The Avengers The Official Rate/Review Thread for Marvel's The Avengers! (TAG SPOILERS!!!) - Part 3

[Joeyjojo72]

I like that XMFC is a unique take on the material, but there are many overly expository and awkward moments and poorly designed characters. Angel and Beast and Banshee are silly the way they are presented, and Emma Frost is generic eye candy (if fake boobs are your thing). The grenade scene is just embarrassing.

Its still better than XMOWolverine, but its not in the league of TA. And the film relies too heavily on extended montages. Lazy writing.

 

[Mulholland-Jr]

X-Men: First Class is nowhere near perfect but it's a much, much more creative movie than the Avengers.

 

[CConn]

XM: FC does seem like a more legitimate movie than the Avengers, with a lot of originality.

 

[JAK®]

How is The Avengers any less of a 'legitimate' movie than First Class?

What does 'legitimate' even mean?

 

[terry78]

And that's why First Class made so much more than The Avengers, because the public recognized how legitimate it was.

 

[Kelly]

I enjoyed the Avengers far more than I have any of the X-Men movies...it has become one of my fav CB movies.

 

[CConn]

Made with a bit more care, talent, meaning and originality, etc.

As I just said in another thread an hour ago, in a lot of ways, The Avengers is little more than a series of well done action scenes paired with some snappy dialogue.

 

[CConn]

And that's why First Class made so much more than The Avengers, because the public recognized how legitimate it was.

Yes, because as we all know, Avatar is the best movie of all time.

 

[JAK®]

Made with a bit more care, talent, meaning and originality, etc.

As I just said in another thread an hour ago, in a lot of ways, The Avengers is little more than a series of well done action scenes paired with some snappy dialogue.

Snappy dialogue is a key element in a film that is about character interaction at it's core.

I don't see how having a lot of action lessens it's legitimacy as a film. The characters are superheroes. Action is what they do. It's like pointing out that a gangster film is a lot of shooting paired with hypermasculine posturing.

So I'm confused, because what you have used to dismiss the film are what I see as it's greatest strengths.

I like X-Men First Class, but it's flaws are far greater than those of The Avengers. The biggest one being that Xavier and Magneto's friendship lasts about a week. One thing The Avengers never does is rush the characters into developing. The Avengers is perfectly paced in that regard.

The biggest talent was Fassbender and McAvoy. Everybody else was simply OK. They faded into the background, which did not happen to any character in The Avengers. Who were all played fantastically.

I don't see how First Class had more care when it was a rushed production, compared to The Avenger's slow build up over many films.

The only thing original about it was the 60's setting. Which Vaughan blatantly stated was an excuse to riff on James Bond cliches. So not that original at all.

I guess Magneto's character arc was more meaningful than those of The Avengers. Unfortunately it was rushed, as I said before.

I think that what you mean by 'legitimate' is that First Class had a pretence of seriousness that The Avengers lacked. But the fact that The Avengers embraced it's fun side was it's greatest strength. I guess it didn't come across as a sophisticated movie. It just focused on being a good one.

 

[CConn]

You seem rather pointlessly wounded that I prefer FC over TA.

 

[JAK®]

You seem rather pointlessly wounded that I prefer FC over TA.

But you didn't just say you preferred it, did you? You said it was more legitimate. That's an objective qualifier. I'm simply asking you to defend that claim.

 

[CConn]

I said seemed.

Which inferred it was my perspection.

And perception is an inherently individual thing.



That said, nothing you said in your post has swayed me. You take the tact of defending TA and making assumptions that I'm being overly critical of it, when I'm really not.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive towards its action or dialogue. It's great. It's what makes the movie a good movie. What diminishes TA's quality in my eyes its it's lack of subtext (this is literally the second time I've had this conversation in the past hour, btw ).

The Avengers presents a perfect opportunity to delve into some deeper social and political analyzations and questions, and while there's several scenes in the film that seem to elude that Whedon was trying to add some depth to the film, ultimately, I feel as though he fell short with his every attempt at injecting my real meaning into the film.

It's never a matter of seriousness for me. A movie could be a comedy, a children's film whatever, if it's good, with some really worthwhile intentions and ingenuity, I'll be into it. I liked Avengers' tone. I liked it's action and dialogue and characters, etc., etc. it's just that, ultimately, it doesn't seem as though it has any real meat on its bones like other superhero movies have.

That statement "it didn't come across as a sophisticated movie, it just concentrated on being a good one" irks me. Because sophisticated and good should be synonymous with each other. Sophisticated doesn't have to mean serious - there's sophisticated comedies, and sophisticated children's films - sophisticated should merely mean that a film is made with intelligence and talent.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I said seemed.

Which inferred it was my perspection.

And perception is an inherently individual thing.



