more completed footage. This trailer is more like an extended teaser and it's obvious there's not that much ready to show yet.
  • MatthiasClaflin
    MatthiasClaflin Posts: 674 Just Starting Out
    edited October 2011

    Considering that the Norton Hulk picks up right where the Bana one left off, I'd disagree.
    I don't remember the first Hulk from 2003, but I just checked on imdb and they don't look related at all since, at first glance, they don't have a single similar cast member...
    [quote name="E! Online"]The Incredible Hulk, the all-new franchise reboot...[/quote]
    However, regardless of whether Norton was a reboot or a sequal, I am really sad to see this other guy as the Hulk. For me, after the way Tony Stark showed up in the Incredible Hulk, I can't say that I'm happy they ditched him. I would really have liked anyone else of Hulk...
  • AxelWilkinson
    AxelWilkinson Posts: 5,252 Staff
    At the end of the Eric Bana "Hulk", Bruce Banner has fled from General Ross' military group to South America, while the military continues to hunt for him. At the start of the Ed Norton "Incredible Hulk", Bruce Banner is still in South America, and the military under General Ross continues to hunt for him. The cast is different, yes, but its absolutely a direct continuation of the storyline. It doesn't start over and rehash his origin at all, it just picks up right after the previous one ended.
    I'm really excited about how fun and engaging this trailer is, despite the fact that its pretty clear that they still haven't shown us anything. Its gonna be fantastic.
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 379 Enthusiast
    edited October 2011
    Looks terrible. Overlit, overacted, shot too much like a TV show, uncinematic, kitsch-feeling, and underwhelming.
    Just what I expected from Joss Whedon and a lack of confidence in giving an appropriate budget on the part of Marvel Studios. Maybe he can juggle writing, but he lacks cinematic vision and sticks too hard to tenets of television directing/style/filmmaking. And it's obvious here. Generic and bland.
    I just wish that superhero movies still had the flourish and vision in their creation and implementation that we used to see with visionaries like Singer, Raimi, and Nolan. Filmmaking as an art, that happened to have superheroes in it. Not generic 'shot on digital over-graded over-bright too-wide-of-framing-because-the-dp-is-bad' stuff. Even the production design, too- looks and feels cheap. With better implementation, I'm sure it could've been cool and had a neat presence on-camera.
    But as it stands now, it all just looks and feels messy, generic, uninspired, and plain. This frame basically sums it up:
    [img]http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5064/unled1gjw.png[/img]
    This just goes in with Iron Man 2 in an exercise of 'putting people in costumes on film' to me.
    Very sad, but oh well. This looks and would probably make a great Fantastic Four 3.
    And:
    The cast is different, yes, but its absolutely a direct continuation of the storyline. It doesn't start over and rehash his origin at all, it just picks up right after the previous one ended.
    Ehhhhh, no that's wrong.
    The opening in South America was to help 'ease audiences in' to the reboot, but they are completely separate, unrelated films otherwise. There's even a complete opening sequence and flashbacks in the first act that show just how Bruce became the Hulk, and how Betty was involved. They show him in the seat and the effect of gamma radiation similar to that of the Bill Bixby TV series.
    It's completely different from the Ang Lee film, and as the cast, origin, and style is totally different, I wouldn't at all consider one a continuation of the other.
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out

    [img]http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5064/unled1gjw.png[/img]
    It's like something from an SNL skit. Any SNL skit.
  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143
    edited October 2011
    Wow... this looks awesome. I'm not sure what Atom is talking about at all. Visually, it looks the same as the previous films. While there may have been more obvious choices (i.e. Abrams, Favreau, or Bay), I think Whedon is as good a choice as any to direct The Avengers, given his knack for writing and his experience working on comics. I certainly don't see his "television-style" bleeding through in this footage. I do see some very awesome and cinematic character shots (the exception being that Sam Jackson shot), and tons of action and special effects sequences.
    I can't say anything is looking particularly "epic" yet... and that's because this teaser seems to hold back on revealing the true scale of the film. See how most of the shots (except for a few obvious wides) are framed very tightly? Like most teasers, they're obviously trying save the good stuff for a later date. That said, this is infinitely more satisfying than the recent teasers for "The Dark Knight Rises" or "The Hunger Games" which just scream "we're still filming the movie... but here's some of the footage we got".
