How The Avengers could've been even better

[PSYLENTGuardian]

Well yeah, you have a point there. There are a lot of great individual moments that worked good enough for me. I should've said that I wanted to see some more background.
The recap for Captain America was just fine. I've heard of small scenes with Steve roaming around New York like a normal guy. I would've liked little things like that, without having to take away from straight-forward action.
I still think Thor could've been put in earlier without having to be thrust in. Don't get me wrong though, he made quite the entrance, and I loved the exchange between Thor and Loki that happened after.

As I said, I really like the movie the way it is, and I respect everyone's opinions here about what ideas they have to offer. The points I made were really just things that could've made me more comfortable with the characters.
But of course, this thread can't be all about me and what I think.

[Paladin-Hoss]

The recap for Captain America was just fine. I've heard of small scenes with Steve roaming around New York like a normal guy. I would've liked little things like that, without having to take away from straight-forward action.

I definitely agree with you here. i was expecting that the movie would be told from Steve's perspective, which i thought would be ideal...because he's an outsider, not only to the whole Avengers things, but to everything basically.

I'm not really dissapointed though. I'm happy enough with the movie as is.

[pyromaniac]

Originally Posted by \S/JcDc\S/

The excuses for the plot being simple as necessary are kind of mind blowing. I mean, did anyone see Xmen First Class? Plenty of characters on screen at once, plenty of good and bad interaction, and actual depth. I was expecting more of that for the Avengers than a popcorn flick. Eh

... As much as I loved XFC, I think TA achieved much better in terms of rounder characterisation, and sharper relevance to the story if not key plot points. Mags, Xavier, Mystique, Beast and Shaw were probably the only characters who were given any real depth in terms of sociopolitical struggle and growth (or lack thereof), which elevated the film by large, whereas others felt a little glossed over or condensed, or simply chewed up the scenery.

Who's Havok? He was in jail for misusing his powers... Somehow. And controlled his red hoops (ha ha). Who's Banshee? He scared off a girl and learned to fly. Who's Darwin? He drove taxis and sacrificed himself, which was nice, but still. Who's Angel? Her switching sides was a little too quick, and without any moral resistance. I just felt they existed to propel the more important characters' actions, such as Xavier's tutelage or Shaw's fattening up the numbers. The writing made it seem as if they were peripheral... And they contributed little to the outcome in the ending, just made for a nice spectacle. If Havok and Banshee had actual dialogue with Angel regarding her traitorous turn, that would have been better writing and also economically written, personally. Since they bonded and all, at the start. Beggars can't be choosers, of course, and just my minor gripes. Though I know some would have agreed with me on this.

I do know that both Havok and Angel's backstories were actually filmed, or talked about, but cut for story economy, according to the producer. I actually don't mind that the rest of the villains were goons, more or less (though in Emma Frost's case, I can understand why she may have seemed under-utilised, considering how important she is in the comics) but in the interests of argument, I have to maintain that all the characters for TA were more prominent and evoked varying degrees of emotional resonance than in XFC. I'm not arguing that Mags and Xavier didn't have their own, I'm just pointing to the consistency of TA that was missing in the former.

Cap: his man-out-of-time status in tandem with his growing confidence as a natural, stoic, commandeering leader as well as his head-to-head dynamics with Iron Man. You immediately get that he is still a human underneath the costume, but that he'll always do the right thing.

Iron Man: cocky, self-centered, snarky, and a self-appointed genius yet the only one in a stable relationship with Pepper Potts, who shows his growth by not hesitating to throw himself on the grenade. In fact, politically speaking, he provides that element in the form of 'green' energy powering up his Stark Industries building, and being a pioneer in that respect.

Hulk: the intellectual underdog with bumbling, awkward tendencies, who becomes comfortable in his skin by coming to terms with the fact that he's 'always angry'. He also is key to discovering the source of gamma radiation, with science, and inspires an unspoken fear in SHIELD and Black Widow. And of course, steals the show many times.

Thor: he who comes out from nowhere, literally (I quite liked that; not everyone has to have a drawn-out introduction), Shakespearean-speak, 'friendly' rivalry with Hulk, and informs his brotherly squabbles with Loki, both desperate and angry, into the context of shared concerns with saving the planet.

