What people DIDN'T like from The Avenger ........Spoilers - Part 1

[Rock Sexton]

Originally Posted by marvelman2006

- The aliens were stockpile cardboard villian cutouts and who posed as much threat as an ant.

Aside from a film's primary antagonist, what movies in this genre have shown the foot soldiers to be anything but goons who get squashed?

[Ms.Seabot]

Originally Posted by The Guard

And this is the problem I have with THE AVENGERS. The character development isn't nonexistent, but its almost arbitrary, or vaguely connected to the heroes current storylines, instead of the characters themselves. And it's not well set up, or well handled. They picked the wrong elements to focus on in my mind, and there were some rather obvious missed opportunities. It almost seems like the writer/s had to invent childish, simple, somewhat character-related conflicts instead of dealing with inherent character conflicts.

Completely agree! But I do keep in mind that their aim is towards a younger audience. The movie was really long and some scene dragged on for too long so with so many characters theres no way they can develop them all. They tried to development Stark/IM but felt they rushed it. He IS self-sacrificing and when Cap mentioned he wasn't..well, just mean words to get Stark pissed. So when he was willing to fly the missile into space, though it was dramatic(most dramatic in the whole movie imo) it didn't come as a shock.

[Mr. Immortal]

Love the film, but it also makes me think we'll never get a lot of moments we dreamed of because of the movie medium. A lot of character study stuff *that can only happen between two characters* wasn't elaborated upon. Like Cap and Tony discussing Tony's dad for instance. That could be a beautiful scene, but it would take time and have to be done well. But we've already seen in The Avengers, that such things will be cut to streamline an already long movie.

So... I guess it's the fault of the medium more than anything. Joss did touch upon it for like, one second. So.. guess it's better than nothing.

[Spider-Fan]

Originally Posted by The Guard

IRON MAN

Tony was apparently very selfish, though he hadn't been portrayed as selfish when the chips were down in two previous films. Iron Man had already shown he was willing to place himself in harm’s way to protect innocents in two previous movies, and there was never a point in those movies when he indicated that he was selfish enough not to do so. Captain America saying “You don’t care about anybody but yourself” doesn’t make it so any more than Iron Man saying that Captain America is what he is because of a test tube makes it true. So the climax of the movie, as cool as it is, as powerful as it is, hinges on Iron Man developing in a way he never needed to develop. And while the moment still works, the actual character development is really thin.

Or is that not it? Is it deeper than that? As the movie opens, Tony is his usual sardonic self, he wants to get laid, and he's making fun of Coulson a bit, and he tries to get out of going to the Avengers. But then, at the end of the movie, Iron Man suddenly decides that he cared about Phil. What has changed about his character based on where he was in regard to Coulson's death? Nothing except he's sad for some reason. It could be argued that suddenly he recognizes that there are others in this fight, but hes a genius, isn't he? He already knows this. Why is this the conflict Avengers chose to deal with with a great character like Tony Stark? That he doesn't make fun of Coulson anymore? That he can be sad?

I'll give them this. Tony has started to become less of an egomaniac, and to recognize the contribution of the little people in IRON MAN 3, then this will be character development. But it didn't happen in this movie.

Why didn't the movie deal with Tony 's inherent ego and narcissim in the context of the team? About the way he'd doubtless want to be in charge, make all the calls, and legitimately have trouble working with others aside from just calling them names? Why didn't it deal with real issues which are easy to interwine with what's already going on?

The justification for Stark's selfishness was VERY evident in the IM films. In those movies, everything was about Tony. Directly in IM2, his self-destructive ways were ruining his reputation and the bonds that tie him to his friends. The Iron Man armor itself can be seen as selfish because he is trying to atone for his personal sins, and while it does good in the process, it can be seen as a pursuit of ego over good. Stark by nature is selfish, so the arc in this film makes sense.

CAPTAIN AMERICA

Captain America is apparently befuddled by the modern world's sayings. Kay. that's kind of amusing. Why isn't the film also dealing with actual issues, like Captain America not realizing quite how much the world at large has changed, especially in military terms, and having to come to terms with that, and the way things work, or don't work, now? Why doesn't he have some conflict about being a leader to a team of modern heroes?