That said, nothing you said in your post has swayed me. You take the tact of defending TA and making assumptions that I'm being overly critical of it, when I'm really not.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive towards its action or dialogue. It's great. It's what makes the movie a good movie. What diminishes TA's quality in my eyes its it's lack of subtext (this is literally the second time I've had this conversation in the past hour, btw ).

The Avengers presents a perfect opportunity to delve into some deeper social and political analyzations and questions, and while there's several scenes in the film that seem to elude that Whedon was trying to add some depth to the film, ultimately, I feel as though he fell short with his every attempt at injecting my real meaning into the film.

It's never a matter of seriousness for me. A movie could be a comedy, a children's film whatever, if it's good, with some really worthwhile intentions and ingenuity, I'll be into it. I liked Avengers' tone. I liked it's action and dialogue and characters, etc., etc. it's just that, ultimately, it doesn't seem as though it has any real meat on its bones like other superhero movies have.

That statement "it didn't come across as a sophisticated movie, it just concentrated on being a good one" irks me. Because sophisticated and good should be synonymous with each other. Sophisticated doesn't have to mean serious - there's sophisticated comedies, and sophisticated children's films - sophisticated should merely mean that a film is made with intelligence and talent.

You start sticking deeper social and political stuff in there and it could really bog down the plot and character development.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

I think that what you mean by 'legitimate' is that First Class had a pretence of seriousness that The Avengers lacked. But the fact that The Avengers embraced it's fun side was it's greatest strength. I guess it didn't come across as a sophisticated movie. It just focused on being a good one.

Exactly right. I can't stand when superhero films try to wedge in pseudo, half baked social or political commentary...XFC has so many moments where I just cringed because of the parallels they forced comparing it to gay rights, the most blatant being the line when Beast says "well you didn't ask, so I didn't tell." Cringe. Not to mention all of the "mutant and proud" stuff...yes, there are parallels between mutants and gay rights, but they hit you over the head in the film pushing that message. Just be a comic book movie, please. Avengers was finally the first comicbook film I have ever seen, not a movie which is based on comicbook characters. It's one of my big complaints about TDK, the god awful cell phone part, which is thinly veiled commentary on the Bush administration and the PATRIOT Act, which the pretentious Nolans had to put in there, and I know something similar will be in TDKR.

Yes, there are parallels that can be drawn to current hot button social issues, but if you are going to do it just keep it very, very mild, and do it subtly. Superhero are powerful being who choose to wear silly costumes and save people. They are incredibly 2 dimensional characters, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Don't try to make superheros something they aren't. Be an adventure film. Show heroism, show over the top evil villains, have some humor, some tragedy, even a love interest is fine. But stop trying to make it something it isn't, please. Just because a movie decides to tackle themes or issues that are deemed relevant to today's world does not make it good. A superhero film really should not be the place to make social commentary.

 

[JAK®]

I said seemed.

Which inferred it was my perspection.

And perception is an inherently individual thing.



That said, nothing you said in your post has swayed me. You take the tact of defending TA and making assumptions that I'm being overly critical of it, when I'm really not.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive towards its action or dialogue. It's great. It's what makes the movie a good movie. What diminishes TA's quality in my eyes its it's lack of subtext (this is literally the second time I've had this conversation in the past hour, btw ).

The Avengers presents a perfect opportunity to delve into some deeper social and political analyzations and questions, and while there's several scenes in the film that seem to elude that Whedon was trying to add some depth to the film, ultimately, I feel as though he fell short with his every attempt at injecting my real meaning into the film.

It's never a matter of seriousness for me. A movie could be a comedy, a children's film whatever, if it's good, with some really worthwhile intentions and ingenuity, I'll be into it. I liked Avengers' tone. I liked it's action and dialogue and characters, etc., etc. it's just that, ultimately, it doesn't seem as though it has any real meat on its bones like other superhero movies have.

That statement "it didn't come across as a sophisticated movie, it just concentrated on being a good one" irks me. Because sophisticated and good should be synonymous with each other. Sophisticated doesn't have to mean serious - there's sophisticated comedies, and sophisticated children's films - sophisticated should merely mean that a film is made with intelligence and talent.

I still think that you are looking for an ultimately redundant air of validity that The Avengers didn't need. While you may claim to embrace the fun and actiony aspect of the movie, you still crave some nebulous 'subtext', a shoehorned message that would not have benefited the movie at all.

The Avengers is a character piece. It was entirely about how the characters interact and develop. There is no 'social' theme. It didn't need one. Loki's speech about how humanity wishes to be ruled, for example, is not social commentary, but a look into his views and his development into a villain. "There are always men like you". It was a criticism of his vanity, and he gets his comeuppance at the end. "Puny god."

So it seems to me that you watched The Avengers, enjoying the spectacle and funny lines, but missed the actual point of the movie because you were waiting for some vague message about how it really represented the struggle of the common man in Soviet Russia or something like that.

