The Avengers The Avengers: News and Speculation - Part 27A sub-se - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 50

[J.Howlett]

Sorry, but that's a cop out. The ending of that movie was the ending of that movie. Shoulda, woulda, coulda is irelevant to The Avengers. And Thor shouldn't have to rely on anyone to transport him back and forth between Asgard and Earth. THAT is what they will address in this film, and I doubt it'll take more than 2 minutes of screentime.

How the hell is it a cop out? Joss Whedon is juggling at least 9 major characters. Why spend a minute trying to explain to the audience how Thor got back and why he does/doesn't seek out Jane when the simple solution would've been for him to destroy the BiFrost at the end of the film and some how it transports him back to Earth, with Jane.

Very simple and no time wasted in the "biggest comic book movie of all-time" on explaining Thor's situation.

 

[Chewy]

The ending of Thor works in this movie's favor, in the sense that it sets up the big brawl between the big three. If Thor had been on Earth for the past two years (in the film's timeline) he probably would have learned who Tony Stark and Captain America were, and probably even met them. As it stands now he has no clue who they are and has no qualms about ordering them to hand Loki over

 

[BigThor]

Personally, Jane showing up isn't as important to me as explaining just how Thor gets back to Earth. That's my one curious point.

I agree, I'll worry about Thor and Jane's relationship when THOR II rolls around (not much though).

 

[Drummerdude7]

Sorry, but that's a cop out. The ending of that movie was the ending of that movie. Shoulda, woulda, coulda is irelevant to The Avengers. And Thor shouldn't have to rely on anyone to transport him back and forth between Asgard and Earth. THAT is what they will address in this film, and I doubt it'll take more than 2 minutes of screentime.

Agreed. Loki was able to do it, as well as getting the Frost Giants into Asgard, and we didn't get an explanation for that. I guess an explanation for Thor is craved because of the ending of his film and how he relied solely on the Bifrost.

 

[Kirmit]

And you can't have the ending of Thor as it is and not address the situation in the Avengers once Thor sets foot on Earth.

That's how big that ending of Thor was....

...which is the reason why they should've left Thor on Earth at the end of the film. A part of the Avengers film is going to have to explain how he got back and that's time that could be used for something else had they left Thor on Earth at the end of his film.

All they need is a very short scene of Thor saying to maybe Selvig that he figured out his hammer could create portals, it's not going to take out a huge chunk of the film.

 

[Poni_Boy]

How the hell is it a cop out? Joss Whedon is juggling at least 9 major characters. Why spend a minute trying to explain to the audience how Thor got back and why he does/doesn't seek out Jane when the simple solution would've been for him to destroy the BiFrost at the end of the film and some how it transports him back to Earth, with Jane.

Very simple and no time wasted in the "biggest comic book movie of all-time" on explaining Thor's situation.

It's a cop out because you CAN'T change the ending to Thor because it already happened. So why ***** about it? What purpose does it serve and how is it relevant to speculation about this movie? It's not. At all.

I trust Joss Whedon and the MS team to not leave a big loophole like "how does Thor show back up?" in this movie. They're not idiots.

 

[J.Howlett]

Agreed. Loki was able to do it, as well as getting the Frost Giants into Asgard, and we didn't get an explanation for that. I guess an explanation for Thor is craved because of the ending of his film and how he relied solely on the Bifrost.

Because Loki's a master of magic. That's not really Thor's thing.

Just think about the end of Thor if Thor destroys the BiFrost, gets transported to Earth, Loki's presumed dead...and then you have a situation that's somewhat tragic in that Odin, Frigga, the Warrior's Three, and Sif think that both Loki and Thor are lost.

Thor's on Earth, under the watchful eye of SHIELD, when all of sudden strange crap starts happening on Earth and Thor easily recognizes it, tells Fury to get some troops assembled and we're right into the film....

Not saying my way is correct or not but at least, you're not wasting time.