Cap also had to learn to gain the respect of others, as well as take criticism. He did feel above others (Stark mostly) and didn't seek to question Fury out of his desire to see a more black and white world, and his arc allowed him to be a leader in a more modern setting because he questioned more, and learned to see the best in others (again, mostly pertaining to Stark who he saw as a brat).

THOR
I don't see any character development here. He already had to fight his brother in THOR, fighting him again on Earth is just more of the same. There's a whisper of "I'm a God and you're just humans", but it's not explored. Why isn't there some kind of development in regard to Thor's role on Earth, and his role in The Avengers?

Thor also showed that he cared about what was happening and felt it was partly his fault since Loki's fight with Thor was causing war here. He has a scene with Coulson which shows this. Plus, he is still trying to save his brother. He tries several times to convince Loki to stop. Thor's quest was one of family and devotion to Midgard.

THE HULK

Bruce Banner doesn't want to be The Hulk because he can hurt people, but he finds out The Hulk can be a hero. That’s his interesting arc? The most obvious thing about his character, which has already been explored in two prior films, is his arc again here? And we don't even get to see a struggle to it. For all the talk I heard about Banner “fighting his demons”, you only see it in his transformation scene with Widow. And the scene is played so quickly that he’s already clearly lost the battle to The Hulk. The rest of the time he’s bemoaning his state, or he's being quirky and fun, except for the scene with Tony. Yet the final scene comes and POOF, he can control The Hulk now. So Banner either could always control himself of late, or he suddenly learns to for the final battle. Because if we’re to believe its based on the speech Tony gave him, about being The Hulk for a reason…that’s incredibly thin, and not well handled at all. I do think that Banner has the best and most satisfying "arc" of the movie, but I don't think its handled particularly well.

Why isn't Banner dealing with The Hulk's violent nature, and what that means for/about Banner? It'd be a great chance for Captain America to interact with him on the subject.

TIH was about learning to "guide" the monster, and in this film he accepts it as part of himself. Stark helps him learn to see the monster as a hero, and not a monster. TIH's dynamic is vastly different in that regard. He guided the Hulk, and saw the value in controlling it but would rather have been rid of it still. So, it is a different story than TIH.

BLACK WIDOW

Natasha recognizes that she's done some bad things, but this doesn't go anywhere, or come from anywhere, really. Oh, and she is scared of The Hulk. So apparently her character development is feeling bad about things she did in the past, because she says so, and being scared of The Hulk. But it's never even remotely resolved. And it doesn't come from anywhere. We never SEE her do anything "bad" to begin with, and she never really changes as a character.

HAWKEYE
Hawkeye is turned into a mindless slave 30 seconds into his screentime. No development whatsoever. Meh.

I will agree Widow and Hawkeye change the least as characters.

FURY
Fury's making the hard calls. Kay. So why doesn't Fury have some kind of arc where he goes from being by the book, and willing to do what's neccessary to keep the world at large safe, to someone who, with Coulson and Captain America and The Avengers' help, ends up believing there might be a better way?

COULSON
Coulson's hero worshipping. Why not take it further? Why doesnt Coulson have some kind of "I'm a man among legends" angle, but instead of mere hero worship, explore the concept? Explore the fact that Captain America inspired him, and maybe a whole generation of younger heroes. Explore how much one man is willing to give, and make THAT the reason The Avengers band together when he dies. Not just the fact that he died. I dunno...it's sort of there, but again, not real well handled.

Coulson and Fury were all about the task at hand, and Fury showed he was willing to do what it takes to win, but he also didn't like what "winning" may entail, so we learned he has limits. Coulson was there because he had more pure faith in the heroes, and was willing to die to make this work. Do they change greatly as characters? No, but they do change.

And this is the problem I have with THE AVENGERS. The character development isn't nonexistent, but its almost arbitrary, or vaguely connected to the heroes current storylines, instead of the characters themselves. And it's not well set up, or well handled. They picked the wrong elements to focus on in my mind, and there were some rather obvious missed opportunities. It almost seems like the writer/s had to invent childish, simple, somewhat character-related conflicts instead of dealing with inherent character conflicts.

