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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I know what a template is, but I don't understand the logic of you admitting one film is better than the other, but you'd rather every film strive to hit a lower point of success?

Personally, I'd rather every comic book film strive to nail the best tone, story and characterisation it can within the scope of it's source material, whether it's dark and gritty for Batman or more light and fun like the Marvel films. I'd prefer that than, say, every film trying to fit into one style of movie, when that one style of movie, whilst fun, has an extremely specific setting and not very good pacing.

You do know what 'pacing' is, don't you? :P
 
Wolvieboy17. Thanks for the shout out! You summed it up perfectly. The films didn't fail to properly portray who Thor and Cap were. They both started off fairly strong and in Caps's case pretty excellent. I loved the first act, more specifically the exchanges between Erskine and Steve. But once he got his powers the film started to fall flat. We had characters in there that the film didn't seem to know what to do with and they ended up being poorly represented. Thor suffered from pretty much the same problem.
Wolvieboy17:
Don't get me wrong, I'm pumped for it, but for the last 3 Marvel films, by the time you leave the cinema, you end up being more excited for whatever future project that was teased than the actual film you just saw, and Cap definitely made me think more about Avengers than his film. In fact, by the end, it felt more like a direct Avengers prequel than it's own thing.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I felt the same way with Thor. The thing that got me excited in both of those films wasn't even what the actors were doing on screen. It came in the form text:
"Captain America/Thor will return in the Avengers."
You know how comic books do prologue stories before they have a big event? That's exactly what Cap and Thor were. They didn't receive the same treatment as IM and TIH because Marvel has been in a rush to get the Avengers out. That isn't a stretch either. I believe their announcement when Marvel Studios was formed was that they were going to get the Avengers in theaters by either 2012 or 2013. I firmly believe that Thor and Cap suffered for this fact.

Let me reiterate: Thor and Cap are not bad movies. But they're definitely not exceptional when compared to IM and TIH. Their is stuff in both of the films that I loved, but not enough to make me look back on them years from now as if it stood the test of time. They suffered from poor pacing and poor characterization.

I think there are various things that Marvel need to be careful of, and I've thought about this a lot over the last week. With the hype of Avengers looming overhead, they have to make sure that post Avengers, it doesn't seem like the indivudual characters aren't as interesting on their own as they are as a team. When they go back to the sequels, post Avengers, I hope they really have the patience to take their time with the characters stories. They wont have an Avengers film to hype towards, there won't be the same pressures, I really hope they don't rush things. Because at the moment, I'm actually starting to get sick of the Avengers hype.
Click to expand...
I'm more confident that the stand-alone films will do better post-Avengers. I think we'll start getting a lot of solid directors after seeing the success of the film, and there will definitely be more attention to detail and care for the characters and stories being told. I see nothing but bright things for the future.
 
Chewy said:
I can assure that is unequivocally false.
Click to expand...
After watching TIH and leaving the press screening very pleased, I had to wait a week for critics reviews (the screening I attended was on a Monday). I was shocked to hear all this negative talk citing "Franchise-appeal" and how the movie was more concerned with selling the Hulk's future involvement with other heroes like Iron Man rather than delivering a good story. Then I watched the film a second time in theatres. I was shocked to find Tony's scene moved up to before the credits. I went back to look at more reviews and came to understand that most critics left the theatre with a bad, uncalled for, Iron Man taste in their mouths that pretty much crapped all over the strong closing statement on THE HULK's movie. The bad placement of that scene, a signature Kevin Feige meddling move, did alot of damage to the film. Two years later, that intruding Marvel Studios approach pretty much consumed what coulda been a great Iron Man sequel.
 
Wolvieboy17 said:
Yes, I know what a template is, but I don't understand the logic of you admitting one film is better than the other, but you'd rather every film strive to hit a lower point of success?

Personally, I'd rather every comic book film strive to nail the best tone, story and characterisation it can within the scope of it's source material, whether it's dark and gritty for Batman or more light and fun like the Marvel films. I'd prefer that than, say, every film trying to fit into one style of movie, when that one style of movie, whilst fun, has an extremely specific setting and not very good pacing.