Hawkeye: a silent, loner type of agent though has plenty to say and both symbolically and literally sees things from afar when he means business, in a slightly off-kilter sort of way. His mind control aspect was vital to the plot, not only because he single-handedly brings down the heli-carrier since he knows its design from inside out, literally, and being the 'goal' for Black Widow to save, but also because it helps illuminate the hint of a backstory between the two agents. That he, simultaneously loyal to SHIELD and double-agent-y in certain circumstances, understands Black Widow much more.

Which brings us to Black Widow, of course: a spy who doesn't hesitate to be manipulative, cunning and uses her assets to her full potential. She is instrumental to figuring out how to stop the Tesseract. She talks about 'red in her ledger', hinting again at her not-so-angelic past, but also does not understand humour, at least in the way Iron Man does.

And of course there's Loki, whose flickers of hesitation (both genuine and concocted) and Machiavellian ways are tied up with Thor's arc, as well as of course, virtually everyone's. So, there is plenty of 'bad guy interaction': everyone has a vendetta against him in some way, and not only that, but they also showcase their powers in quite interesting and 'wow factor' ways.

And then we haven't touched both Coulson and Nick Fury, whose actions, hero worship and potential bigger-picture puppeteering drive the plot or give us a nice insight into their tics, and what it means to follow a superhero. Maria Hill is a lot more ambiguous, but who serves best as a support character and probably will be a little more fleshed out in the sequel, if Coulson's out of the way.

So, yeah, I reckon Whedon struck a near perfect balance in handling these characters, and hell of a lot more than in not only XFC but also the previous X-Men movies, dare I say it.

As for the point of this thread. I agree with the instigator of the thread on imbuing it with a little more thinking man depth, politics for the masses, but I THINK that the movie is subtle enough for you to draw parallels between the nature of SHIELD's organisation and Bruce's underclass trope or the issues of 'free' energy as unlimited energy that powers the planet, etc. After all, if it prompts you to start the thread and see some inkling of those, I think TA allows you to draw on such themes. In a way, the movie is deep enough without resorting to arthouse sensibilities, and of course the excuse that it has to be a blockbuster doesn't fly since there have been successful blockbusters that can be as philosophical as a five minute short. The decision to hold off on any possible sociopolitical leanings is probably borne of two reasons: to introduce capitalist, industrialist, and 'communist' themes may seem discordant when all you're doing is mythologising the origins of the Avengers and bringing them together through character dynamics and motives. And honestly, to have Cap go on a spiel about American virtues might be jarring when compared to the broader and universal appeal of TA in the international market (yes, I know, there are exceptions, like Spiderman and Superman but not when it comes to a team movie!). While they can be there if you look for them, to suggest a communist connection for instance might be superfluous and tenuous. And the second reason is, based on the ending and montage, that the trope of fear and hatred for the Avengers as well as SHIELD's slightly insidious agenda ("his secrets have secrets!") would be better explored in the sequel.

[pyromaniac]

Originally Posted by Paladin-Hoss

I definitely agree with you here. i was expecting that the movie would be told from Steve's perspective, which i thought would be ideal...because he's an outsider, not only to the whole Avengers things, but to everything basically.

I'm not really disappointed though. I'm happy enough with the movie as is.

You might have heard that Whedon had initially intended for it to be told from Steve's perspective, but that it would have added to the running time as well as probably take it away from the main plot, so it was cut. But his scenes were filmed, so take what you will.

Personally, I prefer the final cut, as I wanted to experience the movie through each Avenger's perspective, or multiple perspectives, because it limits their characterisation if we were learning about them through Steve's eyes. We had that plot device with the first X-Men movie, and it didn't always work. It was a team movie, at least for me, and of course I think we all agreed that certain characters got shortchanged... (plus, taking away those deleted scenes didn't help either).

[Lord]

Originally Posted by xeno000

It's amusing to me that there are people here who think they have ideas that could have improved one of the best movies of all time. Really amusing. As in, "laugh till I cry" amusing. Yep, let's go all-out obvious and beat the audience over the head with allegorical characters who depict stereotypical notions about certain countries/ideologies/nationalities. And throw in the outmoded capitalism/communism dichotomy to highlight geopolitical realities from the last century. That's entertainment, right there.

Coments like these are the reason these threads shouldn't be put into the Avengers movie section, it belongs there, but the fandom there is becoming like the Nolan one

[Paladin-Hoss]

You might have heard that Whedon had initially intended for it to be told from Steve's perspective, but that it would have added to the running time as well as probably take it away from the main plot, so it was cut. But his scenes were filmed, so take what you will.