I am just gonna agree to disagree with you on this.

[The Guard]

@Guard
I don't think the point of the movie is supposed to be some immense character study on all of TA. That was what the individual movies leading up to it were for.

The individual movies were meant to develop the characters INTO the characters who were going to be in The Avengers.

No, it clearly wasn't meant to be.

My point is they could have probably achieved something that did a better job exploring the key themes and concepts of the characters and their interaction with the team, even in the context of how it's currently written.

[marvelman2006]

Originally Posted by Rock Sexton

Aside from a film's primary antagonist, what movies in this genre have shown the foot soldiers to be anything but goons who get squashed?

In transformers the decepticons lower ranking soldiers actually killed some autobots from time to time and the frost giants in thor were pretty menacing too.

[Drummerdude7]

Originally Posted by marvelman2006

In transformers the decepticons lower ranking soldiers actually killed some autobots from time to time and the frost giants in thor were pretty menacing too.

Frost Giants are a poor example. They too got all but obliterated by Thor. They did get some good hits in (impaling Fandral and etc.), but for the most part they were trampled.

Not to be confrontational, just my observation.

[Rock Sexton]

Originally Posted by marvelman2006

In transformers the decepticons lower ranking soldiers actually killed some autobots from time to time and the frost giants in thor were pretty menacing too.

The Frost Giants were menacing? They got their backsides handed to them by one guy.

As for the Transformers, in each installment there were nothing but goon Decepticons. They protected the story's main characters, much the same way all films of this genre do.

[Tanin]

I only have two real complaints worth mentioning.

1. It felt like Loki was simply a pawn the whole film to the man he was working for. Loki never gave off the aura of manipulation and that disappointed me.

2. Nick Fury would NEVER hire someone who was not 100% loyal to him. His bosses ordering an airstrike on Manhattan and them actually doing it just took me straight out of the film.

PS. Nick shooting the first plane in a way that it didn't kill the pilot was pretty badass.

[marvelman2006]

Originally Posted by Mr. Immortal

Love the film, but it also makes me think we'll never get a lot of moments we dreamed of because of the movie medium. A lot of character study stuff *that can only happen between two characters* wasn't elaborated upon. Like Cap and Tony discussing Tony's dad for instance. That could be a beautiful scene, but it would take time and have to be done well. But we've already seen in The Avengers, that such things will be cut to streamline an already long movie.

So... I guess it's the fault of the medium more than anything. Joss did touch upon it for like, one second. So.. guess it's better than nothing.

I am more fascinated in that stuff then a long over done round up scene for the heroes we've already established or the 10 minute long shot of the carrier taking off. I was really hoping we would have gotten a scene with cap and tony maybe even sitting drinking talking about his dad. or just the heroes in general talking besides fighting and whining.

[Rock Sexton]

Originally Posted by marvelman2006

I am more fascinated in that stuff then a long over done round up scene for the heroes we've already established or the 10 minute long shot of the carrier taking off. I was really hoping we would have gotten a scene with cap and tony maybe even sitting drinking talking about his dad. or just the heroes in general talking besides fighting and whining.

There is going to be a sequel. There is plenty of time to have more of these character moments. There is an issue with pacing and length that prevents a lot of things being in this particular film that we'd all surely like to see.

[Drummerdude7]

Originally Posted by Tanin

I only have two real complaints worth mentioning.

1. It felt like Loki was simply a pawn the whole film to the man he was working for. Loki never gave off the aura of manipulation and that disappointed me.

2. Nick Fury would NEVER hire someone who was not 100% loyal to him. His bosses ordering an airstrike on Manhattan and them actually doing it just took me straight out of the film.

PS. Nick shooting the first plane in a way that it didn't kill the pilot was pretty badass.

What do you mean? The council didn't have to be loyal to him...he was under THEIR command, not vice versa.

[The Guard]

2. Nick Fury would NEVER hire someone who was not 100% loyal to him. His bosses ordering an airstrike on Manhattan and them actually doing it just took me straight out of the film.

Ditto.

PS. Nick shooting the first plane in a way that it didn't kill the pilot was pretty badass.