You do know what 'pacing' is, don't you? :P
Click to expand...
The point of a template is that you use it as a model that you change and improve upon. I'm not saying every superhero movie should be as good as Captain America, i'm saying they should model themselves after Captain America. The Dark Knight succeeded on so many levels, but it also failed on many, many of which don't matter to film critics but do to comic book fans. The areas where The Dark Knight failed matter more to me than the areas where Captain America failed. Captain America could be improved upon EASILY. To fix the problems the Dark Knight had you'd have to completely rewrite the whole thing.


Also, I know what it is, and I liked the pacing. People complain about the montage and the USO scenes when referring to the bad pacing and those were my favorite parts of the movie.
 
Last edited:
I think most of you are also misunderstanding the great points Alexei Belyakov has been making. The only thing I believe we have a disagreement on is the involvement with SHIELD from IM2 and beyond. I think their presence is appropriate in the films simply because SHIELD is everywhere in the comics as well. In the case of IM2, SHIELD was only there to help Tony get back on track as the only people with the means to get him on the right track. I didn't feel like they intruded on the movie and I was in fact pleased with how they were portrayed.

The point Alexei Belyakov is making, I believe, is that all of these films need to be given just as much time and attention, if not more, as the current collaboration is being given. Cap and Thor truly aren't everything they could be when compared to IM and TIH. Does this make them bad films? No. They were rushed and it shows.

I can tell you guys really loved Thor and Cap, and I can relate to that, but Alexei Belyakov's criticisms really aren't that harsh at all. I think we're all really close to these characters and we want them represented as superbly as they should be, not cutting corners or throwing important supporting characters to the side. These are good stories and they deserve to be told properly.
 
BobbyCorwin88 said:
Let me reiterate: Thor and Cap are not bad movies. But they're definitely not exceptional when compared to IM and TIH.
Click to expand...
I don't get when TIH became associated with the word exceptional. It's good sure. From my reading of the different views on these forums over recent years plus opinions from other sites I don't even think there is a majority that would say TIH was definitely better than the others. Maybe an equal, certainly not a definitive superior. Do a poll if you're unsure of the outcome. :cwink:
 
Alexei Belyakov said:
After watching TIH and leaving the press screening very pleased, I had to wait a week for critics reviews (the screening I attended was on a Monday). I was shocked to hear all this negative talk citing "Franchise-appeal" and how the movie was more concerned with selling the Hulk's future involvement with other heroes like Iron Man rather than delivering a good story. Then I watched the film a second time in theatres. I was shocked to find Tony's scene moved up to before the credits. I went back to look at more reviews and came to understand that most critics left the theatre with a bad, uncalled for, Iron Man taste in their mouths that pretty much crapped all over the strong closing statement on THE HULK's movie. The bad placement of that scene, a signature Kevin Feige meddling move, did alot of damage to the film. Two years later, that intruding Marvel Studios approach pretty much consumed what coulda been a great Iron Man sequel.
Click to expand...
That isn't what the bad reviews said, for the most part. You should maybe read them again.
 
Alexei Belyakov said:
After watching TIH and leaving the press screening very pleased, I had to wait a week for critics reviews (the screening I attended was on a Monday). I was shocked to hear all this negative talk citing "Franchise-appeal" and how the movie was more concerned with selling the Hulk's future involvement with other heroes like Iron Man rather than delivering a good story. Then I watched the film a second time in theatres. I was shocked to find Tony's scene moved up to before the credits. I went back to look at more reviews and came to understand that most critics left the theatre with a bad, uncalled for, Iron Man taste in their mouths that pretty much crapped all over the strong closing statement on THE HULK's movie. The bad placement of that scene, a signature Kevin Feige meddling move, did alot of damage to the film. Two years later, that intruding Marvel Studios approach pretty much consumed what coulda been a great Iron Man sequel.
Click to expand...
I agree it was a bad move to put that before the credits. But most good reviewers are still going to give a film a positive review if everything before the annoying final scene is on the whole positive. Imagine ROTK's endings (which went on way too long IMO) had added a 20 second Hobbit scene. You think the reviews would be changing drastically?
 
