They were the base for sure but if any of the principle actors like Evans and Hemsworth weren’t also likeable, then Avengers wouldn’t have worked.so...i think there's 4 people that made this all possible:
1. feige
2+3. favreau and rdj
4. whedon
feige obviously but favreau and rdj's major success with iron man got the ball rolling - gave marvel actual hope that this could work. and then whedon making avengers and making it a super success.
those 4 set up the universe and everything else followed.
I hope Dr. Strange 2 is leagues better than 1; that one was a major disappointment, IMO.
They were the base for sure but if any of the principle actors like Evans and Hemsworth weren’t also likeable, then Avengers wouldn’t have worked.
I liked Norton but they were smart to get rid of him. His style wouldn’t have fit into the larger universe.
Maybe different rules for different actors.Didn't tom holland get in trouble for taking a script home?
Maybe different rules for different actors.
Yeah. Though Ruffalo is also a very dramatic actor, Norton is too much of a lone wolf. Notoriously difficult to work with. He'd have been replaced after the first Avengers (had he done it).Agreed. It's hard to vision Norton doing a lot of the Banner scenes in movies past Age of Ultron.
I agree.I like Dr. Strange, but the villain was definitely uncooked (which is disappointing since they wasted Mad with this role). After his amazing performance in IW, I want the sequel to go ham and really give us the Sorcerer Supreme with amazing actions and visuals. Oh, and a great villain too, please.
Btw, I saw EG last weekend, and I just want to say that although the movie was spoiled for me, it still exceeded my expectations. As a fan of the MCU since the first Iron Man, this movie is a love letter to all of us who had followed the franchise from the beginning, and it left me satisfied and looking forward to what's ahead. Bring on X-Men and Fantastic Four!
As much as I like Norton, Ruffalo was the better choice as Banner by far.Yeah. Though Ruffalo is also a very dramatic actor, Norton is too much of a lone wolf. Notoriously difficult to work with. He'd have been replaced after the first Avengers (had he done it).
Didn't tom holland get in trouble for taking a script home?
Definitely. I love Bill Bixby from the Hulk tv show and one thing that he did so well was not only portray the torture you'd expect but such an air of likability and purity to the role, and I feel Ruffalo does that as well, while handling the comedy extremely well.As much as I like Norton, Ruffalo was the better choice as Banner by far.
There's one they've already said:I'm curiousof when they'll reveal which scenes were re-shoots.
Thanos-copter reference. The movie is now officially complete.
4th viewing today!
Also grabbing the 2nd weekend Odeon poster (the IM version).
Huh? How and where? lol
Are you kidding me? No, I said nothing about a group of men. GOTG, Avengers, all these team up movies include both men AND women. This post is frankly insulting to me. You think I'd want a Justice League without Wonder Woman? Or that I didn't find something empty without Wasp being a founding Avenger?YOU are making it a political agenda by thinking that a group of women is pandering and a group of men is normal. YOU are the one whose thinking its "out of character" because your AGENDA whether subconscious or not is that women are out of place. This is sexism whether you want to label it that yourself or not, whether its malicious in intent or not.
I actually do agree with a lot of what you say. It didn't kill the movie for me by any stretch, but it just wasn't something I wanted to see. I have nothing against seeing more women in superhero movies. I just want it to feel organic. But oh well, water under the bridge at this point.D
Then you have disqualified many great pieces of art from literally the beginning of human history,if you think art of any kind is only legitimate if separated from other influences like politics. Some films are escapist, but, well, take things like the original Star Trek or The Twighlight Zone. By the standards you are setting a good chunk of their episodes should never have been made at all. Planet Of The Apes (Original or the new trilogy), Spartacus, The Defiant Ones, In The Heat Of The Night, To Kill A Mockingbird, even The Lord Of The Rings in the context of their life as books were made partially in response to their author's experience with the First World War alongside his despair at the changes industrialization were bringing to England and thus has a socio-political aspect, which due to the fealty the film versions had carried over to the big screen. Nothing I listed were thought of as niche art house fair. All were made for mass audience consumption in their day. I'm sorry but this arbitrary standard you have set flys in the face of how a lot of popular entertainment has actually been produced, consumed and analyzed for centuries.
And what is this distinction about "teams"? So... The shot would be more palitable if they all were card carrying Avengers?
Look, the film doesn't live or die on the basis of that one moment, and I am sure it doesn't truly affect your own assessment of the film itself either. But the fact that it vexes so many enough to continually be brought up is perplexing in the extreme for myself.
Given that there are more male Super types if that had played out the same exact way with the same dialog and it had been all guys doing that charge it would pass by without comment from some corners. And honestly... If we are gonna complain about pandering then the whole film needs to be judged by that same standard because "fan service" was this film's middle name.
On a final note... No, one doesn't have to agree with the point of view you may believe a piece of art is expressing in some fashion. But claiming there is a kind of delegitimization because something has a POV is a curious position.