The Avengers [Helicarrier -eq 2nd-Act]

[SE7EN]

Preface:

I'm a huge fan of the Marvel movies. I absolutely fell in love with RDJ's characterization of Tony Stark in Iron Man. I enjoyed Edward Norton's turn as the Hulk in the Incredible Hulk. I genuinely enjoyed Iron Man 2 even though I did feel that it wasn't quite as good as the first. I originally wavered, questioned, and eventually (after seeing it) found the faith in Thor. Finally (not sure why exactly (I'm a sucker for montages?)) I really bought into Captain America.

Introduction:

I enjoyed The Avengers. I really did. I laughed with everyone in the theater when Loki got his "come-upance". I laughed with everyone when the older gentleman talked to a naked Banner. I laughed at schwarma (sp?). I initially gawked and then understood Banner always being angry. Etc. Etc. As a culmination of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I dug the bad place out of this film.

Prelude:
With the above statements and time since release, I hope no one considers this as trolling. This is not in any way meant to insight anger or the fear of reprisal within the Marvel fanbase.

Question: (getting on with it already...)
With the exception of:
A: It was in the comics
-and-
B: It looked damn cool

...What was the point of the Helicarrier other than a plot device to drive the entire second act?

Postlude:
I could write more explanation of my question, but I'll leave it at this for now and get a feel for the feedback before expounding or reiterating. Thanks for humoring my silly question!

 

[Robin91939]

With the exception of:

A: It was in the comics
-and-
B: It looked cool

...What was the point of New York City being used in the final battle other than a plot device to drive the entire third act?

-R

 

[Robin91939]

The Helicarrier was used as a location to place the team. This is really a stupid question that you're asking. It's like asking the above question that I asked about New York City. Or: "Other than it being an iconic spot for Spider-man and the Green Goblin to fight in the comics, why was the final fight in Spider-man partially on a bridge?"

It's like this:
S.H.I.E.L.D. has a permanent base of operations. That base of operations is destroyed when the first portal closes on itself upon Loki's arrival. They need a new base of operation as a result. They have this thing they own called a Hellicarrier. It's big, it's huge, it's expensive and it's awesome. They assemble the team there and utilize it's resources to try and locate the tesseract.

It was a location, not a plot device. If a building people are in starts to fall apart or is attacked, is that a building now ONLY a plot device? No.

-R

 

[SE7EN]

Not entirely sure how to take your response at the moment. However, I will say (unlike New York) the Helicarrier is a HUGE Aircraft Carrier that hovers. Although I usually find the suspension of disbelief very easy for movies such as this, I found the inherent problems of a "floating air craft carrier" to be rather distracting. I only ask because I feel certain that there is a story element that can give me piece of mind other than A: It was in the comics and B: It looked cool.

If neither A nor B can be superseded, I then ask:
Why did they use a craft such as the helicarrier if it is so fragile to attack?

Again, not meaning to troll here...

 

[SE7EN]

The Helicarrier was used as a location to place the team. This is really a stupid question that you're asking. It's like asking the above question that I asked about New York City. Or: "Other than it being an iconic spot for Spider-man and the Green Goblin to fight in the comics, why was the final fight in Spider-man partially on a bridge?"

It's like this:
S.H.I.E.L.D. has a permanent base of operations. That base of operations is destroyed when the first portal closes on itself upon Loki's arrival. They need a new base of operation as a result. They have this thing they own called a Hellicarrier. It's big, it's huge, it's expensive and it's awesome. They assemble the team there and utilize it's resources to try and locate the tesseract.

It was a location, not a plot device. If a building people are in starts to fall apart or is attacked, is that a building now ONLY a plot device? No.

-R

I respectfully disagree... it was a plot device.

It was a plot device used to cause Cap and Tony to work together. It was a plot device to get Banner in a claustrophobic situation such that he was a danger to everyone.