Iron Man 2's complaints stem from the Avengers set-up not complimenting the film. That's the problem, IMO. What honestly does Black Widow do? Nothing that warrants taking screentime from Whiplash, the main villain of the movie, and Whiplash suffers from lack of development. THIS is why IM2 gets some criticism. Again, I like IM2, but I do feel the complaints have merit. Thor and Captain America have lots of Avengers set-up, but all of their Avengers material compliment the film (save for maybe the Hawkeye cameo, but that was 5 seconds).
 
Iceman said:
I don't get when TIH became associated with the word exceptional. It's good sure. From my reading of the different views on these forums over recent years plus opinions from other sites I don't even think there is a majority that would say TIH was definitely better than the others. Maybe an equal, certainly not a definitive superior. Do a poll if you're unsure of the outcome. :cwink:
Click to expand...
Yeah, that sounds good too.:oldrazz:
 
JB-the-Hunter said:
The areas where The Dark Knight failed matter more to me than the areas where Captain America failed. Captain America could be improved upon EASILY. To fix the problems the Dark Knight had you'd have to completely rewrite the whole thing.
Click to expand...
With this you suggest that there are enough flaws in Captain America that the slightest change to pacing, characterization, etc. would drastically improve the value of the film.

In the case of TDK, you imply that it is so well done that in order to produce any flaws, you would have to write another film altogether and call it "The Dark Knight."

I don't mean to sound insulting or demeaning, but this is exactly what I'm reading.
 
I thought the USO section was great, but the montage and then the resulting scenes were completely difference pacing from the rest of the movie. They just jumped ahead and rushed things. I understand this for one main reason, being, by using the montage, they wanted some time gaps for the potential for flashbacks in Cap sequels, so there could potentially be a mission or so we didn't see, but let's add up the movie... That was the reasoning behind the montage, Bucky's death was way to rushed but the lack of closure in that was obviously for the later inclusion of Winter Soldier... Then we have the ending, which obviously relates to the Avengers. In all of that, the most solid part of the whole film for me was still the first hour, because that was the section where you were the most emotionally engaged with Cap's character.

In fact, in my mind, the whole thing was very much like a comic book. You had a great premise and set up, awesome character building, then, pretty much from the line where Rogers says to Stark "I had some ideas from the costume" it's go, go, go comic book action, until the scene where Steve is sitting in the destroyed bar, remembering Bucky... Then, it's rush, rush, rush pretty much until Cap is begind the controls of the plane.

Now, this, as entertaining as it all was, still could have been handled better. For instance, if they'd had Bucky's (seeming) demise at the hand of Red Skull IN that final conflict, it not only would have made the Cap vs Skull fight more personal, but it would have packed more emotional weight at the end of the film, driven Cap as a character more, but also given us more time with Bucky as a character, a character who, like the Commandos, was very underdeveloped. Bucky's longest scene, pre-war, pretty much just served to further establish Steve as a character, rather than himself. People like Rhodey, Selvig, even the Warriors 3, all got more character development than Bucky, and I think that was a bit of an oversight.
 
Personally, I loved what was on screen in Cap and wouldn't really change much given the chance. A superb 9/10 film that sets up both a franchise and Avengers and does so with charisma and style is good enough for me.

Back to Avengers...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMa1YRAjjtM&feature=youtu.be

Nothing new at all but it's good to see the production doing wonders for a struggling small town. I bet the Governor of Michigan who chased the production out of state is kicking himself now.
 
You know, one of the complaints a lot of the movies have gotten is the simplistic stories, which I've never really minded simply because I view the origin films more as character driven films than anything, which I think they've excelled at so far (at least with the title characters) but I really would love something special and different for Avengers. I know there are a lot of great comics issues, or things like EMH that would serve for good Avengers stories, but I feel like for the MCU Avengers I'd really like something unique, that can stand apart as the sole, cinematic verison of these characters.

Something like the Ultimates, not like it's story, but something that feels as starkly (no pun intended) different from the traditional story as Ultimates was (although, obviously better, and not just different for the sake of it). Thank god we have good, faithful 616 characterisations of the heroes too. Either way, I'm definitely intrigued by the potential this film has.