Personally, I prefer the final cut, as I wanted to experience the movie through each Avenger's perspective, or multiple perspectives, because it limits their characterisation if we were learning about them through Steve's eyes. We had that plot device with the first X-Men movie, and it didn't always work. It was a team movie, at least for me, and of course I think we all agreed that certain characters got shortchanged... (plus, taking away those deleted scenes didn't help either).

yeah, ultimately, i understand why they go through this route. With focusing things with just one character, there's always the danger of that one character taking the focus away from all the others if the writers are not careful.

That's what happened to the first two x-men movies. To this day, i still hear some people complaining that, while it's an ensemble movie, it's basically Wolverine movies ( i disagree, but that's whole other discusion)

Coments like these are the reason these threads shouldn't be put into the Avengers movie section, it belongs there, but the fandom there is becoming like the Nolan one

Whoa...easy there, pardner!

Unless The Avengers fans started to invade other threads,to bash other CB movies while praising The Avengers, or drop Wheddon name ALL THE TIME, even in discussion not related to CB movies, or keep suggesting Wheddon and Ruffallo in virtually EVERY cb movies casting suggestions...i'd say we Avengers fans still got a LOOONG way of catching up with those funky hardcore Nolanites.

Reason why some people here can comes across as a li'l touchy is because we're kinda tired now of reading this; 'LuLz AvEnGeRz HaZ no PlOtZ LuLz!11 , iZ no DeEp MoViE LuLz!!11'

...almost all the freakin time there's something to celebrate about the movie. Hell, one dude even start complaing about the movie plot on the BO thread! for no reason!

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Lord

Coments like these are the reason these threads shouldn't be put into the Avengers movie section, it belongs there, but the fandom there is becoming like the Nolan one

Seriously. If the movie is perfect then there's no reason to discuss it. It's not, though, so I am very curious about these suggestions. I for one thought the pacing was great but could have done with a little more time with Steve Rogers. Everybody seemed to have great character developing moments but him. Hawkeye with Widow, Banner with Stark, Thor with Coulson, just to name a few. Rogers was usually either quiet, all about the mission, or giving Stark an attitude. He felt a bit different from the kid he was in The First Avenger.

That can be seen as a good thing but the viewer is kind of left to assume he's just miserable all the time because of the time he's lost along with friends and family. I would've liked to have seen that scene with the waitress that was deleted. See more of how Rogers is dealing with today's world because the impression I got from him was that of isolation and loneliness. He didn't seem to want to interact with anybody or even form any connections. It was strictly about the missions for him. One can argue that he's a soldier and that's how he's supposed to be but I very much would have liked to have seen more of the man like we did with Banner and Stark. I felt they got the most development in the movie.

[pyromaniac]

Originally Posted by Paladin-Hoss

yeah, ultimately, i understand why they go through this route. With focusing things with just one character, there's always the danger of that one character taking the focus away from all the others if the writers are not careful.

That's what happened to the first two x-men movies. To this day, i still hear some people complaining that, while it's an ensemble movie, it's basically Wolverine movies ( i disagree, but that's whole other discusion)

The first two movies?

It's strange because Wolverine was like that in the comics, and I believe a unique meme was coined just for him: 'overused cash cow'. Which I think is a fair complaint.

[Paladin-Hoss]

^^ strange thing is, initially, i became a Cap fan because of the Ultimates. I think it's mainly because in the original marvel Universe, he's this annoying, smiling, boyscout character (IMO). then Millar came along and gave us this douchebag, racist and patriotic to the NTH degree cap...and i was instantly sold!

I wasn't expecting to like the movie version, because i knew he'd be more like the 616 version. But then..mainly becuase of Evan performance,i'm slowly beginning to like the character..and then there was this scene with Dr Erskrine and the skinny Steve Rogers...from that point on,i became a fan of the character. I think even more than the Ultimate version!

So yeah...personally i would LOVE for Rogers to take center stage... or at the very least, to have the movie give us more scenes aboout how he's dealing with today's world. But hey, i think that's exactly what we would get from Cap 2!

[Paladin-Hoss]

Originally Posted by pyromaniac

The first two movies?

It's strange because Wolverine was like that in the comics, and I believe a unique meme was coined just for him: 'overused cash cow'. Which I think is a fair complaint.