    So yeah... I'm really optimistic for this. I've really enjoyed all the films leading up to this (yes, even The Incredible Hulk, which I initially gave a less-than-glowing review on the FXhome forums). If all the parts are in working order... then they should all cohesively fit together into one whole. Yes, there are some pretty major concerns that there's too much going on, too many characters, etc. But a facebook friend of mine made a really good point: Joss Whedon introduced us to every character on board Serenity in less than ten minutes... in just a single shot. I'm confident he can do the same for The Avengers.
    EDIT: Is it just me... or does anyone think the shot of Scarlett Johannson in front of the explosion looks... odd? She doesn't react to it at all. Not even a flinch. I'm not sure her hair even moves. It's almost like she's been comped into the shot. Thoughts?
  • MatthiasClaflin
    MatthiasClaflin Posts: 674 Just Starting Out
    I'm kinda with Atom as far as not being too hyped for this movie. It just looks kinda odd to me so far. As Atom said, I don't find it very cinematic. I don't feel like it has it's own life. I feel like they are throwing too many "main" characters into this film, the same reason why x-men never really worked for me and why I'm so glad that a new justice league movie has yet to be made. I just don't think it'll work all that well... If the cast has good chemistry, they could pull it off, but I just don't see it going that way from the trailer. Plus the guy who places David Banner just looks out of place in this movie.
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 379 Enthusiast
    edited October 2011
    Don't get me wrong- I'm both a writer AND a huge comic book lover.
    But neither of those really have anything to do, or give any validation, to directing. And directing a huge movie like Avengers, no less. Whedon was a cheap, budget choice that appeased some fans. But he has terribly mismanaged this from a cinematic standpoint. Who cares if the guy can write mesmerizing comic plot arcs- movies are movies. What's the point of the translation to the medium if it's not done by someone adept at the medium.
    Look, I'm not blaming this all on Whedon- I think much of it has to do with reports of Marvel crunching numbers and cutting corners/speeding through production to save money (to which I say: Why??? In the age where Harry Potter is willing to spend $300 million but makes back 2.5 billion on the last two films)- and that's evident in the production. There's just a complete lack of vision and/or talent in the way it's presented. Looks and feels like people in costumes.
    Seriously, how is this not more obvious to others?
    I mean, I hate to bring it up- but even (a movie I actually like quite a lot of and think is extremely underrated) the 30-second teaser trailer for Daredevil have more vision, inspiration, and cinematic grandeur than any of the Avengers shots.
    I mean, even in just quick, pedestrian, plain shots there's just a massively better understanding (or at least realization) of film language:
    [img]http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/574/unled3vt.png[/img]
    [img]http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6449/unled2us.png[/img]
    [img]http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/5872/unled1bms.png[/img]
    [img]http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5064/unled1gjw.png[/img]
    I mean it really just speaks for itself. Overly-bright, overly-wide, cheap-feeling. From acting to setting to costuming to pace to production design. Just one big, cringe-worthy 'fail' in my book.
  • madmike
    madmike Posts: 135
    I liked the trailer for what it was. I think they have rushed this out though. I mean their is no mention of the supposed alien race which is supposed to be the skrulls or due to copyright with the fantastic four series it has been rumoured that whedon would use the version of shapeshifters from the Ultimates universe. It does look clean and shiny but then so did all the others such as Iron Man and especially Thor so it matches them.
    Daredevil is a dark character (and this post has reminded me I must try and find to watch the directors cut), still even Sam Raimi's Spider-man films had a touch of darkness.
    I am looking forward to the Avengers. And I want to see people in costumes.
    I havent read a comic in years so I don't know if Whedon what Whedon's comic book talents are but he did ok with Buffy. That being said Buffy was for TV. However Serenity dealt with an ensemble cast too and I loved that movie.
    Andrew - your point is well made and obvious in the images as examples still its a popcorn movie and I will enjoy it the one feeling I get at the moment is it just doesnt seem epic enough. (due to the budget maybe) Oh look its Loki. We see nothing else. Yes he is a God. Well isn't that the purpose of Thor 2. I think we wont really see a real trailer until closer to time of release, well hopefully.
    and am I the only one that things the whole AVENGERS ASSEMBLE thing is just corny.
  • Darren
    Darren Posts: 164
    While it may not be the first superhero team movie, it does have an advantage of each of the major characters having their own standalone movie or two for us to know what the character is about so really, The Avengers doesn't have to waste any time on an origin story. So it would be interesting in what they pack in.