There is a very big difference between this and the question about NYC. It could have been any city... It was Chicago in Transformer3. It will be Gotham in the new Batman movie. I will be Metropolis in the new Superman movie.

But the helicarrier is an enigma to me. Why risk such odds on a craft that is supported by four fans. To me it's like asking to get shot out of the sky...

EDIT: I'd like to add this...
I have no problem with the Helicarrier being a plot device. I'm just looking for a reason for its existence other than the aforementioned A and B.

 

[Chewy]

A) It allows SHIELD to move its entire base of operations from one place to another
B) It has some stealth measures so unless one knows exactly where to look (as Hawkeye did) it would not be easy to find
C) SHIELD is a police force not exactly authorized by the American government, so it allows them to watch over the US without stepping foot on US soil unless the need should arise
D) It's fairly heavily armed with lethal explosives and vehicles. It's like a mobile armory
E) It was in the comics and it looks cool

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

The helicarrier itself was NOT a plot device... plot deviced were simply ADDED to it. The helicarrier was going to be in the movie before the plot was even conceived for the same reasons Chewy ^^^ mentioned.

 

[SE7EN]

A) It allows SHIELD to move its entire base of operations from one place to another
B) It has some stealth measures so unless one knows exactly where to look (as Hawkeye did) it would not be easy to find
C) SHIELD is a police force not exactly authorized by the American government, so it allows them to watch over the US without stepping foot on US soil unless the need should arise
D) It's fairly heavily armed with lethal explosives and vehicles. It's like a mobile armory
E) It was in the comics and it looks cool

Great answer! Thank you. Those were the kind of reasons I was hoping for but am too ignorant of the comics/history to know going in.

Thanks again!

 

[SE7EN]

The helicarrier itself was NOT a plot device... plot deviced were simply ADDED to it. The helicarrier was going to be in the movie before the plot was even conceived for the same reasons Chewy ^^^ mentioned.

Fair enough but a regular schmuck like myself wouldn't know those insider details

 

[Vartha]

Preface:

I'm a huge fan of the Marvel movies. I absolutely fell in love with RDJ's characterization of Tony Stark in Iron Man. I enjoyed Edward Norton's turn as the Hulk in the Incredible Hulk. I genuinely enjoyed Iron Man 2 even though I did feel that it wasn't quite as good as the first. I originally wavered, questioned, and eventually (after seeing it) found the faith in Thor. Finally (not sure why exactly (I'm a sucker for montages?)) I really bought into Captain America.

Introduction:

I enjoyed The Avengers. I really did. I laughed with everyone in the theater when Loki got his "come-upance". I laughed with everyone when the older gentleman talked to a naked Banner. I laughed at schwarma (sp?). I initially gawked and then understood Banner always being angry. Etc. Etc. As a culmination of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I dug the bad place out of this film.

Prelude:
With the above statements and time since release, I hope no one considers this as trolling. This is not in any way meant to insight anger or the fear of reprisal within the Marvel fanbase.

Question: (getting on with it already...)
With the exception of:
A: It was in the comics
-and-
B: It looked damn cool

...What was the point of the Helicarrier other than a plot device to drive the entire second act?

Postlude:
I could write more explanation of my question, but I'll leave it at this for now and get a feel for the feedback before expounding or reiterating. Thanks for humoring my silly question!

Basically, the Hellicarrier was just a piece of equipment like any ship to a country, or business. The main HQ of SHEILD was destroyed with no other place to go in a hurry but too the Helicarrier.

 

[SE7EN]

Basically, the Hellicarrier was just a piece of equipment like any ship to a country, or business. The main HQ of SHEILD was destroyed with no other place to go in a hurry but too the Helicarrier.

That makes sense. Thinking about this more, maybe the "I don't get it" lump in the back of my throat may be more to do with just the Helicarrier in general.

When I watched the movie and first saw the thing, I thought "Wow, that's cool". Then all of a sudden, one of four fans is taken out, then two. Now the thing is about to go down. I realize this provides the necessary situations for the plot to play nicely on... great! However, I left the 2nd act wondering why anyone would want to float an aircraft carrier in the first place. Silly questions come to mind like: "how do the jets take off from it... just fall off the side?, etc."

