The Avengers The Avengers: News and Speculation - Part 27A sub-se - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 49

[BigThor]

i can pretty much name extensive collateral damage in every marvel film from Blade to Cap. you're nit picking simply because you liked a Hancock... a horrid film... that only got one thing right..

Lol yeah I'm nit picking because I would like to see more displays of power, which includes destruction during super powered battles. I'm pretty sure there were multiple posters who agreed with what I was saying, so I guess all of us are just nit picking huh?

Hancock wasn't "horrid" by any means and the post wasn't about me liking "Hancock" it was about me liking the feats of strength in the film.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

PERSONALLY I want to know what the attraction was for in Tonsberg Norway? Will there be MORE in Avngers seeing as we've seen it in both Cap and Thor?

so the same location in Norway that's in avengers, was in thor and cap?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Lol yeah I'm nit picking because I would like to see more displays of power, which includes destruction during super powered battles. I'm pretty sure there were multiple posters who agreed with what I was saying, so I guess all of us are just nit picking huh?

Hancock wasn't "horrid" by any means and the post wasn't about me liking "Hancock" it was about me liking the feats of strength in the film.

soooooo you want a micheal bay transformers film

 

[BigThor]

Everything about Charlize's character and how she fits into the film is nonsensical

It's a fun movie, until Hancock goes to jail

Yep Charlize gave a good performance, but her character was definately shoe-horned in and highly unecessary in my opinion.

 

[The Morningstar]

fine. I'll give it a "mediocre" which it was (it was pretty forgettable to be honest) it's a great concept that fell flat. The film couldn't decide if it was a comedy, or a drama which really didn't mesh well. I went to a test screening in LA, and the audience pretty much unanimously dissed it, mostly for the same reasons.

It's a great concept to a pretty dark, R-rated story that wasn't executed as realistic and gritty and drama filled as it should have been. The action scenes were cool, but I felt they lacked substance.

Yea i can agree with that. Didn't mean to come off as a *****e there lol. Just thought "horrid" was a bit hyperbolic.

 

[BigThor]

soooooo you want a micheal bay transformers film

Lol now you're just being extreme and why is it always one or the other, why can't a film have awesome action scenes as well a good character driven plot?

 

[Tony Stark]

so the same location in Norway that's in avengers, was in thor and cap?

Yes in Thor at the beginning in the epilogue, where Odin has a great battle against the Frost Giants on Earth. Then in Captain America where the Red Skull destroys the town, and takes the Tesseract from the carving of Yggdrasil on the wall.

 

[The Morningstar]

Transformers esque action + Serenity esque characterisation = perfect Avengers film.

 

[BigThor]

Transformers esque action + Serenity esque characterisation = perfect Avengers film.

Bingo t:

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

soooooo you want a micheal bay transformers film

I'd say that's an unfair distinction to make. Transformers action isn't bad for the most part. Sure, there are some flaws but they're usually well done and have great money shots.

Also, Hancock I would say overall isn't that good. The first half was great, but it took the biggest nosedive I've ever seen in a movie when Charlize Theron throws Will Smith out the house.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Lol now you're just being extreme and why is it always one or the other, why can't a film have awesome action scenes as well a good character driven plot?

in a perfect world..sure. But 90% of movies that have lots of glorious disaster... usually fall flat in depth. while movies with great depth tend to have less glorious disaster.

I personally feel that more disaster and effects are usually a crutch for a film. You can tone down an explosion, or battle and still make it epic. It just depends on how it was shot. (I think The Two Towers, and Return of the King) are great examples of this. It's all about the shots, the pacing, the heart, and while there were alot of CGI effects.. the battles weren't really about explosions, fire, and buildings tumbling apart (like Michael Bay does). It all depends on the focus.

hopefully the avengers hits this balance. there is in no doubt alot of disaster in this film (we've seen a bunch) but it needs heart. It needs to emotionally make an impact of the brotherhood and kinship of a bunch of misfits fighting as one. that's where you perfect it.

 

[BigThor]

I'd say that's an unfair distinction to make. Transformers action isn't bad for the most part. Sure, there are some flaws but they're usually well done and have great money shots.

Also, Hancock I would say overall isn't that good. The first half was great, but it took the biggest nosedive I've ever seen in a movie when Charlize Theron throws Will Smith out the house.

Hell yeah dude, I hate the scene when Charlize throws Hancock out of the house and everytime I watch it I think "awww man there's goes the movie".

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Yes in Thor at the beginning in the epilogue, where Odin has a great battle against the Frost Giants on Earth. Then in Captain America where the Red Skull destroys the town, and takes the Tesseract from the carving of Yggdrasil on the wall.

interesting. Maybe it's a "weak spot" where a portal can be opened?, or an asgardian magical hot spot

 

[The Morningstar]

in a perfect world..sure. But 90% of movies that have lots of glorious disaster... usually fall flat in depth. while movies with great depth tend to have less glorious disaster.

I personally feel that more disaster and effects are usually a crutch for a film. You can tone down an explosion, or battle and still make it epic. It just depends on how it was shot. (I think The Two Towers, and Return of the King) are great examples of this. It's all about the shots, the pacing, the heart, and while there were alot of CGI effects.. the battles weren't really about explosions, fire, and buildings tumbling apart (like Michael Bay does). It all depends on the focus.

hopefully the avengers hits this balance. there is in no doubt alot of disaster in this film (we've seen a bunch) but it needs heart. It needs to emotionally make an impact of the brotherhood and kinship of a bunch of misfits fighting as one. that's where you perfect it.

