The Avengers Jeremy Renner is Hawkeye!

[TheVileOne]

What are you smoking? Nobody said that. No one challenged whether you liked the movie or not. That's all you. The point was made that somebody is gonna be *****ing no matter how you go about adding in a cameo, and some are just happy they bother to add them at all.

Yeh here you go:

Spoiler

What's the point? People would just whine about him taking the focus away like they do about Black Widow in IM2. It's lose-lose. I'm just happy we get these little nods at all considering the way fans ***** about them after the fact.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I'm aware of what I said and it's still accurate. There's going to be people complaining either way.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Yeah, he repeated that twice now Vile. What's your point?

 

[The Morningstar]

You just proved Whiskey Tango correct that with fans its a lose-lose situation.

If you use him too much --> "Thor was an add for the Avengers"
too little --> "He didnt have enough time"

I'm greatful that we got to see him even if he did nothing. It helps me feel like this is the Marvel Universe and not just Thor in a real life scenario like say Nolan's movies are doing. I like to feel that the world is full of superheroes, freaks, aliens, etc.

In a similar way i'd love to see Jack Ryder instead of random reporter number 3, Harley Quinzel being a doctor in Akrham even if she's not gonna be Harley Quinn yet, and so on. Its the same as seeing the Lizard Doctor guy in Spiderman 2 even if he didnt become the Lizard.


As for Black Widow and Shield's extended roles in IM2, i loved them too. Anyone who's read an Ironman comic book knows that those characters are IM's Alfred, Gordon and Fox. In fact Shield appears in IM comics 10 times more often than in Thor ones. So the problem was that IM2 didnt handle its subplots as well as it could have. I think that Shield had to be in both movies, serving as the overseer of superheroes.


I digressed. My point is that we shouldnt be afraid of other superheroes appearing, or making cameos in the films. They wont hurt if handled right.

Not really.

Him taking out Thor wouldn't have taken away from Thor or the movie. It would have made complete and total sense for him to put the big guy down. Instead of some nameless SHIELD guys coming in and arresting him, have Hawkeye subdue him with a tranq.

It's all about context. Having him appear there and do... nothing made no sense. It was just like "HEY! HERE'S HAWKEYE! FOR NO REASON... WHAT-SO-EVER!"

Giving him an actual purpose to be there would have made much more sense and probably wouldn't have been as jarring for people.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

So creating tension and a sense of risk for Thor as well as establishing Shield are more benevolent than clandestine counts for nothing? Having great lines? Changing the whole dynamic for what could have just been a frontal assault from Thor vs Shield agents, giving Coulson the upper hand and showing his skills and abilities at perceiving a threat? Amplifying the tragedy and humiliation of Thor being unable to lift mjolnir? That was all nothing because Barton didn't have an 'action' type sequence?

 

[chris moore]

Actually, having him there but not having him do anything in particular simply means we don't have to spend ten minutes covering his backstory in an ensemble movie, and we don't just have Nick Fury say "And two of my SHIELD special ops agents will be accompanying you - Tony I believe you know the Black Widow, and this here is Agent Barton" as they walk in the room.

It was a happy middle ground.

 

[The Morningstar]

What? I'm saying change NOTHING about that scene.

Except instead of Hawkeye just put his bow down and stare off into the distance, have Coulson say "Now" and he shoots Thor in the neck with a tranq arrow... that's it.

Hawkeye says something like "Now, sir?" and Coulson is like "Wait I want to see this", Have Thor attempt to lift Mjolnir, fail, then Coulsan tells Barton to put him down, he does. End of scene.

Instead we got Hawkeye say a couple of neat lines... then just stare off into the distance.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Because it's more powerful to see Thor so utterly defeated... Why would he need to be shot with a tranq arrow (which in the neck would look ridiculous. It would be huge, and probably penetrate his throat and kill him anyway.) It would be unnecessary and having him not actually shoot makes it more tense. It actually reminded me exactly of Hurt Locker, those scenes where they would be waiting for something to happen and then everything would actually be fine. It doesn't matter that he didn't end up shooting him, because for that whole scene, you dont know what is going to happen and it adds to the tension. Shooting him just breaks that immediately, and it would have had NONE of the emotional impact that it did having Thor completely break down like that.

 

[The Morningstar]

I see your point. And yea, an arrow in the neck would have been kinda dumb, was thinking about a tranq dart for a second there

But I think Thor could have gone into a rage. The agents come in and try to arrest him, he starts throwing them around again, then Hawkeye puts him down.