Plus, we all know that Thor's going to be taking Loki back to Asgard at the end of the film. Think about the scene at the end of this film or the beginning of Thor 2 that has Thor show up on Asgard and everyone's delighted to see him alive, with a captured Loki and then you're right into Thor 2's narrative...

 

[J.Howlett]

It's a cop out because you CAN'T change the ending to Thor because it already happened. So why ***** about it? What purpose does it serve and how is it relevant to speculation about this movie? It's not. At all.

I trust Joss Whedon and the MS team to not leave a big loophole like "how does Thor show back up?" in this movie. They're not idiots.

I'm not sore about it. It's just a wasted opportunity by Marvel, in terms of story structure, had they really thought it through.

Again, any time wasted explaining Thor's situation is wasted time when it comes to the amount of stuff that has to happen in this film narrative that Whedon has cooked up.

 

[BigThor]

Because Loki's a master of magic. That's not really Thor's thing.

Just think about the end of Thor if Thor destroys the BiFrost, gets transported to Earth, Loki's presumed dead...and then you have a situation that's somewhat tragic in that Odin, Frigga, the Warrior's Three, and Sif think that both Loki and Thor are lost.

Thor's on Earth, under the watchful eye of SHIELD, when all of sudden strange crap starts happening on Earth and Thor easily recognizes it, tells Fury to get some troops assembled and we're right into the film....

Not saying my way is correct or not but at least, you're not wasting time.

Plus, we all know that Thor's going to be taking Loki back to Asgard at the end of the film. Think about the scene at the end of this film or the beginning of Thor 2 that has Thor show up on Asgard and everyone's delighted to see him alive, with a captured Loki and then you're right into Thor 2's narrative...

Nah I think I like what actually happened more than this, it's not a bad idea though it could've worked.

 

[Chewy]

Because Loki's a master of magic. That's not really Thor's thing.

Just think about the end of Thor if Thor destroys the BiFrost, gets transported to Earth, Loki's presumed dead...and then you have a situation that's somewhat tragic in that Odin, Frigga, the Warrior's Three, and Sif think that both Loki and Thor are lost.

Thor's on Earth, under the watchful eye of SHIELD, when all of sudden strange crap starts happening on Earth and Thor easily recognizes it, tells Fury to get some troops assembled and we're right into the film....

Not saying my way is correct or not but at least, you're not wasting time.

Plus, we all know that Thor's going to be taking Loki back to Asgard at the end of the film. Think about the scene at the end of this film or the beginning of Thor 2 that has Thor show up on Asgard and everyone's delighted to see him alive, with a captured Loki and then you're right into Thor 2's narrative...

Again, Thor being under SHIELD's watchful eye this whole time and knowing who Stark and Cap (who are celebrities) are takes away from the story that's being told here

 

[Poni_Boy]

I'm not sore about it. It's just a wasted opportunity by Marvel, in terms of story structure, had they really thought it through.

Again, any time wasted explaining Thor's situation is wasted time when it comes to the amount of stuff that has to happen in this film narrative that Whedon has cooked up.

Watch. The. Movie. Until then, any definitive claim of "wasted time" is pointless. Leaving Thor on Earth would have changed his first interaction with Cap and Iron Man in the film universe.

 

[metaphysician]

Eh, honestly, I'd rather they save Thanos for a hypothetical future Marvel cosmic movie. The Avengers have plenty of decent villains of their own without delving into guys who are, really, part of other rogues galleries. I'd sooner they use Ultron, Kang, and the Masters of Evil.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Again, Thor being under SHIELD's watchful eye this whole time and knowing who Stark and Cap (who are celebrities) are takes away from the story that's being told here

Exactly. We wouldn't get the [BLACKOUT]Thor vs IM and Cap scene[/BLACKOUT] if he had been on Earth the whole time. This movie, even though it's a culmination of five others, HAS to tell a standalone story. Everything integral that has happened will be touched upon for the GA. The filmmakers know this.

 

[J.Howlett]

Watch. The. Movie. Until then, any definitive claim of "wasted time" is pointless.

Yes sir. Goodness, can we not discuss anything anymore?