And the most important thing that people miss; The Avengers is a continuing story. It isn't over yet. The characters have more in store for them, which may cause you to appreciate this film more in the future. But right now, you get to enjoy watching them grow.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

The Avengers presents a perfect opportunity to delve into some deeper social and political analyzations and questions, and while there's several scenes in the film that seem to elude that Whedon was trying to add some depth to the film, ultimately, I feel as though he fell short with his every attempt at injecting my real meaning into the film.

Another thing I have to disagree with...when Loki talks about the idea of freedom being life's great lie, and that humans actually long for a leader, there is some truth to that, to a degree...this is what I would consider the extent of any type of social commentary you should make in a comicbook film. Hitler was a great leader. Terrible yes, but he was great. He drew tons and tons of followers for a reason. In Loki's eyes he would validate himself if he rules them and makes the world "peaceful", to create a "perfect" society, even though it is a forced one. This is what I would consider to be good social commentary, not blatant, obvious, "don't ask don't tell" political buzzwords.

 

[CConn]

You start sticking deeper social and political stuff in there and it could really bog down the plot and character development.

Yes, when it's done incorrectly, it will.

When anything's done incorrectly it will bog down a film.

When done effectively and with talent, subtextual messages shouldn't interrupt or interfer with the main storyline at all. It should be so innately intertwined with the story and characters that it's just a singular organic piece that doesn't need lines like "you didn't ask, I didn't tell" to make its point (yes, I'm criticizing FC too).

The problem most filmmakers seem to have, is they think everything has to be conveyed through dialogue and/or story beats...when you don't - and shouldn't - use those vehicles to achieve your subtext at all.

Instead, it should be done through secondary actions and subtle tells in the actors' performances, things that - if you didn't know what to look for - you'd never see. For instance, my favorite example of truly brilliant and masterfully done subtext comes from BR, as explained here:

"Batman changes in the second movie. He starts out as the same character in the beginning of Returns (although "[Tim and Michael] still saw him as a wounded soul" - Daniel Waters Fangoria 1992), he's in his study, sitting alone in the dark and there is only deafening silence. And then the bat-signal turns on and he has found his one and only purpose in life. That simple dialog free scene conveys a very important message about the character. At the end of Batman, Batman killed The Joker for revenge and in Batman Returns he becomes more consumed by the monster within himself as he took more pleasure killing criminals in the beginning of the film where he burns that guy in devil suit, straps the bomb around the strongman and shoots the spear gun into the clowns head."

So ALL of that characterization about Batman came from a 15 second scene of him sitting in the dark, and a few moments of violence that you'd never even notice if you were just purely absorbed into the plot.

That's what I'd do with Avengers. Don't have Cap go on some diatribe about American foreign policy, but have meaningful structures built into every character. Have Cap's personality - not his words - echo the American ideal. Or actually give more insight and resolution into shield's whole shadowy leadership, and their resonance in the film. Little things like that would've improved the film greatly, IMO.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

I still think that you are looking for an ultimately redundant air of validity that The Avengers didn't need. While you may claim to embrace the fun and actiony aspect of the movie, you still crave some nebulous 'subtext', a shoehorned message that would not have benefited the movie at all.

The Avengers is a character piece. It was entirely about how the characters interact and develop. There is no 'social' theme. It didn't need one. Loki's speech about how humanity wishes to be ruled, for example, is not social commentary, but a look into his views and his development into a villain. "There are always men like you". It was a criticism of his vanity, and he gets his comeuppance at the end. "Puny god."

So it seems to me that you watched The Avengers, enjoying the spectacle and funny lines, but missed the actual point of the movie because you were waiting for some vague message about how it really represented the struggle of the common man in Soviet Russia or something like that.

And the most important thing that people miss; The Avengers is a continuing story. It isn't over yet. The characters have more in store for them, which may cause you to appreciate this film more in the future. But right now, you get to enjoy watching them grow.

Totally agree with you here dude, with the exception of what Loki says in Germany. Like I said above, there is an element of truth to it, I think, which I would say is some very subtle commentary on human nature and our longing for a good leader.

 

[JAK®]

Yes, when it's done incorrectly, it will.

When anything's done incorrectly it will bog down a film.

When done effectively and with talent, subtextual messages shouldn't interrupt or interfer with the main storyline at all. It should be so innately intertwined with the story and characters that it's just a singular organic piece that doesn't need lines like "you didn't ask, I didn't tell" to make its point (yes, I'm criticizing FC too).

The problem most filmmakers seem to have, is they think everything has to be conveyed through dialogue and/or story beats...when you don't - and shouldn't - use those vehicles to achieve your subtext at all.

