The Avengers How The Avengers could've been even better

[Savage]

@ 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!

I'm going to have to disagree with your opinion. Wolverine owes as much to years of stories for his popularity as any other X-man. When he first showed up he didn't even really have claws. They were part of his gloves. Once the 80s hit and books like Weapon X and Frank Miller's Wolverine came out was when Wolvie started to hit his stride. He wasn't this instant hit people seem to think he is. Not really until the 90s.

Cyclops could have very much been the Captain America of the X-men movies, calling the plays and kicking ass using his optic blasts in creative ways since he's a physics nut and knows how to use his powers properly. Storm could have been the heart of the group that keeps everyone together and sort of the mom. Jean Grey definitely could have done a lot more with her telekenetic powers and she could have shown more character besides being a love interest. They just did not know much about the characters and what to do with them except for Wolverine.

 

[Chronoless]

I loved the movie but wish 3 things that the movie should of done.

1) Longer Hulk vs Thor fight
2) More Hulk... (I hope the next Hulk movie is 90% hulk/10% banner)
3) The Aliens should of not just shut down at the end.

 

[Raiden]

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

Although I like First Class very much and I consider it to be the second best X-Men movie in the franchise (behind X2), I think you gave that movie way too much credit. And despite all that depth you talk about in FC, the last time I checked it received less fresh ratings in RT than The Avengers. And isn't "actual depth" supposed to translate into better RT score?

 

[pyromaniac]

@ 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.

But I'm not talking about comics as a springboard into the movie-verse, which is decidedly limited in scope. I'm not saying that backstories have to be created for every character in the movies, or any movie in general. TA proved that Hawkeye, whom people argued to have gotten the short end of the stick (I disagree, however in that respect) can still be compelling with comparable screen time to other characters. So the rule ought to apply to the X-Men characters, who are conversely more popular than maybe even Hawkeye and Black Widow combined, but the latter are still no less interesting after the fact.

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.

But Gambit was only shoehorned into the Wolverine movie simply because of fan-favourite appeal. Do you think he was written well and integrated well? I felt he seemed out of place more than once... So, the opposite can be true.

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.

Sure, but that comparison only works if Wonderman and Thriatlon (whoever he is ) were put on the roster for the first TA. Imagine the outcry lol.

And for the record, as we all know, Jean Grey was only a doctor because Beast was too expensive for the measly $75m dollar budget lol. So there's the issue of 'interchangeability'. Was it necessary? Probably. Did it enhance her character? Probably not. She wasn't really doctorly after that, though I can see why. It wasn't a big part of her character. Again, convenient writing.

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.

Wow. Can you imagine what an (anti) dream team would that be? They'd freaking wreck havoc and still be rooted for as anti-heroes. Lol. I don't know who Paul Kersey is...

To be frank, to imply that to put such and such together only to measure their popularity really would be fan service.

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.

Sure. But not for three movies straight, lol. Don't get me wrong - I'm not decrying over-saturation, but you do get the feeling that even Wolverine would have been fairly interchangeable with any other character who might have been there for a reason. Although to be fair, Cyke could not have lived beyond the first act in the third movie, because of Marsden's commitments to Superman Returns. And who knows, had he not honoured those, he might have been essential to the third act. So I can't really fault the writers for being stuck into a corner. But his status and 'growth' into quasi-leadership? On one hand, it actually makes some contextual sense, but was he ever a leader in the comics?

Also, remember, if Singer had intended for Cyke to be front and centre in the next two movies that he had outlined, wouldn't that have shot a hole in your theory that Wolverine was always needed?

This is relevant to TA, because again there were fears that Iron Man would hog the screen, that shiny armoured hogger, but his divvying up the time, resonance and plot relevance with other characters just really is both a testament to RDJ's acting and the writing. Wolverine could have been written in this similar fashion, and nobody would have suffered for it; rather on the contrary.

And these are all just my personal opinion.

Of course. It's respected.

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

Well, a friend recommended it to me so I had to read it. It's good for the most part but not really sold on the 'forced' fights just for the sake of unanimous conflict on both sides. And way too many characters, if only to go for that epic scale. I noticed that even in the Cable comics, Cyke was actually concerned about Cap when he came to help him. Though the tension was there, at least a compromise was reached. In the A vs X, it's an all-out war almost for the sake of it. And I kinda don't buy Wolverine's duplicitous about-face, and not letting Hope at least be responsible for her choices. But that's neither here or there. Are these the reasons you were let down or... ?