At it's worst, I think Avengers will be a fun, but stock standard story with all our favourite characters, with decent action, fun dialogue but basic and bland story structure. At it's best, however, it could quite easily be the greatest Superhero film ever made, like nothing else we've ever seen. Either way, I don't really see any real losing scenario with this film.
 
I'm sorry but anyone calling a Marvel Studios film a "2-hour Avengers Commercial" is literally insane. If you add up all the Avengers **** from EVERY Marvel Studios film, you'd have at MOST 15 minutes out of 10 hours of films.


Edit: Also if The Avengers is actually awesome critically and commercially, everyone here will be forced to eat crow, because there is NO way they could have done The Avengers right without doing the cross-over films. Introducing all of the characters in one film is pathetically stupid on all levels of insanity.
 
I don't believe thats what the
2-hour Avengers' commercial comment is relating too, not literally all the footage directly relating to Avengers, but rather, any creative decision made within a film that prioritises a setup for Avengers over the title characters development, or indeed the development of another character. That would definitely be more than 15 minutes. Not that I'm complaining, for instance, I loved the SHIELD stuff in IM 2, but it was all largely meant to be an MCU tie in thing.
 
weezerspider said:
Edit: Also if The Avengers is actually awesome critically and commercially, everyone here will be forced to eat crow, because there is NO way they could have done The Avengers right without doing the cross-over films. Introducing all of the characters in one film is pathetically stupid on all levels of insanity.
Click to expand...

Everyone on here? I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that introducing all these characters cold in an Avengers film would be a better way of doing it.
 
Wolvieboy17 said:
Everyone on here? I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that introducing all these characters cold in an Avengers film would be a better way of doing it.
Click to expand...

*everyone who is complaining :oldrazz:

Also I don't think the creative decisions are effected as much as some people claim. An example with Thor: We all expected the "sword in the stone" type moment with all kinds of civilians trying to pick up the hammer. It would make sense for some kind of government agency to take a look at the hoopla that is this magical hammer. With the cross-over, the writers make that response unit SHIELD. Sure there are adjustments, but its adjusting something you already were going to put in there.
 
Chewy said:
That isn't what the bad reviews said, for the most part. You should maybe read them again.
Click to expand...
The majority of reviews I've read attack the franchise set-up showcased in that final scene [with Tony] and I completely agree in that it serves no purpose in the film. Like Spider-Fan says: "What does Black Widow do in IM2?" Same goes for Tony Stark being the final note in TIH. Iron Man and [the original cut of] TIH were movies about the title characters. Iron Man 2 was supposed to be about Iron Man but instead we got a de facto SHIELD movie - something that [expectedly] completely turned off the critics. If TIH had been left as it was originally intended to be by Norton & Leterrier, it would have fared a whole lot better critically.
 
Wolvieboy17 said:
I don't believe thats what the
2-hour Avengers' commercial comment is relating too, not literally all the footage directly relating to Avengers, but rather, any creative decision made within a film that prioritises a setup for Avengers over the title characters development, or indeed the development of another character. That would definitely be more than 15 minutes. Not that I'm complaining, for instance, I loved the SHIELD stuff in IM 2, but it was all largely meant to be an MCU tie in thing.
Click to expand...

I could understand Iron Man 2, maybe, but explain how that applies to Thor and Cap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

flickchick85
  • Sticky
Endgame Official Avengers: Endgame General Discussion Thread!
31 32 33
Replies
820
Views
91K
psylockolussus
psylockolussus
T
  • Locked
The Avengers The Avengers: News and Speculation - Part 27A sub-se - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 65
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
38K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
The Avengers The Avengers: News and Speculation - Part 27A sub-se - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 64
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
40K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
The Avengers The Avengers: News and Speculation - Part 27A sub-se - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 63
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
38K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
The Avengers The Avengers: News and Speculation - Part 27A sub-se - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 62
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
35K
Thread Manager
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 2,145 (members: 26, guests: 2,119)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,289
Messages
22,080,814
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"