I don't know. I can easily suspend disbelief for all of it... but for some reason, the helicarrier bothers me.

You guys have given really good responses. I appreciate it.

Maybe seeing again (I admit I've only seen it once) will help me get over it.

Thanks again guys
Cheers!

 

[ClarkLuther55]

The helicarrier was ridiculous. But this is a movie series with Norse Gods, a guy who turns green and super strong due to radiation (instead of getting cancer), Nazis with laser guns, and alien invasions. Its scifi fantasy.

If you're going to label the helicarrier as a "plot device," than everything is a plot device. It's another piece of high tech weaponry in a universe full of that kind of stuff. It's a base of operations, and a setting for fun action sequences. At the end, it's a threat to nuke New York City.

And I don't understand how you can label it weak or "fragile." The thing was staying in the air with just one out of four lift fans operational, and Iron Man was able to make repairs very quickly even while the ship was boarded and under attack.

If the helicarrier is "fragile" and "asking to get shot out of the sky"...then what are REAL aircraft carriers, which are considered key parts of the real US military? Real aircraft carriers can't fly, they sail at about 30 miles per hour. They don't have invisibility either. If they get hit by a bomb or a missile, they'll suffer serious damage as well. Their defenses are based on escorting ships, and the fighter aircraft that are stored onboard.

That's the thing. The helicarrier wasn't hit with a conventional attack. Hawkeye had a SHIELD Quinjet, and managed to get close by lying about delivering supplies. Once he was close, he bombed a critical spot, and was still unable to bring the ship down.

If the helicarrier was for real, it'd be an amazing weapon, able to bring down dozens of stealth fighters on targets around the world, without having to worry about slowly sailing around land masses.

 

[Octavias]

Im with everyone else... The hellicarrier is a pretty standard Shield mainstay in the comics... is it feasible? (maybe, there are reports the US was working on such an apparatus in the past....) but with what we know now its highly unlikely. Then again everything in the movie is highly unlikely... I mean nearly everything in the comic world, even in the ones they try to make semi-realistic, is really a bit of a stretch. Im not sure where you were going with the fragile statements... it seemed pretty durable to me. I mean military equipment is far from indestructable to begin with, and it took quite a bit of pounding and stayed in the air...

 

[Vartha]

Heh the Helicarrier in the movie is more feasible than the Blimp/Helicopter/lading pad of the 616 comics, and I'm not all that big of an Ultimates fan where the Helicarrier n the movie is based.
I just can't comprehend the POWER that it take to run such a thing. lol

 

[Octavias]

Heh the Helicarrier in the movie is more feasible than the Blimp/Helicopter/lading pad of the 616 comics, and I'm not all that big of an Ultimates fan where the Helicarrier n the movie is based.
I just can't comprehend the POWER that it take to run such a thing. lol

Beh they probably have a second cosmic cube down below... actually its designed by Stark so its probably arc reactor tech....

 

[Vartha]

Beh they probably have a second cosmic cube down below... actually its designed by Stark so its probably arc reactor tech....

Yeah a newer arc reactor makes sense because of the tower they lit up, but still that IS a heck of alot of power to lift something like that unless it's another form of metal the Helicarrier's made of.

 

[Xeno]

Yeah a newer arc reactor makes sense because of the tower they lit up, but still that IS a heck of alot of power to lift something like that unless it's another form of metal the Helicarrier's made of.

Howard Stark was working on the technology to levitate cars back in 1942. It's entirely possible that he or other scientists secretly perfected that system for SHIELD and it assists in keeping the Helicarrier aloft. Anti-gravity tech can't be the entire explanation, of course, since the loss of the turbines threatened to bring the craft down. But anti-gravity to make the Helicarrier hover combined with the turbines for lift seems plausible.


