The Avengers The Avengers: News and Speculation - Part 27A sub-se - - - Part 12

Status
Not open for further replies.
And Transformers 3 was pretty long too. I havent seen it yet but it's really successful
As were a lot of the Harry Potter movies and they had overs 2 hour 10 mins runtime save for the last movie
 
An issue which I don't have an answer for is this.

How much should this movie be designed to be accessible to the viewer who has not viewed the previous MARVEL movies?

Does this movie have a responsibility to be accessible to such people?

I don't think the Avengers will require moviegoers to have seen all other previous Marvel movies to enjoy themselves, but it'll be like anyone who never seen any Harry Potter movies and decided to go see Deathly Hallow pt. 2; he'll be bound to ask alot of questions that were answered in previous Potter movies. If one decided to watch the Avengers as his first Marvel movie, he'll be asking questions like where Thor came from, how Tony Stark got his awesome suit, and how come Steve Rogers is not from the 21st century. But he can still be entertained by the sheer awesomeness of watching all these super beings congregate together to defeat a global threat nevertheless.
 
Exactly. And let's not forget that the top three grossing movies made are all around the 2.5 hour mark. Titanic, TDK, and Avatar are all really long friggin movies, and people still watched the crap out of them.


Agreed. I know partly they want to allow for more showings per day, but an epic movie will take care of ticket sales as long as the marketing is up to par.
 
I rate the Marvel Studio films as
1:The Incredible Hulk
2:Captain America
3:Iron Man
4:Iron Man 2
5:Thor

My enthusim has gone down since the edward Norton Fiasco and the fact
I wanted to flashforward through a lot of the Earth set scenes In Thor(and the fact time was wasted with the pointless anoying character of Darcy) the
Involvement of Joss whedon keeps My Intrest high In The Avengers.I just
hope they let him do the job well.

They really should have General Ross and jane Foster show up In the Avengers.With Ross I am not holding my breath since The Incredible Hulk Is the bastard stepchild as far as Marvel Studios films go.With Jane I am not he biggest fan of her portrayal In Thor but with the way Thor ended you need her to make an appearance.If she Isn't In The Avengers I doudt she will be In Thor 2.
 
I know someone who really wants to see the Avengers, but she isn't interested at all in Iron Man. I said to her "Look, the first movie is really good!!". But she won't listen.
I don't understand this kind of people. I have to surround myself better.
 
The different strokes thing doesn't pass when they won't even try it.

If you haven't even tried something, how do you know it's not your... errr... stroke?
 
Once I talked my parents into Iron Man, they ended up loving it. Still haven't been successful on the other Marvel installments though.
 
I Loved Darcy Tho.... Maybe Im Biased cuz of Kat Dennings But So What.. She's The Reason The Movie Got Alot Of Laughs All the Times I went to see it
 
A lot of people did laugh at Darcy's stuff. I chuckled at some stuff but really she could be written out and I dont think the movie would miss much other then the fact she tased Thor
 
I Guess That's your Opinion I Didnt Think She Was Annoying Or Distracted From The Film
 
Didn't those Dennings nude pics leak right around Thor's release? For that, and that reason alone, I am glad she was in Thor.

Dat Dennings.
 
I hated Darcy. Annoying doesn't equal funny.

A lot of people did laugh at Darcy's stuff. I chuckled at some stuff but really she could be written out and I dont think the movie would miss much other then the fact she tased Thor

You are both nuts. And the Earth scenes were my favourites which is to be expected. I don't much like Thor when it gets too Asgardy anyway. I find most of the gods dull as dishwater.
 
When I say "safe", let's use Thor as the example, I mean that I feel the film didn't really do everything it could to fully immerse us in Thor's world through the storytelling. The plot was very predictable and straightforward. You didn't really have to guess what was going to happen throughout the course of the film.

I felt like they should have showed us a lot more of Asgard than they did. It was there, but it didn't really feel "lived in." We only got to see a few segments with the main characters, but nothing really with the rest of the Asgardians. I felt like it was a waste of a great location.

The best thing that happened story-wise was Thor destroying the bifrost and cutting off his connection to Earth. It was still predictable, but at least we're left wondering how he's gonna make it back down to Midgard.