He is now slowly becoming overused in the comics..which just sucks for me personally because i'm a huge fan of the character.

But here's the thing about his roles in the movie version; it's kinda smart for them to push him to the forefront, because you just KNOW that in that ensemble, he's going to be the one character that the audience is gonna respond to.

I don't care what anybody says, compare to rest of the cast of characters, he sticks out like a sore thumb! Hell, you can have him switch roles with cyclops...and just gives him 10 minutes of screen time...he's still gonna be the one character the GA going to remember the most. He's like a Canadian Clint Eastwood with metal claws and a bad attitude! what's not to like?

In the Avengers movie...everybody is equally cool. They are all stand out characters.

The first two movies?

hehe..was X-3 also focused on Wolvie? i can't remember..

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Paladin-Hoss

He is now slowly becoming overused in the comics..which just sucks for me personally because i'm a huge fan of the character.

But here's the thing about his roles in the movie version; it's kinda smart for them to push him to the forefront, because you just KNOW that in that ensemble, he's going to be the one character that the audience is gonna respond to.

I don't care what anybody says, compare to rest of the cast of characters, he sticks out like a sore thumb! Hell, you can have him switch roles with cyclops...and just gives him 10 minutes of screen time...he's still gonna be the one character the GA going to remember the most. He's like a Canadian Clint Eastwood with metal claws and a bad attitude! what's not to like?

In the Avengers movie...everybody is equally cool. They are all stand out characters.



hehe..was X-3 also focused on Wolvie? i can't remember..

And that's what makes Avengers and X-men: First class so awesome. In the former's case it was learning from X-men's mistakes and deciding not to make the most popular character (Iron Man) the central focus. He had his moments but so did everybody else. In the case of XFC, not being able to use Wolverine actually forced them to do good work with the team. Something the previous X-men movies did not know how to do ('You guys hang out here while I go be badass 'cause I'm a rogue and all that.' Two movies in a row!).

Wolverine works, at least for me, in the same manner that Hulk works. The less you see of him the better. That makes his scenes even more badass. If the movie was just Hulk smashing everything or Iron Man taking out everyone with a satelite then what is the point of the rest of the team? That's how I feel with Wolverine in the X-men movies. He is very much the character that they put the weight of the franchise on and the other characters suffer for it. I mean how is Cyclops the douchebag for wanting to keep his relationship safe? I don't get it.

But to stay on topic, yeah, that's one aspect of Avengers I hope is kept throughout the series. That "Everyone's so awesome, I can't pick a favorite!" feeling.

[Paladin-Hoss]

^^ In hindsight ...yeah .They should have used Wolvie like they used the Hulk in The Avengers. But i kind of understand the reasoning behind putting him center stage...at least on the first movie.

You also have to consider the other characters in movie...when you compare them to Wolvie, they're kinda bland.

We don't have that problem, thankfully with the Avengers. And like you said, hopefully they'll keep that one aspect for the next installments.

[pyromaniac]

Originally Posted by Paladin-Hoss

He is now slowly becoming overused in the comics..which just sucks for me personally because i'm a huge fan of the character.

What do you mean, now? He was always oversold in the comics lol... Apparently. A bit like Spiderman, although I get the feeling there's less bemoaning about the latter because he is at least a lone superhero, whereas Wolverine falls into the team dynamics, whether it is X-Men or the Avengers.

Originally Posted by Paladin-Hoss

But here's the thing about his roles in the movie version; it's kinda smart for them to push him to the forefront, because you just KNOW that in that ensemble, he's going to be the one character that the audience is gonna respond to.

I don't care what anybody says, compare to rest of the cast of characters, he sticks out like a sore thumb! Hell, you can have him switch roles with cyclops...and just gives him 10 minutes of screen time...he's still gonna be the one character the GA going to remember the most. He's like a Canadian Clint Eastwood with metal claws and a bad attitude! what's not to like?

In the Avengers movie...everybody is equally cool. They are all stand out characters.

To borrow from Savage, I agree with his points, sorry. Your comments on Wolvie being the standout even if they switched him around with Cyke are exactly what I mean. The less of him, the better. Cyke would probably not be the breakout star, but he would have been more endearing if given better development, for instance.

Originally Posted by Paladin-Hoss

hehe..was X-3 also focused on Wolvie? i can't remember..

Didn't you hear? Wolverine loved Jean so much that he basically became Cyclops.