    I'm a fan of Joss Whedon so I am interested in seeing this.
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    edited October 2011
    It looks cheap because it will make money regardless of how good it is just based on the fact that they've been building up this hype for like three years about it. They don't care if it's artful or well presented, because people will go see it just because it has Scarlett Johansson in tight leather, and huge explosions in a city, and Iron Man. It's the same thing that gets movies like Transformers made. It doesn't need to have a plot or any depth at all, just lots of CG and explosions and sexy girls. The target audience is not the type of person who appreciates great cinematography or writing or directing, it's the kind of person who wants to sit in a dark room with a hundred strangers and watch stuff blow up for two hours before going home and forgetting all about it until the sequel.
    Films like Spider-Man and Daredevil and the Ang Lee Hulk were from a different time, when the superhero film trend was new and we didn't get one or two of them per year like we do now. I didn't like Daredevil, but the directors cut is much better, and I definitely agree that it's more thoughtfully composed than newer movies. Now that studios have realized that superhero movies make bank, the market is saturated with them, and we get crap like this with zero heart and artistry behind it. "Make the most money possible" is always the goal with movies like this, so we're lucky if there's even a hint of creativity and artistry in them. The only one of the latest Avengers movies that I think pulled that off was Thor, and even that wasn't great.
  • RodyPolis
    RodyPolis Posts: 612 Just Starting Out*
    Well in defense to Transformers, (since you mentioned it) these movies do have pretty great cinematography!
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    edited October 2011
    I don't personally like the Transformers films (I refuse to watch the third one), but I can't deny that Michael Bay is great at what he does. The films do have amazing visuals, but like I said, that's kinda the whole, and only, point.
  • Pooky
    Pooky Posts: 46
    Oh man, Dark of the Moon was weird in the sense that it was so chock-full of action, but so utterly devoid in any form of excitement. Even going into it knowing full well that I just wanted a bit of excellent VFX work and some thrilling action, I was left completely and utterly disappointed. It's so huge and overdrawn that it's dull.
  • madmike
    madmike Posts: 135
    I could still watch the animated Transformers Movie and get more from that than the Michael Bay films.
    But I am one of this people that like to see it in a dark room lol with lots of strangers. I do this to go and watch what I call pop corn movies. But that doesnt mean I dont appreciate other films. My favourite movie of the year was Trollhunter. A great film that is already destined for a mega bucks blockbuster that will in all likelyhood be crap compared to the original. Still the last film I saw at the cinema was Abduction (not my choice) and if that can make money with the dialogue as bad as it was, I'm sure Avengers as a popcorn movie will rake it the case.
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 379 Enthusiast
    I think you were all missing my mention of budget though, with reference to Harry Potter.
    Now, Transformers has been an artful, well-composed series, regardless of content- and there's obvious care, skill, talent, and budget behind it's exploits. From that side of it, those films succeed- and in my opinion that's why they've made the money they have.
    But ultimately, and this is the truth, the largest of films that make the largest of money do it because of their source material being handled with care, quality, time, and budget.
    Look at The Dark Knight- it was an adeptly-made comic book film, albeit overrated, but handled with appropriate talent and time. And the quality from that is evident. And hey, the film was, at it's time, the largest box-office return. Same with Spiderman. Same with Spiderman 2. Same with the last two Harry Potter films. (The final of which currently holds the largest opening weekend gross of all time.)
    These movies make sustained money because of their quality. Sure, there's the school of thought that source material will carry you to the bank, and it's a tragic truth of Hollywood- but the most sensible of studios know that the franchises that truly rake in the cash do it because of the talent and presentation behind them.
    Slashing the budget and picking 'safe bet', pedestrian, uninspired choices like The Avengers has may amount to a good opening weekend- but it can't sustain without favorability on some fronts. Transformers 2, even, may have been critically slammed, but it had spectacle to it and cinematography alone that was, undeniably, beautifully assembled.
  • madmike
    madmike Posts: 135
    I'm sure I read somewhere and I really cant remember where that some big hollywood money man basically said that story was no longer important and they could just throw money at anything and just basically have explosions and get bums on seats.
    Regardless of what we think they will spend on what they want or not as they choose. Avengers may suffer for it and while I do like my superhero movies. Never understood the critism that daredevil got as I enjoyed the film. and I didnt really enjoy the spider-man movies, despite being a big Sam Raimi fan before he filmed them.