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

But I'm not talking about comics as a springboard into the movie-verse, which is decidedly limited in scope. I'm not saying that backstories have to be created for every character in the movies, or any movie in general. TA proved that Hawkeye, whom people argued to have gotten the short end of the stick (I disagree, however in that respect) can still be compelling with comparable screen time to other characters. So the rule ought to apply to the X-Men characters, who are conversely more popular than maybe even Hawkeye and Black Widow combined, but the latter are still no less interesting after the fact.

Ok..what i'm trying to say is, to the GA, characters like Hawkeye and the Black Widow , ultimately is going to be more interesting for them than say, Storm or Jean Grey.
maybe it's the 'cool factor'...i dunno. You can have a very well written character arcs for Cyclops, Storm and Jean Grey, in my opinion it wouldn't matter in the end because they lack that 'it' factor. At least the movie versions.

And @ Savage

yeah I do agree...but my point is, take away all the excess baggages for these characters, and just keep what is essential about them...and put them in a movie.
And there is only one character in that X-men movie that's gonna standout.

Sure, but that comparison only works if Wonderman and Thriatlon (whoever he is ) were put on the roster for the first TA. Imagine the outcry lol.

LOL be glad you don't know him! Though he became a kind of badass recently...so maybe there's hope for the character yet.

Wow. Can you imagine what an (anti) dream team would that be? They'd freaking wreck havoc and still be rooted for as anti-heroes. Lol. I don't know who Paul Kersey is...

To be frank, to imply that to put such and such together only to measure their popularity really would be fan service.

It would be a fan service indeed, but an awesome fan service!

And shame on you for not knowing who Paul kersey is!

He's the main character from the Death Wish movies , played by the late, great Charles Bronson. The character was the inspiration for The Punisher. They basically has the same tragic origin.

And yeah you're right...NOT for three movies straight. Though i honestly can't remember any details from the 3rd movie. I thought it focused on Magneto, Proffesor X and jean grey? maybe my mind is just trying to block the memories...

Well, a friend recommended it to me so I had to read it. It's good for the most part but not really sold on the 'forced' fights just for the sake of unanimous conflict on both sides. And way too many characters, if only to go for that epic scale. I noticed that even in the Cable comics, Cyke was actually concerned about Cap when he came to help him. Though the tension was there, at least a compromise was reached. In the A vs X, it's an all-out war almost for the sake of it. And I kinda don't buy Wolverine's duplicitous about-face, and not letting Hope at least be responsible for her choices. But that's neither here or there. Are these the reasons you were let down or... ?

It's all those reasons...and more.All the fights DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! almost everybody is actiong out of character...Wolvie being a hypocrite, Thor punching a kid in the stomach merely because he stood between him and Hope...and once Cyke and some of them became this...thing...of course they all then acts like robots, which is the biggest cliche when dealing with this kind of situation...

I could go on and on..

And they better not kill Hope after all this is over!

And after this..we get..PvsA ( Punisher vs Avengers...seriously)

 

[The Guard]

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.

I agree that you can't develop the characters endlessly, and that's part of their limitation on film. Personally, I think the X-Men are interesting characters because of their variety of powers, their evolutions as characters, and their social, political and combat interactions with other mutants, not so much their backstories/origins, many of which are really kind of silly.

I'm pretty sure Wolverine has been one of the most popular and fan favorite X-Men since he joined the team in the comics. Certainly moreso in the late 80's and 90's, but almost right off the bat he was embraced as a character, wasn't he?

Cyclops could have very much been the Captain America of the X-men movies, calling the plays and kicking ass using his optic blasts in creative ways since he's a physics nut and knows how to use his powers properly.

He kind of was.

The problem was not that he wasn't portrayed that way, as that the storylines called for him to be sidelined, and for good reason, but still sidelined.

He was sidelined in X2, and he was obviously not himself in X3, but he was pretty creative and skilled with his powers in X-MEN.

Storm could have been the heart of the group that keeps everyone together and sort of the mom.