I was trying to figure out why he was shooting at a nuke.

[Hotwire]

Originally Posted by KILLING JOKER

Yeah but he wasn't perfect. Just because his persona was used to create a modern reinvention of the character doesen't mean he works for the role. And I won't get into the fact that Nick Fury was white for 30 years before they made up this ultimate version.

Kind of an odd issue. Ultimate Nick Fury was based on Sam, with Sam's approval. Marvel went to him. Who else would you get to play Fury other than the actor he's based on?

[marvelman2006]

Originally Posted by Drummerdude7

Frost Giants are a poor example. They too got all but obliterated by Thor. They did get some good hits in (impaling Fandral and etc.), but for the most part they were trampled.

Not to be confrontational, just my observation.

in the frost giants defense thor did throw a big crater in the ground at them. you got the sense though thor would have died if odin didnt show up.

[Infinity9999x]

Honestly, the only thing I wished had happened in the movie was that I wanted to see Cap throw Tony's dad in his face during an argument. But other then that, I was completley happy with the film.

[Drummerdude7]

Originally Posted by marvelman2006

in the frost giants defense thor did throw a big crater in the ground at them. you got the sense though thor would have died if odin didnt show up.

Even before that, he was pummelling them all. Hell even Loki managed to take some down with relative ease....every cut to Thor showed him giving each Frost Giants' face a visit from his hammer.

But yes, when they were cornered at the fight's end, it didn't look too good for them.

[The Guard]

The justification for Stark's selfishness was VERY evident in the IM films. In those movies, everything was about Tony. Directly in IM2, his self-destructive ways were ruining his reputation and the bonds that tie him to his friends. The Iron Man armor itself can be seen as selfish because he is trying to atone for his personal sins, and while it does good in the process, it can be seen as a pursuit of ego over good. Stark by nature is selfish, so the arc in this film makes sense.

Everything is about Tony in the Iron Man movies because the plots revolve around his tech, and he himself, since he's the lead character.

He stops being selfish after he escapes the cave in Iron Man. By Iron Man 2, he's not being selfish. He's doing reckless things...but not so much selfish ones. He's giving the world the Stark Expo, and still being Iron Man and handling world affairs. His issue in Iron Man 2 is an issue of ego, not selfishness. In The Avengers, he's working on green energy for everyone, though it's being tested on Stark Tower (A plot element that strangely never goes anywhere)

And again, whether it is selfish that he is attoning for his sins or not, whether his tech is involved or not...he has repeatedly showed that he is willing to put himself in harm's way for innocents. This is why I say that the end of the movie...assuming it is developing him, develops him in a way he doesn't need to be developed.

It's not like he makes some "I won't be selfish anymore" resolution at the end of this movie. There's no such resolution to be found. He just stops being an ass for the battle, because a guy he knew died, or what have you. It's all very vaguely handled.

Cap also had to learn to gain the respect of others, as well as take criticism. He did feel above others (Stark mostly) and didn't seek to question Fury out of his desire to see a more black and white world, and his arc allowed him to be a leader in a more modern setting because he questioned more, and learned to see the best in others (again, mostly pertaining to Stark who he saw as a brat).

What criticism?

Learned to see the best in others? When did he see the worst? How is this relevant to Captain America as a character, who SHOULD be able to look for the best in others?

If all Cap saw in Stark was a brat, then Cap didn't do his homework. At all.

And being a leader in a modern setting isn't character development if nothing about you, as a character, changes. Far as I can tell, nothing did.

Thor also showed that he cared about what was happening and felt it was partly his fault since Loki's fight with Thor was causing war here. He has a scene with Coulson which shows this. Plus, he is still trying to save his brother. He tries several times to convince Loki to stop. Thor's quest was one of family and devotion to Midgard.

That's not character development, though. That's "emotion"

Trying to save your brother is not changing as a character yourself.

TIH was about learning to "guide" the monster, and in this film he accepts it as part of himself. Stark helps him learn to see the monster as a hero, and not a monster. TIH's dynamic is vastly different in that regard. He guided the Hulk, and saw the value in controlling it but would rather have been rid of it still. So, it is a different story than TIH.