As for the Helicarrier being fragile, does the OP remember Pearl Harbor? A bunch of battleships and other naval vessels were sunk or damaged during that attack. More recently, the USS Cole was crippled by explosives on a small speed boat. Large vessels are not exactly fragile, but countless numbers have been damaged or destroyed by explosives and (*gasp*) icebergs. It's odd to even have to point that out.

 

[Golgo-13]

Hawkeye didn't just track down the helicarriar he used Lokis staff. It was a massive homing beacon remember.

Don't know why this thread is still going. The question seems more like the thread starter is just looking for attention.

 

[jaqua99]

Nick Fury was a plot device.

As was Hulk. And Thor, and partially Tony, but not Ironman.

Oh yeah, big news,

Maria hill, and the guy to the left of the "galaga" guy

Spoiler

were plot devices

t:

 

[jaqua99]

Hawkeye didn't just track down the helicarriar he used Lokis staff. It was a massive homing beacon remember.

Don't know why this thread is still going. The question seems more like the thread starter is just looking for attention.

I am with you on this one, but lets not be so quick to judge someone, as you and I may know from experience in some other thread

 

[AndrewGilkison]

If not the Helicarrier then where should the second act have taken place? It made sense for SHIELD to move their location after their base got wiped out, and a typical military battleship or something like that would've been so boring.

 

[Vartha]

Watched Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow lastnight, and that Airial landing pad is even MORE far fetched than the Helicarrier being more like Marvel's original Helicarrier with propellers like a Helicopter except the blades push up from below.
I'm just saying Marvel has so far kept a good explaination for realistic concepts like that, and it's not too far fetched in the Avengers just an aweful lot of energy and fuel to power something like that by realistic standards.

Howard Stark was working on the technology to levitate cars back in 1942. It's entirely possible that he or other scientists secretly perfected that system for SHIELD and it assists in keeping the Helicarrier aloft. Anti-gravity tech can't be the entire explanation, of course, since the loss of the turbines threatened to bring the craft down. But anti-gravity to make the Helicarrier hover combined with the turbines for lift seems plausible.


As for the Helicarrier being fragile, does the OP remember Pearl Harbor? A bunch of battleships and other naval vessels were sunk or damaged during that attack. More recently, the USS Cole was crippled by explosives on a small speed boat. Large vessels are not exactly fragile, but countless numbers have been damaged or destroyed by explosives and (*gasp*) icebergs. It's odd to even have to point that out.

 

[SE7EN]

Hawkeye didn't just track down the helicarriar he used Lokis staff. It was a massive homing beacon remember.

Don't know why this thread is still going. The question seems more like the thread starter is just looking for attention.

If by "looking for attention" you mean posting a serious question in hopes of getting informed answers, then you sir are not only a gentlemen but a scholar to boot!

 

[SE7EN]

Guys... listen,

The serious answers on here have been great, informative, and enjoyable to read. I wrote that long winded introduction because of two reasons. 1. My first post on this particular forum and 2. I realize the question had a potential of being looked at as trollish when in fact the intention was quite the opposite.

Not all of us are die-hards. Not everyone appreciated the helicarrier based on first viewing (I didn't and thus my statement). I hope you guys will appreciate that I came here to ask you guys for information to better understand the movie with. Some might even take it as a compliment. Others... well, sorry if I ruffled your feathers.

Regardless of the few moments of potential hostility, I do appreciate you guys taking the OP and running with it instead of ignoring it or passing it off as bait.

 

[SE7EN]

Never thought about the anti-gravity stuff from Captain America. Good call.

I have rethought my original complaint. Maybe the problem I had was that (and I realize this won't be popular) the giant fans that keep the thing aloft getting attacked and the giant floating airship being threatened to fall out of the sky was pretty... predictable, from a story point of view anyway. As soon as they boarded, it seemed fairly obvious this was coming. I think that's probably why I used the term "plot device".

Either way, I dug the movie. I look forward to seeing again.