Originally Posted by CConn
Made with a bit more care, talent, meaning and originality, etc.
As I just said in another thread an hour ago, in a lot of ways, The Avengers is little more than a series of well done action scenes paired with some snappy dialogue.
Snappy dialogue is a key element in a film that is about character interaction at it's core.
I don't see how having a lot of action lessens it's legitimacy as a film. The characters are superheroes. Action is what they do. It's like pointing out that a gangster film is a lot of shooting paired with hypermasculine posturing.
So I'm confused, because what you have used to dismiss the film are what I see as it's greatest strengths.
I like X-Men First Class, but it's flaws are far greater than those of The Avengers. The biggest one being that Xavier and Magneto's friendship lasts about a week. One thing The Avengers never does is rush the characters into developing. The Avengers is perfectly paced in that regard.
The biggest talent was Fassbender and McAvoy. Everybody else was simply OK. They faded into the background, which did not happen to any character in The Avengers. Who were all played fantastically.
I don't see how First Class had more care when it was a rushed production, compared to The Avenger's slow build up over many films.
The only thing original about it was the 60's setting. Which Vaughan blatantly stated was an excuse to riff on James Bond cliches. So not that original at all.
I guess Magneto's character arc was more meaningful than those of The Avengers. Unfortunately it was rushed, as I said before.
I think that what you mean by 'legitimate' is that First Class had a pretence of seriousness that The Avengers lacked. But the fact that The Avengers embraced it's fun side was it's greatest strength. I guess it didn't come across as a sophisticated movie. It just focused on being a good one.