[pyromaniac]

Originally Posted by Paladin-Hoss

^^ In hindsight ...yeah .They should have used Wolvie like they used the Hulk in The Avengers. But i kind of understand the reasoning behind putting him center stage...at least on the first movie.

You also have to consider the other characters in movie...when you compare them to Wolvie, they're kinda bland.

We don't have that problem, thankfully with the Avengers. And like you said, hopefully they'll keep that one aspect for the next installments.

They're only bland because of the writing. While we'll never know what Whedon's script for that movie would be like, I can bet you that he would have made them vastly more interesting than what we got. After all, both Storm and Cyke's origins were written and we would have understood them more.

[Octavias]

The other thing to remember is that this movie is directly tied into where the MCU is headed with each individual character, and since they almost all have their own solo franchises there is ample area to expand their individual characters there. Its ppretty clear Captian America is being played as the man out of time angle, A soldier fighting for ideals from a different era and possibly disenfranchised by the direction the country he sacrificed so much for has taken (developing the same weaponry Hydra was, for instance).
Thor is a powerful entity that just became aware that the universe doesnt revolve around himself.. His father is fallable and his brother has betrayed them all. he is fleshing out this new reality that he has responsibilities he never contimplated before and is trying to act appropriately for the first time in his life.
Iron man is a reformed weapons contractor who has unknowingly enabled death and destruction on countless innocents and is trying to rectify that.
Banner is coming to grips that while he himself has no control over the Hulk, The Hulk isnt the evil soulless creature he thought it was and he can be used for good.

Yes, one could totally go in another direction with any of these characters, but they also have to be compelling heros on their own. No one wants to see a greedy Tony stark, a naive captian america, or a snobbish thor as a stand alone hero. There is a bigger picture to look at here....

The one thing I guess I do wish they had done was displayed a greater threat from the alien attack... that what we saw was justa first wave of shock troops and a greater, more potent force was following. It was sort of left to the imagination as to what was on that ship....

[Savage]

Originally Posted by pyromaniac

They're only bland because of the writing. While we'll never know what Whedon's script for that movie would be like, I can bet you that he would have made them vastly more interesting than what we got. After all, both Storm and Cyke's origins were written and we would have understood them more.

Exactly. Wolverine took the focus away from everyone else. They even showed that they're useless against someone like Toad without him. How were these guys supposed to defeat Magneto without Wolverine? Sabretooth would have destroyed them, apparently, if Mystique didn't kill them first. It was just so obvious that in the series the mentality was "if the X-man is not Wolverine or Rogue then who cares?" The characters are not bland in the comics, they did not have to be in the movie.

It was obvious they wanted to make a Wolverine movie but had to involve the X-men first and just selected them by powers or interpersonal relationships. (Jean Grey: Love interest, Cyclops: Love interest's love interest, Xavier: Leads X-men so necessary, Storm: We need a black character and another woman, Rogue: We can't afford Jubilee or Shadowcat). Further evidenced by their selection of brotherhood members. They were all practically mute (a tradition that continues with the villains in X-sequels). Sabretooth's relationship with Wolverine is right there knocking them in the face and they didn't touch it because they probably just thought "Who's Wolverine's nemesis? Yeah, let's put him in there."

Not trying to get off topic. Just showing where The Avengers succeeded.

[Paladin-Hoss]

Didn't you hear? Wolverine loved Jean so much that he basically became Cyclops.

LOL! ok...that was funny

They're only bland because of the writing. While we'll never know what Whedon's script for that movie would be like, I can bet you that he would have made them vastly more interesting than what we got. After all, both Storm and Cyke's origins were written and we would have understood them more.

I dunno...I think that even if they're well written,the results would have been the same. It's like Han Solo and Luke...Han is just going to be the popular one, no matter what. I persoanlly think it's the character themselves, not the writing.

With The Avengers, it's a different story. In the comics, they're a group comprised of the most popular characters marvel's got to offer.Each and everyone of them got that special 'IT' factor...if you know what i mean. the one factor that got them popular with the fans in the first place. In those X-men movies...it was only Wolverine.

But yeah...like i said, in hindsight, they should've handled it differently.