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 379 Enthusiast
    edited October 2011
    I know what you mean, madmike- and I certainly empathize with the disdain for much of what is out there.
    But- in a world where Warner Brothers is the biggest and most powerful film studio not just in Hollywood, but in the world- and their largest tentpole films are all helmed by well-worn, extremely talented people with massive budgets- it's hard for me to do anything but simply reject that as a real or actually-used concept.
    Inception, Sherlock Holmes, The Dark Knight, Harry Potter 7, The Dark Knight Rises. Hell, even Tron Legacy. Or even the atrocious Green Lantern- just another testament to big studios being willing to take chances on strong story ideas and visionary filmmakers with something that has brand equity- even when it doesn't fully work out.
    There's dollar returns, but it's also showbusiness. Even the big evil Hollywood studios look to what is solid, quality, and worthwhile to produce. No one says 'hey, let's make a bad movie', after all. :)
  • DanielGWood
    DanielGWood Posts: 1,018 Just Starting Out

    But surely he would be more than a match for anything from this world, especially his hammer versus cap america's shield
    To be pedantic, Captain America's shield is not of this World. At least not in the recent film, I have no idea about the comics.

    Ehhhhh, no that's wrong.
    The opening in South America was to help 'ease audiences in' to the reboot, but they are completely separate, unrelated films otherwise. There's even a complete opening sequence and flashbacks in the first act that show just how Bruce became the Hulk, and how Betty was involved. They show him in the seat and the effect of gamma radiation similar to that of the Bill Bixby TV series.
    It's completely different from the Ang Lee film, and as the cast, origin, and style is totally different, I wouldn't at all consider one a continuation of the other.
    Agreed, I thought the Incredible Hulk film was a very separate film too (and much preferred it).
    Andrew: I agree that it doesn't look visually stunning in the trailer, but I didn't really expect it to. It looks like Iron Man, as others have mentioned. Yes, it is what mike calls a "popcorn film". That's why I'll be watching it, and I expect I'll enjoy it as such.
    Harry Potter films are a poor argument and an unfair comparison though. Those films would have made money, probably just as much money, if they hadn't been as well done as they were. There's mention of Marvel spending 3 years hyping Avengers up earlier in the thread.. well the final Harry Potter film had about a decade of hype. People had also seen 7 films in the same series before it. The Harry Potter films didn't corner the kids audience, they just plain owned it. I don't think there will ever be a comparable film series, where the studio is as-guaranteed to make money from day 1, and has 7 books of material to work from.
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 379 Enthusiast
    Harry Potter films are a poor argument and an unfair comparison though. Those films would have made money, probably just as much money, if they hadn't been as well done as they were.
    No, this is exactly, exactly my point. Though the Potter films could've been terrible and still made money- or rushed out in 6 years- Warner Bros. choose to do it right, to put the right money and time into them, and we're rewarded with the quality and critical consensus the film's received. Does this directly translate to dollars and cents? Not necessarily. But that's exactly my point. For all the hooplah about the big bad evil Hollywood studio, the biggest of all still spends the money they didn't have to in order to make something good.
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    For all the hooplah about the big bad evil Hollywood studio, the biggest of all still spends the money they didn't have to in order to make something good.
    Harry Potter is sort of a special case, though. If they had rushed and made a crap version of Harry Potter, the legion of fans would have been upset. In that case, even if they made money on it initially, they still stand to lose money in the long run because people won't want to go back and rewatch a bad movie, or support it in other ways. Making a great movie that also has a built-in fan base will always make more money than a cheaply produced film with a built-in fan base, or a brilliantly produced film without a fan base. Maybe not right away, but over time for sure.

    Warner Bros produced Harry Potter on a large budget with a great cast and crew because without those things, it wouldn't work. They knew that HP would be a huge, long-term success if done right, so of course they spent the money to do it right, because they knew they would make all of that money back and then some. It wasn't nearly as much of a risk as Lord of the Rings was for New Line, for example, and it wasn't a choice that was made out of artistic merit, because that's not how Warner Bros works. They produce great films because great films make money; not the other way around. I wouldn't say they're "evil", but they are a corporation, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a corporation whose business outline doesn't list "Profit" as a major goal.
  • madmike
    madmike Posts: 135
    In regards to the Thor / Captain America issue it has already been said in an interview with Tom hiddleston that the only Avenger that can stand toe to toe with Loki is Thor even though they all get a crack at him. I do disagree with this as Hulk is the strongest one there is :0)