Instead, it should be done through secondary actions and subtle tells in the actors' performances, things that - if you didn't know what to look for - you'd never see. For instance, my favorite example of truly brilliant and masterfully done subtext comes from BR, as explained here:

"Batman changes in the second movie. He starts out as the same character in the beginning of Returns (although "[Tim and Michael] still saw him as a wounded soul" - Daniel Waters Fangoria 1992), he's in his study, sitting alone in the dark and there is only deafening silence. And then the bat-signal turns on and he has found his one and only purpose in life. That simple dialog free scene conveys a very important message about the character. At the end of Batman, Batman killed The Joker for revenge and in Batman Returns he becomes more consumed by the monster within himself as he took more pleasure killing criminals in the beginning of the film where he burns that guy in devil suit, straps the bomb around the strongman and shoots the spear gun into the clowns head."

So ALL of that characterization about Batman came from a 15 second scene of him sitting in the dark, and a few moments of violence that you'd never even notice if you were just purely absorbed into the plot.

That's what I'd do with Avengers. Don't have Cap go on some diatribe about American foreign policy, but have meaningful structures built into every character. Have Cap's personality - not his words - echo the American ideal. Or actually give more insight and resolution into shield's whole shadowy leadership, and their resonance in the film. Little things like that would've improved the film greatly, IMO.

Mark Ruffalo's performance alone reflects everything you've just said.

 

[CConn]

I still think that you are looking for an ultimately redundant air of validity that The Avengers didn't need. While you may claim to embrace the fun and actiony aspect of the movie, you still crave some nebulous 'subtext', a shoehorned message that would not have benefited the movie at all.

The Avengers is a character piece. It was entirely about how the characters interact and develop. There is no 'social' theme. It didn't need one. Loki's speech about how humanity wishes to be ruled, for example, is not social commentary, but a look into his views and his development into a villain. "There are always men like you". It was a criticism of his vanity, and he gets his comeuppance at the end. "Puny god."

So it seems to me that you watched The Avengers, enjoying the spectacle and funny lines, but missed the actual point of the movie because you were waiting for some vague message about how it really represented the struggle of the common man in Soviet Russia or something like that.

And the most important thing that people miss; The Avengers is a continuing story. It isn't over yet. The characters have more in store for them, which may cause you to appreciate this film more in the future. But right now, you get to enjoy watching them grow.

Eh, I'm really not interested in discussing this with you.

You're ignoring pretty much all of my compliments and my understanding of the film overall.

I know exactly what the film is meant to be - and I enjoy it greatly for it. And, again, you strike me as being more concerned about defending the film than actually exchanging any level of insights or information.

 

[JAK®]

Eh, I'm really not interested in discussing this with you.

You're ignoring pretty much all of my compliments and my understanding of the film overall.

I know exactly what the film is meant to be - and I enjoy it greatly for it. And, again, you strike me as being more concerned about defending the film than actually exchanging any level of insights or information.

No, I hear your compliments. You like the movie for it's light tone and great action. I get that. I'm not accusing you of wanting something different from that.

But you have admitted that you are looking for something more, and something more is what this film doesn't need. That's my point. It's fine on it's own.

 

[CConn]

Another thing I have to disagree with...when Loki talks about the idea of freedom being life's great lie, and that humans actually long for a leader, there is some truth to that, to a degree...this is what I would consider the extent of any type of social commentary you should make in a comicbook film. Hitler was a great leader. Terrible yes, but he was great. He drew tons and tons of followers for a reason. In Loki's eyes he would validate himself if he rules them and makes the world "peaceful", to create a "perfect" society, even though it is a forced one. This is what I would consider to be good social commentary, not blatant, obvious, "don't ask don't tell" political buzzwords.

In the other conversation I just had about TA, I actually brought that scene up myself as a great example of Whedon attempting to really thread some good stuff into the film; I loved it.

That said, I feel as though every time he attempted to to it, it kind of sputtered out before any satisfying resolution or conclusion could be made.

 

[CConn]

No, I hear your compliments. You like the movie for it's light tone and great action. I get that. I'm not accusing you of wanting something different from that.

But you have admitted that you are looking for something more, and something more is what this film doesn't need. That's my point. It's fine on it's own.

But why does it have to be fine on its own?

What's wrong with striving for more? Or simply recognizing the flaws of a film you enjoy greatly?

 

[JAK®]

But why does it have to be fine on its own?

What's wrong with striving for more? Or simply recognizing the flaws of a film you enjoy greatly?

Because adding more will not make the film better.

Striving for more is perfectly fine - if more is required.

The Avengers has some flaws, but nothing to do with what you are describing.

 

[CConn]

Because adding more will not make the film better.

Striving for more is perfectly fine - if more is required.

The Avengers has some flaws, but nothing to do with what you are describing.

Now you're just being needlessly self-righteous.