Blackman:
I agree, and I'm glad he was generally well received by the casual movie-goer. I just feel like there was a lot more there that we didn't get to see which was blanketed by a very casual, predictable story. I liked it but I didn't love it.
All in all, Thor performed well, but it definitely left me wanting.

CHEWY:
I don't know about that. The cast alone was enough to sell Iron Man. I'll agree that it's a risk to introduce a hero who isn't Superman/Batman/Spider-Man to the general public, but Iron Man, in true Iron Man fashion, knew it was awesome and knew it could appeal to a huge demographic. If people like my parents, who hate comics, love Iron Man, then that tells me something about what kind of character he is.

Sorry, that's an assumption. I'm usually the first to speak out against folks who call something "too dark" or "not dark enough." I hate the word even. I didn't expect Thor or Cap to have that tone at all. I didn't want them to because that's not who they are. Their stories simply didn't do anything that great and instead took a more safe and casual route. Iron Man took the time to properly characterize its cast of characters and side plots and succeeded all the more for it. Cap and Thor did well enough for their main characters, but kind of left everyone else on the sidelines. That's really all there is to it.
Iron Man was just as predictable. They're all equally predictable plot-wise. I'd argue that none of Iron Man's side characters save Pepper were fully fleshed out either. That's the nature of the beast- they don't need to be. They offer just enough to enhance the story and drive the plot forward and that's all we need to ask from them. Tony & Pepper were fully realized characters in the Iron Man films, Thor & Loki in Thor, Cap & Peggy in CA. Everyone else offered enough and the actors were talented enough that the films felt complete even if the characters weren't.
 
Once I talked my parents into Iron Man, they ended up loving it. Still haven't been successful on the other Marvel installments though.
Once you talk them into seeing Thor and CA I'm sure they'll love them, too. The Iron Man films were more popular due to RDJ, not because they were less "safe".
 
Didn't those Dennings nude pics leak right around Thor's release? For that, and that reason alone, I am glad she was in Thor.

Dat Dennings.

Not as good as what Blake Lively did for GL, and evidently it didn't work. But I hope those female celebs will keep doing it. :awesome:
 
I know someone who really wants to see the Avengers, but she isn't interested at all in Iron Man. I said to her "Look, the first movie is really good!!". But she won't listen.
I don't understand this kind of people. I have to surround myself better.

I don't get it either, really -- but look at it this way. The Avengers, as a movie, may be a great way of making fans out of people who go to it because of one or two of the characters, but who become fans of the other characters because of the movie.

In other words -- you may have a lot easier time convincing her to watch Iron Man AFTER she sees Tony in Avengers... since she's gonna see him whether she's interested in him or not. :cwink:
 
I don't much like Thor when it gets too Asgardy anyway. I find most of the gods dull as dishwater.
tumblr_ln3wvvq1Or1qafrh6.gif
 
An issue which I don't have an answer for is this.

How much should this movie be designed to be accessible to the viewer who has not viewed the previous MARVEL movies?

Does this movie have a responsibility to be accessible to such people?

the GA is not so nit picky about having everything explained to them about characters pasts.
 
^ Yea I actually didnt care for his hammer too much eather. All that spinning and throwing and waving about really took away from character himself. :woot: :doh:
 
Anyone not willing to check out Thor and Cap is doing themselves a disservice. Probably not necessary to view The Avengers, but they're missing out on a lot of fun.
 
Omg real Iron man ... that picture is too funny lol
 
I get so sick of peole saying Thor and Cap "played it safe". I'd really like to see these guys come up with a script that was better than what was presented. They just say that stuff because they parrot it from other people, failing to provide any backing info. You ask them what was safe and they give you hyperbole.
 
I get so sick of peole saying Thor and Cap "played it safe". I'd really like to see these guys come up with a script that was better than what was presented. They just say that stuff because they parrot it from other people, failing to provide any backing info. You ask them what was safe and they give you hyperbole.

Yeah, there's really nothing safe about a superhero movie based on a god and another on a WWII soldier. In fact, GL's premise is much easier to convey (ordinary guy got a power ring using willpower as energy to defeat evil), and can be played like a wish-fulfillment movie. But no movie will work unless the director & the studio behind it show alot of care & attention in its adaptation, and not just throw 200 million on it and expect it to work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"