The Avengers The Avengers: News and Speculation - Part 27A sub-se - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 28

[Flint Marko]

They are all watchable, but 4 out of the 5 MCU films have been average at very best. They don't take any big risks, they don't get any big rewards. It's a trade off. They hit for average, instead of going for the home run. Which in art form comes across as very vanilla. I can at least respect failure like Ang Lee's Hulk, etc because they took risks for what they considered an interesting vision.

These MCU films, post Iron Man, have all played it safe, banking on delivering to the most amount of people as possible ... all essentially being advertisements for some big join up film which we will get next summer.

I imagine Avengers will make a good profit, we'll see if it is even remotely decent in terms of quality. Because if they were focusing on this film for 4 other movies, it would be one massive failure to build all this tension and excitement for one movie only to fail miserebly.

I'd disagree with your assessment that these films have been 'average at best'. They have all been successful both financially and critically, with only one debatable exception. Every person I know who is unfamiliar with comics and has seen these movies think they are all awesome and are heavily anticipating the Avengers. I've heard from multiple people (not nerds like us) how awesome it is that these movies are interconnecting and sharing a continuity. That in and of itself is a success.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

If you want to see a bland antagonist in the MCU, I suggest to take a look at Red Skull.
Loki is my second favorite villain, just behind Stane.
Because he was no villain at all. Just a very troubled son who wanted the attention of his all-mighty father

 

[OB12]

No doubt, Loki was great in Thor. He really possessed a seething animosity but at the same time he made you believe early on that what he was doing was for the good of Thor. Truly well played. I'm expecting an even more awesome and villianous Loki in the Avengers.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I hope James Cameron doesn't get anywhere near Marvel.

Tbh, I agree.

 

[Crimson King]

If anyone doubts Loki's popularity after Hiddleston's performance in Thor, just take a look at Tumblr. Holy christ do they love that boy.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

edited.

 

[D'Evils]

Anyway, I disagree with you. Simply because an Avengers reference was made in each movie doesn't mean that it was the focus. There isn't a single MCU movie that can't stand on its own outside of the Avengers arc.

Well the references weren't made simply as nods. Come on, it has been their business startegy for sometime now. That is more than obvious. It's the primary reason these four characters rights were acquired.

In some movies, namely Iron Man 2, and to a smaller extent Thor, the addittion of "SHIELD" and the "Avengers Agenda" goes out of its way and derails the main focus of the movie at the expense of the title character.

Pretty sure the studio even meddled so much in Iron Man 2, that it is one of the reasons Faverau bounced from future projects. Hell, you can tell when his film gets disjointed with the studio's agenda. The first 30 mins feel like a legit sequel to the first film, and is right there with the original Iron Man. Then we get the scene of Stark in a donut shop, being riddled with questions from Sam Jackson in all black with an eye patch, and the completely useless character to the narrative Scarlett Johanson's "Black Widow" at his side.



I understand how my opinion won't be popular. But it is my opinion, and I just wanted to share what I consider constructive criticism. All the MCU films have been to me very average, apart from the original Iron Man.

Some down right bad, but are disguised and glossed over by fans of the character merely because minute details correlate to their comic book counter part, or the look of the characters and films are ultra faithful, or production value is good.

 

[steintym]

You thought the Loki character was more interesting and threatning and Hiddleson's performance was better than

Jeff Bridge's Obidiah Stane?
Mickey Rourke's Ivan Vanko?
Alfred Molina's Doctor Ock?
Brian Cox's William Stryker?
Ian McKellan's Magneto?
Nick Nolte's David Banner?
Sam Hurt's Thunderbolt Ross?
Hugo Weaving's Red Skull?

Well, different strokes I guess.

I should have clarified what I meant by the Marvel movies. I was referring to the Marvel produced movies.

Of those, I found Loki's character and Hiddleson's performance to be my favorite. A close second would be Weaving's Red Skull.

 

[D'Evils]

have all been successful both financially and critically

Ehhh, not really. Apart from Iron Man, as I said, average or slightly above average.

Nothing truly worth gushing over.

It's almost as if the MCU films were to me, kind of cookie cutter in nature.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I'd disagree with your assessment that these films have been 'average at best'. They have all been successful both financially and critically, with only one debatable exception. Every person I know who is unfamiliar with comics and has seen these movies think they are all awesome and are heavily anticipating the Avengers. I've heard from multiple people (not nerds like us) how awesome it is that these movies are interconnecting and sharing a continuity. That in and of itself is a success.

These movies are successful BECAUSE they don't take risks. I greatly enjoy the Marvel films - I really do - but even I can admit that they're pretty average in terms of film making. They're all visually, thematically, etc quite straight forward and simplistic. They cater to the common denominator, like most summer blockbusters. I really think that if it weren't for the history and impact these characters have had on society over the last 40+ years, these movies wouldn't be nearly as big a deal as they are now. These films are all very "color by numbers".

This doesn't make them bad - and i'm not saying they are (again, I love em); but I really feel like these films could have been far better - more original, i guess, if "risks" had been taken.