Exactly. There is no point of having amazing action scenes if you don't give a crap about the characters involved.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Transformers esque action + Serenity esque characterisation = perfect Avengers film.

eh... if you tone down about 50% of the transformers action maybe... (or at least maybe equal to the first film, certainly not DotM's action/disaster) that was akin to about the same amount of ridiculous disaster as 2012

 

[The Morningstar]

eh... if you tone down about 50% of the transformers action maybe... (or at least maybe equal to the first film, certainly not DotM's action/disaster) that was akin to about the same amount of ridiculous disaster as 2012

I get ya. But see, if Dark of the Moon had a plot that made sense, and characters that you could root for, it would have made the action less shallow and pointless. And i wouldn't have minded the utter ridiculousness of it all.

I think the only action scene that i had some kind of emotional investment in was when Optimus went all one man army on about 10 decepticons and Shockwave. That was awesome. You could understand his rage. And Optimus is pretty much the only character in the whole franchise i could root for. Well, him and Bumblebee.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I'd say that's an unfair distinction to make. Transformers action isn't bad for the most part. Sure, there are some flaws but they're usually well done and have great money shots.

Also, Hancock I would say overall isn't that good. The first half was great, but it took the biggest nosedive I've ever seen in a movie when Charlize Theron throws Will Smith out the house.

but that's all it is... is a bunch of glorified money shots. you care nothing for any of the characters in the film. The whole film series is nothing but "oh that's cool" moments.

and yeah... that's where the movie drastically changes tones, and nosedives indeed.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I get ya. But see, if Dark of the Moon had a plot that made sense, and characters that you could root for, it would have made the action less shallow and pointless. And i wouldn't have minded the utter ridiculousness of it all.

I think the only action scene that i had some kind of emotional investment in was when Optimus went all one man army on about 10 decepticons and Shockwave. That was awesome.

it was just too many glorified money shots. Bay sacrificed characterization for those. you often can't have both due to time constraints... and Bay would rather blow things up then tell a good story.

 

[BigThor]

Speaking of destruction, I've always wanted to see Hulk and Thor blown out of the sky and sliding through the gravel when they land during the final battle.

It's not that I want to see senseless destruction, I just want to see the impact these character's abilities have on their surroundings and how the team is able to take a lick and keep on ticking.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Speaking of destruction, I've always wanted to see Hulk and Thor blown out of the sky and sliding through the gravel when they land during the final battle.

It's not that I want to see senseless destruction, I just want to see the impact these character's abilities have on their surroundings and how the team is able to take a lick and keep on ticking.

you mean like when hulk/banner fell from the chopper, and broke through the ground? Or how thors might destroyed the rainbow bridge? or how thor made that epic giant rippled wave of earth attacking the frost giants?

 

[BigThor]

you mean like when hulk/banner fell from the chopper, and broke through the ground? Or how thors might destroyed the rainbow bridge? or how thor made that epic giant rippled wave of earth attacking the frost giants?

Yes yes yes, I'm not saying Marvel doesn't ever do those things in their films I just wouldn't mind seeing a bit more.

I loved the scene where Iron Man's knocked out of the sky into that smoking crater during the first IM film, Hulk breaking through the ground from falling out of that helicopter was awesome as well.

 

[Poni_Boy]

you mean like when hulk/banner fell from the chopper, and broke through the ground? Or how thors might destroyed the rainbow bridge? or how thor made that epic giant rippled wave of earth attacking the frost giants?

Is this the city-wide destruction/collateral damage thing all over again? Hell, the trailers for The Avengers show MASSIVE amounts of destruction in Manhattan. What are people expecting, a Watchmen squid explosion?

 

[BigThor]

Is this the city-wide destruction/collateral damage thing all over again? Hell, the trailers for The Avengers show MASSIVE amounts of destruction in Manhattan. What are people expecting, a Watchmen squid explosion?

Actually I was speaking more about destruction on a smaller scale, like characters being knocked into craters and through vehicles.

I'm sure no one's expecting entire blocks to be destroyed or buildings toppling every where you look.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Actually I was speaking more about destruction on a smaller scale, like characters being knocked into craters and through vehicles.

I'm sure no one's expecting entire blocks to be destroyed or buildings toppling every where you look.

And we're NOT getting that? Every Marvel Studios film has a standard issue scene where the hero gets knocked on his ass causing a wake of impact damage. Even in The Avengers trailer we see Hulk destroy the side of a skyscraper to save Iron Man

I think too many people have been desensitized by the excess of CG Baysplosions that they don't realize how much damage that ^ kind of stuff really is to an urban environment. Moreso, if you have those scenes every ten minutes like in the comic books the films would be horrendously campy.

 

[BigThor]

And we're NOT getting that? Every Marvel Studios film has a standard issue scene where the hero gets knocked on his ass causing a wake of impact damage. Even in The Avengers trailer we see Hulk destroy the side of a skyscraper to save Iron Man

I think too many people have been desensitized by the access of CG Baysplosions that they don't realize how much damage that ^ kind of stuff really is to an urban environment. Moreso, if you have those scenes every ten minutes like in the comic books the films would be horrendously campy.

I didn't ever say "where not getting that", just because someone says that want to see something doesn't mean they think it's not going to be in the film. Oh and I love that shot of Hulk destroying the sides of that building after catching Iron Man, I'm not asking for dozens of large scaled explosions just a few more moments like that IM catch.

Sometimes I forget how easy it is for what you're saying to be misunderstood on the internet, I always get reminded every now and then though.