She pretty much was, insomuch as the X-Men film team was a family. Halle just didn't pull off the compassionate elements of Storm terribly well. But its more or less still written into the character.

Jean Grey definitely could have done a lot more with her telekenetic powers and she could have shown more character besides being a love interest.

Jean very clearly had an arc that had nothing to do with her being a love interest, that of the evolution of her powers.

They just did not know much about the characters and what to do with them except for Wolverine.

That's just not true.

The fact that they didn't do a lot with the characters powers and didn't do exactly what is in the comics doesn't mean they didn't know what to do with the characters themselves.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

agree that you can't develop the characters endlessly, and that's part of their limitation on film. Personally, I think the X-Men are interesting characters because of their variety of powers, their evolutions as characters, and their social, political and combat interactions with other mutants, not so much their backstories/origins, many of which are really kind of silly.

I'm pretty sure Wolverine has been one of the most popular and fan favorite X-Men since he joined the team in the comics. Certainly moreso in the late 80's and 90's, but almost right off the bat he was embraced as a character, wasn't he?

That's my point. Some characters are just like that. And he was one of them.

It's just something...intangible. You can't plan it...it just happened. That's what happened to him in the comic world, and it happened again on the movie version.

I agree that you can't develop the characters endlessly, and that's part of their limitation on film. Personally, I think the X-Men are interesting characters because of their variety of powers, their evolutions as characters, and their social, political and combat interactions with other mutants, not so much their backstories/origins, many of which are really kind of silly.

Maybe i should be more specific. When i say backstories, i don't necessarily meant origins. It's more their personal histories, things that they've been through and stuff like that.Things that added depths and layers to the characters.

 

[The Guard]

Ah. Yes.

 

[Vartha]

Cap should have been an intolerant dick to every minority he met.
Thor should have been a hippy.
Natasha should of been a double agent.
Hulk should have been a cannibalistic rapist.

um WHY? Not everyone was a bigot back then. Steve even says he doesn't like BULLIES.

sorry I just didn't like ALOT of what Ultimates originally started out as story-Wise

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

^^ I always wondered why that is. It's supposed to be a fresh take on old characters.

Was it that offensive to long time fans?

 

[Spuzz]

Wow!

Despite the long winded, pseudo-intellectual (if not well written) babble of the original post, this thread has spawned some of the best, most insightful posts regarding the movie I've ever read. Special kudos to pyromaniac and Savage. Damn good reading! Now that's what forums are for. I would contribute some similarly riveting theories but I'm sort of tired right now. Might do it later. Great stuff though guys!

 

[metaphysician]

I have to say, trying to throw in socio-political "subtext" ( I really don't think any of the suggestions mentioned early in the thread deserve the word 'sub' ) would highly detract from the *actual* underlying theme of the movie: the tension between idealism and pragmatism. The Avengers all land on widely varying places on the spectrum between pure idealism and pure pragmatism, and their conflicts play out largely along those lines. The tension between the Avengers and SHIELD, between Nick Fury and the WSC. It all boils down to "Do you take the easy, ruthless answer, or do you try to find a better way? Do you assume the worst of everybody, or do you trust that when the chips are down and things are darkest, people will live up to their better nature?"

This is a vastly better "subtext" than a bunch of ham-handed political soap-boxing.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I have to say, trying to throw in socio-political "subtext" ( I really don't think any of the suggestions mentioned early in the thread deserve the word 'sub' ) would highly detract from the *actual* underlying theme of the movie: the tension between idealism and pragmatism. The Avengers all land on widely varying places on the spectrum between pure idealism and pure pragmatism, and their conflicts play out largely along those lines. The tension between the Avengers and SHIELD, between Nick Fury and the WSC. It all boils down to "Do you take the easy, ruthless answer, or do you try to find a better way? Do you assume the worst of everybody, or do you trust that when the chips are down and things are darkest, people will live up to their better nature?"

This is a vastly better "subtext" than a bunch of ham-handed political soap-boxing.

Probably one of the best posts on this thread.

 

[JAK®]

Before I get into this, I just want to say, this isn't meant to be at all a critique or a complaint against the actual film. I enjoy it tons, and I'd be hard-pressed to disagree with anyone who said it's in the top 3 of the best superhero movies ever. And it definitely isn't my intent for the conversation in this thread to degrade into an "Avengers suck." "No, it doesn't." "Yes, it does." discussion.