 

[Drummerdude7]

Kang or Thanos would be sweet. I don't want Ultron without Hank Pym, but that's just me.

 

[J.Howlett]

Exactly. We wouldn't get the [BLACKOUT]Thor vs IM and Cap scene[/BLACKOUT] if he had been on Earth the whole time. This movie, even though it's a culmination of five others, HAS to tell a standalone story. Everything integral that has happened will be touched upon for the GA. The filmmakers know this.

It won't standalone. By the very definition of how these characters come together in this film, it's not a standalone.

No matter what they say, you have to have seen the previous films to understand, at least, 30% of this movie.

Standalone, this is not.

 

[Drummerdude7]

It won't standalone. By the very definition of how these characters come together in this film, it's not a standalone.

No matter what they say, you have to have seen the previous films to understand, at least, 30% of this movie.

Standalone, this is not.

I wouldn't say that's completely true. Friends of mine watching this had never seen Iron Man or Hulk...which we watched afterwards, but they understood Thor just fine, even the parts involving SHIELD

 

[Poni_Boy]

Yes sir. Goodness, can we not discuss anything anymore?

Of course, but you're making definitive claims about things that will waste time in this film or should have happened in the last. It's irrelevant because you haven't seen the film, and you can't change the last one.

Discussion is one thing, but you've already made your mind up about aspects of this film that you haven't seen.

It won't standalone. By the very definition of how these characters come together in this film, it's not a standalone.

No matter what they say, you have to have seen the previous films to understand, at least, 30% of this movie.

Standalone, this is not.

Again, until you see this movie, how do you know? People said the same thing about Serenity and Firefly, and they were wrong.

 

[J.Howlett]

But, to have investment in the characters totally and the narrative, you have to have seen the previous films.

This is the culmination of five films worth of "mostly consistent" work. You can't go into this film completely not having seen the previous five films. You wouldn't really care about what's going on with the characters....unless Joss Whedon does a massive prologue explaining all the characters...and then that makes the previous five films pointless if he did so.

 

[HUMANIMAL]

thanos army ...someone of youknow where he used an army and how they look like?

 

[Chewy]

It's not standalone but the ending to Thor informs this film quite a bit. The movie takes place 2 years after TIH/IM2/Thor. Thor having lived on Earth for 2 years would have greatly changed the dynamic the team would have had

 

[Poni_Boy]

But, to have investment in the characters totally and the narrative, you have to have seen the previous films.

This is the culmination of five films worth of "mostly consistent" work. You can't go into this film completely not having seen the previous five films. You wouldn't really care about what's going on with the characters....unless Joss Whedon does a massive prologue explaining all the characters...and then that makes the previous five films pointless if he did so.

...gee, why do I get the feeling you've already made up your mind about this film

 

[Chewy]

But, to have investment in the characters totally and the narrative, you have to have seen the previous films.

This is the culmination of five films worth of "mostly consistent" work. You can't go into this film completely not having seen the previous five films. You wouldn't really care about what's going on with the characters....unless Joss Whedon does a massive prologue explaining all the characters...and then that makes the previous five films pointless if he did so.

People enjoyed The Dark Knight without having seen Batman Begins

If people who haven't seen any of the previous 5 films can't enjoy this film on its own merits then it will have failed

 

[J.Howlett]

Of course, but you're making definitive claims about things that will waste time in this film or should have happened in the last. It's irrelevant because you haven't seen the film, and you can't change the last one.

Discussion is one thing, but you've already made your mind up about aspects of this film that you haven't seen.




Again, until you see this movie, how do you know? People said the same thing about Serenity and Firefly, and they were wrong.

I just see some narrative hiccups at the beginning of this film that could've been avoided had Marvel thought out this entire Universe they've tried to build from day one. Not totally thought out but a nice sizeable outline from Iron Man to Avengers.

 

[Poni_Boy]

People enjoyed The Dark Knight without having seen Batman Begins

If people who haven't seen any of the previous 5 films can't enjoy this film on its own merits then it will have failed

Ala Iron Man 2, to an extent.