W

hat do you mean, now? He was always oversold in the comics lol

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by Lord

Coments like these are the reason these threads shouldn't be put into the Avengers movie section, it belongs there, but the fandom there is becoming like the Nolan one

Well, I could have come right out and said that I thought the OP's ideas for improving the movie were ********, but I didn't want to violate forum guidelines. The Avengers was not without flaws, but the suggestions made here would have done nothing but weighed the film down with outdated cliches. The depth came from the characters' personalities and interactions with one another rather than from hackneyed attempts at social commentary. To some the OP's ideas sound deep, but to me he mistook a kiddie pool for the ocean. Just my opinion, however. Yours may differ.

[eddy]

Originally Posted by PSYLENTGuardian

Well yeah, you have a point there. There are a lot of great individual moments that worked good enough for me. I should've said that I wanted to see some more background.
The recap for Captain America was just fine. I've heard of small scenes with Steve roaming around New York like a normal guy. I would've liked little things like that, without having to take away from straight-forward action.

You know, I thought I wanted those scenes to still be in the movie too. But after seeing the film so many times....I can't figure out where it would've fit in? The boxing scene is clearly his introduction, so is the scene before or after he goes on the helicarrier with Coulson? Cause with all the introductions of the characters going on, it would've been a bit out of place to show it before. And after he gets on the helicarrier, he goes to capture Loki, he finds the phase 2 weapons, they get into a big argument, they have to fix the ship, Coulson dies, they fly to NYC and fight off the invaders..So, where does the scene fit in? I always invisioned the scene with Stan Lee (wasn't there supposed to be one?) would take place at the diner right after the team splits up but theres no room for it in the movie. I haven't seen the scene of course but I just got this feeling that it would mess up the momentum of the film.

I feel like the movie would be 10 times better if they cut half the dialogue in the first 10 minutes of the film. Its just too slow. I wanted a fast paced action packed opening and Loki and Fury are talking to each other for like 5 minutes without doing anything. I feel thats the only real slip-up in the film. Whedon did the same thing in Serenity, although it was better executed there. The opening to Serenity has characters talking for long durations of time but it worked better there because it was a scene in a scene in a scene and kept you from getting bored.

[spider-neil]

For me the Alien enemy was pretty generic and rubbish. You could counter this by saying how memorable were the Storm Troopers in Star Wars it was Darth Vader who commanded them but the Storm Troopers look is pretty iconic in pop culture, will the Chitari be remembered a year from now by the general audience?

[jaqua99]

I think this is a horrible idea.

Its rocky 4 all over again

[pyromaniac]

Originally Posted by Paladin-Hoss

I dunno...I think that even if they're well written,the results would have been the same. It's like Han Solo and Luke...Han is just going to be the popular one, no matter what. I personally think it's the character themselves, not the writing.

With The Avengers, it's a different story. In the comics, they're a group comprised of the most popular characters marvel's got to offer.Each and everyone of them got that special 'IT' factor...if you know what i mean. the one factor that got them popular with the fans in the first place. In those X-men movies...it was only Wolverine.

But yeah...like i said, in hindsight, they should've handled it differently.

While I agree with you to a point, your logic follows that these characters, ripped directly from the pages of a comic, complex and interesting as they are, suddenly fizzle out on the big screen? What gives? And if they were going to be on the screen at all, why use them, and not others that could be more interesting? This assumes that Cyke, Jean, Storm etc are interchangeable, and that's no way to treat them lightly.

You're acting as if fan-favourite characters like Wolverine 'write themselves'. Even he has had some bad treatment in the comics, and when you're around as long as he is, with many different writers, you're bound to have some less then stellar stories. The loner with a heart of gold archetype doesn't automatically sell, you know? You have to know what direction to take him into, his reactions and attitude to different people and situations, etc. That's the writing part. I'm not saying that other characters cannot be more popular than Wolverine, and in fact it's still a testament to their creation that they have their own spheres of popularity, but I think one is giving Wolverine a little too much credit, is all.

It's like Superman; he's arguably the most iconic character in existence, but mainly because of what he represents rather than his personality. Some don't like the boy scout type, but as long as he's well written and stories around him are fantastical and interesting, people will continue to buy him. Conversely, Superman Returns and both Superman 3 and 4 were criticised for poor writing, and that's despite the most iconic character flying around in tights. The B. O. further reflects that.

And on the 'grounded' end of the scale, Black Widow was nearly one dimensional in Iron Man 2, despite her well-written, if not convoluted characterisation in the comics. It's speaking to the craft of a polished writer that Black Widow was elevated to more than the sum of her parts in TA.