TIH was mostly about trying to cure, and then learning to control himself, at the very end.

Banner has accepted The Hulk as part of himself in two previous movies.

Suddenly he hasn't, but yay, he has again!

Coulson and Fury were all about the task at hand, and Fury showed he was willing to do what it takes to win, but he also didn't like what "winning" may entail, so we learned he has limits. Coulson was there because he had more pure faith in the heroes, and was willing to die to make this work. Do they change greatly as characters? No, but they do change.

How do they change exactly?

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by The Guard

My point is they could have probably achieved something that did a better job exploring the key themes and concepts of the characters and their interaction with the team, even in the context of how it's currently written.

That's certainly debatable, but I guess that's what you're doing.

Anyways, I agree with some of your points, but don't really feel the same way about your overall idea. To each their own.

[Tanin]

Originally Posted by Drummerdude7

What do you mean? The council didn't have to be loyal to him...he was under THEIR command, not vice versa.

As the director of SHIELD and being the control freak that he is he I feel that he would have never allowed anyone on his ship that wasn't loyal to him. Not some stupid council.

I just don't see that character allowing someone who would be willing to fire a nuke at New York before he gave the okay onto his ship, bosses or not.

[marvelman2006]

Originally Posted by Rock Sexton

The Frost Giants were menacing? They got their backsides handed to them by one guy.

As for the Transformers, in each installment there were nothing but goon Decepticons. They protected the story's main characters, much the same way all films of this genre do.

I like to think so or atleast in the way they were presented in there home world setting. The point Im getting at with the transformers comparison was maybe it was bay's style or something but you got the sense any of those characters could die. I mean they killed a main character in jazz off in the first movie, then optimus in the second (ressurected) and ironhide in the third. I just never got the feeling in this movie at any time that the heroes were in any real danger. even when cap got shot and thor hit the car at the aliens and he was bleeding and it sucks because if Im not completely concerned for the heroes in a battle like that where they might die then theres no investment for me other then eye candy.

[Rock Sexton]

Originally Posted by marvelman2006

I like to think so or atleast in the way they were presented in there home world setting. The point Im getting at with the transformers comparison was maybe it was bay's style or something but you got the sense any of those characters could die. I mean they killed a main character in jazz off in the first movie, then optimus in the second (ressurected) and ironhide in the third. I just never got the feeling in this movie at any time that the heroes were in any real danger. even when cap got shot and thor hit the car at the aliens and he was bleeding and it sucks because if Im not completely concerned for the heroes in a battle like that where they might die then theres no investment for me other then eye candy.

Megatron killed Jazz. Megatron also killed Optimus. Sentinel Prime wasted Iron Hide ............ so again, what foot soldiers put up a good fight?

[Drummerdude7]

Originally Posted by Tanin

As the director of SHIELD and being the control freak that he is he I feel that he would have never allowed anyone on his ship that wasn't loyal to him. Not some stupid council.

I just don't see that character allowing someone who would be willing to fire a nuke at New York before he gave the okay onto his ship, bosses or not.

Oh I understand what you're saying now. Thanks for the clarification.

Tbh I dont see it completely unreasonable that the council would have a mole of sorts. They need to keep tabs on everyone I'm sure, especially Fury who has a penchant for defying direct orders.

[Tanin]

Originally Posted by Drummerdude7

Oh I understand what you're saying now. Thanks for the clarification.

Tbh I dont see it completely unreasonable that the council would have a mole of sorts. They need to keep tabs on everyone I'm sure, especially Fury who has a penchant for defying direct orders.

And not only one... but two apparently as he shot one plane down and another took off. In any case he needs to clean house.

[marvelman2006]

Originally Posted by Rock Sexton

Megatron killed Jazz. Megatron also killed Optimus. Sentinel Prime wasted Iron Hide ............ so again, what foot soldiers put up a good fight?

soundwave, starscream, shockwave, devastator(1st movie) and the tiger like decepticon in part 2. starscream and shockwave helped kill optimus in the woods. Granted Ill admit looking back now and talking alot of the foot soldiers didnt even have names and went down too. isnt it always though most of the time the main antagonist killing people and occasionaly the lower level guys join in?