 

[Crimson King]

Some down right bad, but are disguised and glossed over by fans of the character merely because minute details correlate to their comic book counter part, or the look of the characters and films are ultra faithful, or production value is good.

Or maybe the majority of people just think they're good movies because they're good.

To dislike the MCU so far is fine. You've made your opinion known. The problem arises when you constantly bring your distaste up again and again, so I hope you'll avoid that.

 

[Crimson King]

These movies are successful BECAUSE they don't take risks. I greatly enjoy the Marvel films - I really do - but even I can admit that they're pretty average in terms of film making. They're all visually, thematically, etc quite straight forward and simplistic. They cater to the common denominator, like most summer blockbusters. I really think that if it weren't for the history and impact these characters have had on society over the last 40+ years, these movies wouldn't be nearly as big a deal as they are now. These films are all very "color by numbers".

This doesn't make them bad - and i'm not saying they are (again, I love em); but I really feel like these films could have been far better - more original, i guess, if "risks" had been taken.

I would argue that making a movie out of the Thor comic is a risk in and of itself. Turned out pretty well, most thought. Same for the original Iron Man. And Captain America.

 

[OB12]

These movies are successful BECAUSE they don't take risks. I greatly enjoy the Marvel films - I really do - but even I can admit that they're pretty average in terms of film making. They're all visually, thematically, etc quite straight forward and simplistic. They cater to the common denominator, like most summer blockbusters. I really think that if it weren't for the history and impact these characters have had on society over the last 40+ years, these movies wouldn't be nearly as big a deal as they are now. These films are all very "color by numbers".

This doesn't make them bad - and i'm not saying they are (again, I love em); but I really feel like these films could have been far better - more original, i guess, if "risks" had been taken.

There is some truth here. Marvel hasn't taken a lot of risks with this movies, but as you said that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think what they've done is that they have adapted the source material so well, that they do tend to feel safe. Why take such a risk when there are years and years of source material that is already beloved?

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

These movies are successful BECAUSE they don't take risks. I greatly enjoy the Marvel films - I really do - but even I can admit that they're pretty average in terms of film making. They're all visually, thematically, etc quite straight forward and simplistic. They cater to the common denominator, like most summer blockbusters. I really think that if it weren't for the history and impact these characters have had on society over the last 40+ years, these movies wouldn't be nearly as big a deal as they are now. These films are all very "color by numbers".

This doesn't make them bad - and i'm not saying they are (again, I love em); but I really feel like these films could have been far better - more original, i guess, if "risks" had been taken.

I agree with everything you've said. That's a fantastic way to put it, well done.

 

[scifiwolf]

I don't know that I'd say Loki is my favorite villain, but he was far from boring. The scene in the vault with Odin was threatening, tense, tragic, and superbly acted. When he screams "Tell me!" to his father, well, I have no words. As he tries to process the knowledge and begins to wonder why Odin never told him, again, pitch perfect. That was a scene that very much could've been 1- or 2-dimensional, but Hiddleston and Branaugh gave us a very layered villain from there on out. Loki's actions are of someone who gets in over their head, and keeps making worse and worse decisions. At the end of the movie, with his father standing over him, we see again that glimpse of Loki's desire to just be loved equally to his brother. He slips away, knowing his father has denied any merit to Loki's actions. What we'll see in The Avengers is that same character, and hopefully the same layered performance. Loki should be even more dangerous, as he no longer has to operate under the pretense of being a good guy. If the Skrulls or anyone else are brought in, they'll only play the puppets to a masterful puppeteer. That's a great threat against which to assemble a team of superheroes.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

You thought the Loki character was more interesting and threatning and Hiddleson's performance was better than

Jeff Bridge's Obidiah Stane?
Mickey Rourke's Ivan Vanko?
Alfred Molina's Doctor Ock?
Brian Cox's William Stryker?
Ian McKellan's Magneto?
Nick Nolte's David Banner?
Sam Hurt's Thunderbolt Ross?
Hugo Weaving's Red Skull?

Well, different strokes I guess.

In regards to villains, Marvel has surpassed my expectations. Ian's/Michael's Magneto and Tom's Loki are downright my favorite thus far.

DC only has Liam Nelson, Heath Ledger, Tom Wilkinson, Aaron Eckhart, Eric Roberts, Cillian Murphy and Tom Hardy (all from the Batman franchise) so far. Hopefully actors like Michael Shannon, Antje Traue, and Mark Strong will expand beyond just Batman.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I would argue that making a movie out of the Thor comic is a risk in and of itself. Turned out pretty well, most thought. Same for the original Iron Man. And Captain America.

Every movie is a risk. A lot of time, effort, and money is put into every movie, with the hope that it'll do well, and the risk that it won't. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the execution of these films. I feel like they could have gone a step further.

 

[D'Evils]

I agree with everything you've said. That's a fantastic way to put it, well done.

I said essentially the same thing but because I'm a new poster people jumped my back about it?

haha

Anyway, I agree too Spider-Who is essentially agreeing with my perspective.