Similarly, Iron Man was considered 'B-Grade' in the comics, apparently, but the actor combined with the script thrust the character into centre stage.

So it can't be the movie version of the X-Men's blandness. Especially when you consider that fans held fears that each Avenger might dominate one over the other, or fall into the background. Those fears proved to be unfounded. Which means it does come down to the writing itself.

Good point about Han Solo and Luke, but I think it was intentional. Luke is still the main character; but Han Solo's cowboy personality decrees that he is as popular if not more so with the audience. He functions best as a support character, which is precisely the reason why he's popular. It still doesn't take away from Luke and his journey, which is the most important part. After all, people still remember the 'Luke, I'm your father' meme that's endured since its inception.

I read the Avengers V X-Men comics last night, and Cyke is one of the key characters along with Wolverine. Both are as compelling as one another (as well as Cap), which proves my point that whoever wrote the final drafts for the X-Men movies need to be schooled by Whedon, and hard.

You can tell, sorely if I may add, that they shuffled the team around in order to give Wolverine prominence. I do happen to like Wolverine (hey, Hugh Jackman is eye candy), but you just feel that some characters exist to 'serve' his journey rather than on their merits, with possibly the exception of Rogue.

But one can't complain, when you consider that Singer's treatments for X-Men 3 and 4 would have thrust Cyke into centre stage. Even then, you still get the idea that he had no idea how to handle Storm; just read what he says about her. The team consistency needs to be maintained across the board, including the villains, and that's something Whedon has over Singer.

[pyromaniac]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

For me the Alien enemy was pretty generic and rubbish. You could counter this by saying how memorable were the Storm Troopers in Star Wars it was Darth Vader who commanded them but the Storm Troopers look is pretty iconic in pop culture, will the Chitari be remembered a year from now by the general audience?

I agree with you to an extent, but I think the audience just loves the superheroes more, which is enough compensation, and that's saying something. I think nobody cares about the Chitauri (they could have been more effective, but they were intentionally more of a McGuffin's device); whilst I can see that it'd nice to see people dress up as them the way they do with the storm troopers, the fact that the Avengers are given enough depth and emotion for us to care about them ensures that there will be many cosplays on the heroic side, let me tell you.

[Paladin-Hoss]

@ Pyro

When talking about the X-men,the comics side that is...what makes all the characters interesting are the backstories. The comics has the advantage that it can developed these characters years and years...and even the lest interesting characters will ultimately benefits from it....and you can't do that in movies because of time constraints.

There are also exceptions. There are characters that are interesting-either because how they look or the concept-right from the start. Wolvie, IMO is one of them. You can also add Gambit,cable just to name a few. Regardless how...hardcore fans may think, there's just something about these characters that instantly grabbed your attentions.

And now the Avengers...in my opinion,all the members of the roster are these kind of characters. Now , imagine if the Avengers movie roster comprised of guys like Thriatlon, Wonderman, and a couple more obscure guys...and then add, for example Iron Man. See what i mean?

And now back to X-men again.While it is logical to start the X-men movies with Scott, jean, Storm etc...None of these characters ( personal opinion only, guys!)really stands out.We comic fans likes them because we know their history and whatnot.

And to add another example; imagine putting Dexter in the CSI; Miami. While the characters in CSI;Miami may be well written as well,you know who's gonna win the pupularity contest, or who the producers'll think should be put more in the forefront.

Now, if you put Dexter in a team comprised of; Dexter, Paul Kersey and Frank Castle...it'll be a different story.

And just for the record, i'm not saying that the X characters sucks or anything like that. It's just that with the characters they have chosen for the movie...i could kinda understand why they chose to put Logan on the forefront.

And these are all just my personal opinion.


PS; Don't bring up AvsX, dude! i'm still recovering from a major-let down-syndrome!

[Paladin-Hoss]

Originally Posted by pyromaniac

I agree with you to an extent, but I think the audience just loves the superheroes more, which is enough compensation, and that's saying something. I think nobody cares about the Chitauri (they could have been more effective, but they were intentionally more of a McGuffin's device); whilst I can see that it'd nice to see people dress up as them the way they do with the storm troopers, the fact that the Avengers are given enough depth and emotion for us to care about them ensures that there will be many cosplays on the heroic side, let me tell you.

Yep! my thoughts exactly.