Okay, with that out of the way, despite my great enjoyment of Avengers as a film, I couldn't help but immediately take notice of the potential that the film - and it's story - really represented as a sociopolitical narrative and allegory to our own real world Geo-political world. And, I think, with just a few minor changes to the movie, it could've had a much deeper and far reaching meaning and moral that could've rivaled the subtexual depth and quality indicative of many foreign "art" films without subjugating any characterization, action or plot.

Here's how...

• Many of the characters in the Avengers would be allegorical to real world bodies or principles;
  • Captain America - America
  • Iron Man - Capitalism or Industrialism
  • Thor - Europe
  • Bruce Banner/Hulk - The Underclass
  • Loki - The Antiquated European Aristocracy
  • The Chitauri - Communism

Turning these characters into these allegorical mirrors would be easy - because the foundations are already there, and already slightly apparent. It wouldn't be endless dialogue about Captain America singing the virtues of the American government - they'd all be the same characters, with near-identical dialogue, you would just have that undercurrent of having that second meaning. When Bruce Banner gets angry at being manipulated by SHIELD, it would merely dually represent The Underclass' anger at being controlled by the wealthy or powerful.
​

• Involve the general public.

The second thing I would do, is have the film slightly more address what effect the Avengers have on the general public - and what the common man thinks of them. Raise that question that Batman comics/movies (and IM2, actually) often raise; are "supervillains" merely the result of superhero's over-involvement in normal people's affairs.

Then ask some of the questions that Lex Luthor often decries Superman for; does having superpowered people limit the common man's drive for greatness? Does always knowing that they'll be others stronger, and faster, and smarter than you limit your desire to achieve great things?

Also ask what role the Avengers play in world affairs. Are the Avengers just the superhero equivalent of a nuclear bomb? As destructive as they are effective - ultimately the easier, and simpler answer when more complex, yet more peaceful answers could be found by normal humans?

​

• Change the ending; make the destruction of New York more traumatic.

While in the comic book world, New York is generally demolished every third Tuesday of the month, in the real world, having a massive alien invasion destroy several city blocks would be a massive event. Akin to, and even more definitive, than 9/11. I would make the ending focus on that much more; I might even take it as far as having the general public not even view the Avengers victory as a victory; instead having them be more fearful and angry at the Avengers than anything. I know, this makes the movie a whole lot less fun and empowering than it is currently, but I also think it would be a much more...rational reaction for the general public to have, and would work much better with the allegorical characters as well. Having the Avengers, America, Capitalism, etc. overthrow Communism, is much too simple - and preachy - to fly with anyone. Instead, by having the Avengers' victory questioned, you raise the question as to which political and social philosophies are really better or wiser. I think that level of ambiguity would make for an overall more compelling film.

​

Now, I'm sure a lot of your first thoughts will be "I don't want politics added into the Avengers" or "I don't want to be preached political propaganda" - and I agree with you wholeheartedly. It shouldn't be political and it shouldn't be preachy. It shouldn't make any political statements, insinuations, or approvals - it should merely present participants as they are; pose the questions without forcing any answers. As the movie is now, you could argue that the Hulk analogy is very much still viable - does that make you enjoy it any less when Hulk smashes Loki about? Of course not. Because that's not preaching, that's just a fun moment within the story, that works with the plot itself.

Most of the subtext I mention already IS in the movie to some degree, it's just not quite fleshed out as wholly as it could have been. It's just little finishing touches that could've even been achieved through slightly different direction - with the script itself remaining pretty much entirely intact.

Additionally, I'm sure a lot of you would be concerned about anyone having the talent to actually be able to write something this - possibly incendiary - with the deft subtly that would keep it from offending anyone. And I will say - yes, it's rare to find a writer skilled enough to pull off that level of subtext, but it's definitely possible. How many of you realized that Burton's Batman movies were actually critiques of the excess and commercialism of the 1980s? Because they were. Is Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times somehow offensive obtuse because it was a critique of talking pictures? Of course not. Because when it's done in an intelligent, and tempered way, subtext blends into the larger tapestry of a film so wholly, that it is near-unnoticeable to those who aren't actively seeking it out - and more importantly, doesn't force any opinions on anyone, merely espouses simple ideas that anyone could follow to some degree.