Like I said, it was kinda nice to see Clint there, but he just seemed completely pointless to the scene.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Thor COULD have gone into a rage, but then it would have had a much less dramatic impact. It would be Thor reacting in the same way he always does, and would almost exactly mirror the scene in the hospital, with no jokes.

 

[TheVileOne]

Hawkeye still should've tranqued him.

 

[The Morningstar]

I don't think so. He could have collapsed to his knees, completely crushed, everything is silent... then some agent tries to grab his wrists and he goes beserk, taking out his frustrations of what his Father did to him.

It was a good scene, Hemsworth really sold the pain. And it wasn't like your average corny screaming to the heavens in anger like in the Wolverine movie, because Thor was actually screaming at his Father.

But still, Hawkeye just seemed completely pointless there, for me.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Vile, a tranq arrow is ridiculous. Think about it. If regular arrow can still kill or maim someone, how would a tranq arrow be harmless?

 

[MahvelBaby!]

So creating tension and a sense of risk for Thor as well as establishing Shield are more benevolent than clandestine counts for nothing? Having great lines? Changing the whole dynamic for what could have just been a frontal assault from Thor vs Shield agents, giving Coulson the upper hand and showing his skills and abilities at perceiving a threat? Amplifying the tragedy and humiliation of Thor being unable to lift mjolnir? That was all nothing because Barton didn't have an 'action' type sequence?

Has anyone ever told you you win at life?

 

[Tony Starkk]

The Hawkeye cameo was awesome!

 

[TheVileOne]

Vile, a tranq arrow is ridiculous. Think about it. If regular arrow can still kill or maim someone, how would a tranq arrow be harmless?

An arrow that would've knocked him out. Hawkeye has millions of those types of arrows.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Think about if for a second dude......a projectile the size of an arrow, flying at that speed..... It's just just going to knock him out, regardless of what it's tip is covered in, tranq's etc. It's a freaking arrow. It's going to pierce the flesh and cause damage.


And no, Hawkeye DOESN'T have millions of those arrows. This isn't the comics.

 

[The Morningstar]

Why wouldn't Hawkeye have trick arrows? Last time I checked, these movies were sticking pretty close to the source material.

 

[UnkillableMick]

I for one loved the cameo. When you see the hand reach for the sniper rifle, and then go for the bow, I near exploded with excitement.

And I don't think him not actually shooting Thor takes away from it at all. Not every sniper shoots his target. In a situation like that, you have to play it by ear, and when Thor gave up, there was no need to shoot him. Simple as.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Movie Hawkeye may well have trick arrows, but we haven't seen that yet so you can't use it as evidence, like Vile did.

 

[Bren]

I agree that Hawkeye should have trick arrows, that's part of him. And to show him having trick arrows is to have him shoot one. This is a movie about a god of Thunder; trick arrows should be reasonably believable
But I also agree that showing Thor finally NOT fighting back was necessary. It shows the change he's going through; the first time he's non-confrontational during a confrontation.

Another thing; after seeing these comments I asked a friend of my Wife's (she came through to watch with us) who has no clue about comics, what she thought of that scene - Her words; "That guy was cool, looked like a bad-ass".
Simple as that. Job done.

Personally, looking purely at his attitude, behaviour and comments while looking down at Thor - did ANYONE here think he would miss what he was aiming at?

 

[Wolvieboy17]

That was my point. You know he could hit him and Thor was a wide open, obvious target. It was more tense waiting to see if Hawkeye will shoot, and more interesting to end it that way than an obvious shooting.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Renner + Thor in film = epic!

 

[chris moore]

I think what should be considered is, assuming the majority of those who go watch Thor will also watch Avenger, how much more awesome is it going to be seeing the first shot Hawkeye makes be some stupendously insane trickshot compared to the 30ft compound bow shot at a still target?

I know I wanna see that in Avengers where he's a major player - not in a 90 second cameo in another movie

 

[UnkillableMick]

I think what should be considered is, assuming the majority of those who go watch Thor will also watch Avenger, how much more awesome is it going to be seeing the first shot Hawkeye makes be some stupendously insane trickshot compared to the 30ft compound bow shot at a still target?

I know I wanna see that in Avengers where he's a major player - not in a 90 second cameo in another movie

Agree 100%.