 

[Adamantium Man]

Every movie is a risk. A lot of time, effort, and money is put into every movie, with the hope that it'll do well, and the risk that it won't. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the execution of these films. I feel like they could have gone a step further.

And I feel like it was fine the way it was. Now what?

 

[marcvader]

I don't know that I'd say Loki is my favorite villain, but he was far from boring. The scene in the vault with Odin was threatening, tense, tragic, and superbly acted. When he screams "Tell me!" to his father, well, I have no words. As he tries to process the knowledge and begins to wonder why Odin never told him, again, pitch perfect. That was a scene that very much could've been 1- or 2-dimensional, but Hiddleston and Branaugh gave us a very layered villain from there on out. Loki's actions are of someone who gets in over their head, and keeps making worse and worse decisions. At the end of the movie, with his father standing over him, we see again that glimpse of Loki's desire to just be loved equally to his brother. He slips away, knowing his father has denied any merit to Loki's actions. What we'll see in The Avengers is that same character, and hopefully the same layered performance. Loki should be even more dangerous, as he no longer has to operate under the pretense of being a good guy. If the Skrulls or anyone else are brought in, they'll only play the puppets to a masterful puppeteer. That's a great threat against which to assemble a team of superheroes.

Well put.

 

[Adamantium Man]

Well the references weren't made simply as nods. Come on, it has been their business startegy for sometime now. That is more than obvious. It's the primary reason these four characters rights were acquired.

In some movies, namely Iron Man 2, and to a smaller extent Thor, the addittion of "SHIELD" and the "Avengers Agenda" goes out of its way and derails the main focus of the movie at the expense of the title character.

Pretty sure the studio even meddled so much in Iron Man 2, that it is one of the reasons Faverau bounced from future projects. Hell, you can tell when his film gets disjointed with the studio's agenda. The first 30 mins feel like a legit sequel to the first film, and is right there with the original Iron Man. Then we get the scene of Stark in a donut shop, being riddled with questions from Sam Jackson in all black with an eye patch, and the completely useless character to the narrative Scarlett Johanson's "Black Widow" at his side.



I understand how my opinion won't be popular. But it is my opinion, and I just wanted to share what I consider constructive criticism. All the MCU films have been to me very average, apart from the original Iron Man.

Some down right bad, but are disguised and glossed over by fans of the character merely because minute details correlate to their comic book counter part, or the look of the characters and films are ultra faithful, or production value is good.

Anyone else getting a sense of déjà vu?

Yeah, fine, you've shared your view, very well done. It's in the minority. Not just here, but among the GA and the critics as well.

 

[The Infernal]

I said essentially the same thing but because I'm a new poster people jumped my back about it?

Maybe they just had a problem with the part where you sound like you're making an excuse why most fans wouldn't agree with you?

 

[D'Evils]

DC only has

Wrong way to start out ... sure DC has only primarily put out Batman and Superman movies (with good reason, technology wasn't there to do Green Lantern till recently) and Batman and Superman are literally 2 of the absolute elite 3 in terms of best and most widely known comic book characters. You can't fault them for that. The other characters on the DC roster just don't matter as much. I feel Marvel's roster is deeper, but DC has the best of the bunch in terms of richness of mythology and story telling with Batman. Superman not far behind has had some very good movies, all he needs is to be re-adpated for modern audiences, which looks to be a done deal with "Man of Steel"

It's not about quantity of characters, or quantity of average or slightly above average movies.

To me it's about QUALITY. If it's just quality coming from two characters, who cares as long as it's good?

Superman: TM, Superman II, Batman '89, and Batman Returns paved the way for the comic book film genre. They are innovative.

Batman Begins reached the pinnacle of story telling for the comic book genre.

The Dark Knight eclipsed even it's genre limitations and shattered the glass ceiling for comic book movies to be taken seriously by film snobs.

And hopefully, and if I were a betting man would be sure bets ... The Dark Knight Rises, and Man of Steel look to be massive hits as well.

You're also forgetting very memorable performances such as:

Nicholson's Joker
Pfieffer's Catwoman
Devito's Penguin
Hackman's Luthor

and even given the times, and though it is kind of corny to watch today ...

Terrence Stamp's General Zod was brillaint.

 

[DyeLorean]

Just read that Avengers moved a week earlier in here, so I'll be seeing it on April 26th!

 

[Crimson King]

Every movie is a risk. A lot of time, effort, and money is put into every movie, with the hope that it'll do well, and the risk that it won't. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the execution of these films. I feel like they could have gone a step further.

Of course every movie is a risk, but some are more than others, no? I thought it was incredibly risky to attempt a Thor movie after Iron Man's success. They could've gone a safer route and used a more reality-based hero but they introduced fantasy into the mix. That's a huge leap of faith, considering the cost.

On the other hand, I agree that Thor could've given us more. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they didn't want to go full LOTR in scope on the first movie, but I'm expecting much better things in Thor 2. For one, I hope that whoever writes the story lets things breathe a little. Decrease the confinement of Thor's world and increase the characterization. That's what I'm looking for.