So yeah. Those are the couple things that, for me, would've pushed the movie from being incredibly awesome, to quite possibly the greatest movie I've ever seen.

I think you're making a few fundamental mistakes.

1. You think that characters have to represent an abstract idea or aspect of a larger idea. They don't, that is one style of writing characters for a specific style of storytelling. Christopher Nolan makes his films in that way, and in fact DC characters work very well in that form of storytelling. But The Avengers, and Marvel in general, do not write their characters with that in mind. They are much more literal. It is about the characters and their individual growth. The plot, and meaning of the story, is secondary to the character's development. Every other Marvel Studios movie was made in this way. It was in fact key to their success. The films told the story of the character and made you identify with them. This works because Marvel isn't aiming for a conclusion, but instead a continuing narrative.

2. You address this in your post but your idea of having the destruction of New York during the climax being more somber and devastating, causing distrust in the general populace is not only a downer, it completely undermines the rest of the movie, which is about getting the heroes to rise up and fulfil their roles as heroes. For them to do that and then have that thrown back in their face by a distrusting public would be incredibly awkward to the point of being humorous. It would make the whole film look like a waste. Not that it didn't happen anyway; The Council were still distrusting at the end.

3. In all your searching for a deeper meaning or subtext, you actually miss the subtext that was already there. The film was about belief. Every character has a belief that is either questioned or proven. First of all, there is the obvious one; Nick Fury believes in The Avengers. He pretty much states this outright in his first scene with the council. The rest of the film is about him making sure they live up to those beliefs. His joke "ten bucks says that you're wrong" is part of that. He takes a gamble with his beliefs.

Loki is the complete opposite. He believes that everyone is lesser than him. He has no faith in others. His entire deal with Thanos is based on false pretences. He thinks that humanity wants to be ruled. When Thor asks if he thinks they are lesser than him, he says "...Well yes." in the most indignant tone possible. He can't even comprehend the idea that he may be wrong. Except the rest of the film constantly undermines that belief, such as Coulson hitting him with The Destroyer gun when it looked like he had no chance, catching Hawkeye's arrow believing it to be harmless, and most importantly when he stands up to The Hulk, stating that he is above him and will not be bullied, only to be completely undermined and smashed to the ground. The line "Puny god." was more than just a quip.

You brought this up in another thread, the scene where Loki tells the public to kneel and goes on about how they wish to be ruled. As I said before, you missed the point of the scene. Loki is by no means correct in any way. The fact that the old man stood up showed this. The implication is that he had seen all this before with Hitler. "There are always men like you". This completely undermines Loki's point. First, it shows that someone else had tried this before and failed. Secondly, it implies that Loki is not fit to rule, just like them. Loki replies "I am no man." But he may as well be, as the scene with the Hulk demonstrates.

All the other characters display belief. Hawkeye and Selvig are brainwashed, in other words their beliefs have blinded them (represented by their faded irises resembling those of a blind person). Captain America believes in the US government, only for those beliefs to be questioned. Tony Stark believes that Bruce Banner will attend the final fight. Bruce Banner believes that he shouldn't. Black Widow believes in Hawkeye being able to fight Loki's mind control. Coulson believes in heroes. It's all there.

So when The Avengers all rise up to the challenge and defeat Loki, overcoming doubt (and it's no coincidence that the characters with the most doubt, Iron Man and Hulk, are the ones that have the most impact), it is all about those beliefs coming to fruition. The characters walk away with a new sense of purpose, ready for a new adventure.

It may be simplistic compared to sociopolitical issues, but the best things tend to be simplistic. There's a lot less noise.

Have you ever watched A Simple Man by the Coens?

 

[Roose Bolton]

um WHY? Not everyone was a bigot back then. Steve even says he doesn't like BULLIES.

sorry I just didn't like ALOT of what Ultimates originally started out as story-Wise

Mark Millar thinks that being a jerk=depth of character.

 

[Chewy]

"I don't believe in transcending the genre. I believe in the genre." -Joss Whedon

 

[Juicy J]

"I don't believe in transcending the genre. I believe in the genre." -Joss Whedon

That's my new signature quote. Perfectly captures why I think the avengers is the greatest comic book movie of all time. Thanks for posting!

 

[pyromaniac]

Wow!

Despite the long winded, pseudo-intellectual (if not well written) babble of the original post, this thread has spawned some of the best, most insightful posts regarding the movie I've ever read. Special kudos to pyromaniac and Savage. Damn good reading! Now that's what forums are for. I would contribute some similarly riveting theories but I'm sort of tired right now. Might do it later. Great stuff though guys!

Thanks! And speak of the devil - here's Jazz to come in with yet another insightful counter-analysis of the film. Belief. It is true, overall, that Marvel characters have often been more driven by (self) inflicted arcs, growth and narrative circumstances than the DC characters, although the X-men verses benefit largely from the sociopolitical framework.

That probably is why that at times Marvel may appear to come across as more 'simplistic', 'colourful' and 'fantastical' than DC storytelling, in the sense that their characters are more superpowered, whereas the latter populates its world with geniuses with martial arts prowess and everymen who just wants to fight the good fight as well as the god-like heroes, of course. However, that doesn't make Marvel the less allegorical for it: it seems to be that kind of template that reiterates universal themes (family, prejudice, war etc), if not distills one or two into a barer form, while DC expands on and ties disparate themes into a richer tapestry. At least, that's the impression I get from the film versions, or to be more accurately, the Marvel films versus Nolan's Batman. The Avengers falls into the former vein. I don't know about the comics in general though.

 

[metaphysician]

That's my new signature quote. Perfectly captures why I think the avengers is the greatest comic book movie of all time. Thanks for posting!

This. Totally this.

 

[psylockolussus]

I just didn't wish they overreact to Coulson's death. I thought it was extremely cheesey. I also wish there was more emotional depth. Yeah it was a good action movie but there was nothing really moving about it.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

I just didn't wish they overreact to Coulson's death. I thought it was extremely cheesey. I also wish there was more emotional depth. Yeah it was a good action movie but there was nothing really moving about it.

I completely disagree, it's so easy to overlook the great depth that The Avengers has because it's so subtle and the action is so massive. It was very moving to me that there are actually people out there that can put aside their differences, egos and problems to serve something greater then themselves. You don't see that too often these days and Loki masterfully exploited that. "The humans slaughter each other in droves while you idly fret, I mean to rule them, why should I not?" I almost agree with him, I'd almost be ok with the world having a universal ruler if that meant we could get along. The Avengers, like the nations of the world, have every reason to be fighting each other, but instead they were able to overcome it and show what the world could be if we all just put our egos, problems, biases, struggles, and differences aside and came together as one. The Avengers represent a united world.

 

[Spuzz]

The fact that Loki was the only villain kind of ticked me off. Would have been nice to have one or two more familiar villainous faces for the Avengers to fight instead of just Loki and a bunch of nameless aliens.

 

[Savage]

The fact that Loki was the only villain kind of ticked me off. Would have been nice to have one or two more familiar villainous faces for the Avengers to fight instead of just Loki and a bunch of nameless aliens.

Hopefully they'll up the ante in the sequel. The great thing about the Transformers movies is it's not just Megatron and nameless drones. It's actually worth a cheer when someone like Starscream, Blackout or the Constructicon goes down. I'd love to see a second in command and the like in the next movie. I'd hope for the Masters of Evil but with Thanos looming they're probably saving those guys for the third movie. Maybe Annihilus can work with Thanos. I'd say The Inhumans but that'd lead to a super team team-up at the end which has got to be just...crazy hell for the amount of characters and development. (The image of Blackbolt whispering to Thanos is pretty exciting, though. ...Yeah. Inhumans. Marvel, get on that.)

 

[JAK®]

I think 'depth' might be my least favourite word. People just seem to use it without knowing what it really means.

They may as well just go around saying they want the movie to be "more good-er", it pretty much says the same thing about them.

 

[Smashlilman]

I think 'depth' might be my least favourite word. People just seem to use it without knowing what it really means.

They may as well just go around saying they want the movie to be "more good-er", it pretty much says the same thing about them.

I think people know what it means. When people say depth there usually talking about character development , story development, and subtexting.