The Avengers The Superbowl spot - Part 1

[T"Challa]

maybe its because one is an actual trailer, and the other is just a tv spot....
seriously wait tiill trailer 2 then compare the trailers

well, then compare it to the John Carter tv spot, or the iron man or thor tv spots.. its the same thing, the scenes just look...cleaner, better contrasted i dunno. Like i said, i'm no expert but i had that 'tv' feeling when i saw the first trailer. Mind you i'm beyond certain that this movie's gonna be awesome, it just doesnt have that cinematic look to it. Here's David Poland's (a film critic) opinion on the subject:

Avengers looks like it was made for television in a comparison of the trailers… and the Dark Knight Rises materials. A whole different – lower – class. They want to be the first one out… not the 2nd or third

 

[Quasimod0]

I think it looks like a movie. Made for television? whatever, no way

 

[flickchick85]

I remember people saying the exact same thing about M:I3, complaints I suspect were largely borne out of the concerns over it being "TV director" JJ Abrams' first blockbuster gig. That turned out fine, and this already looks a heck of a lot more cinematic than that did to me, so I'm really not worried.

 

[CConn]

JJ Abrams is like 80 times better than Joss Whedon, though.

 

[CConn]

Also, I'm surprised no ones called the film critic a batman fanboy.

How dare that bastard compare and prefer TDKR to our beloved Avengers.

 

[flickchick85]

JJ Abrams is like 80 times better than Joss Whedon, though.

Except not. And I was a massive Abrams fan before I discovered Whedon's work, too. Watched every single episode of Alias and Lost from the first days they aired (or in Lost's case, the day the pilot leaked). They're both good, but Abrams not only made a s****y showrunner (he had zero follow-through on his ideas), he was also a far more cliché-prone writer (and director), imo.

 

[marcvader]

well, then compare it to the John Carter tv spot, or the iron man or thor tv spots.. its the same thing, the scenes just look...cleaner, better contrasted i dunno. Like i said, i'm no expert but i had that 'tv' feeling when i saw the first trailer. Mind you i'm beyond certain that this movie's gonna be awesome, it just doesnt have that cinematic look to it. Here's David Poland's (a film critic) opinion on the subject:

I just want the movie to entertain and meat my expectations and from I've seen so far it looks like it will and exceed them.

 

[CConn]

Except not. And I was a massive Abrams fan before I discovered Whedon's work, too. Watched every single episode of Alias and Lost from the first days they aired (or in Lost's case, the day the pilot leaked). They're both good, but Abrams not only made a s****y showrunner (he had zero follow-through on his ideas), he was also a far more cliché-prone writer (and director), imo.

Ew, no.

Whedon writes the dampest dialogue this side of George Lucas.

He's struggles to maintain good looking production values in his shows/movies (although Avengers does look good).

His plotting is average at best.

And, so far, he's had about a tenth of the financial and critical success than Abrams has had.

 

[flickchick85]

Ew, no.

Whedon writes the dampest dialogue this side of George Lucas.

Well on this we must simply disagree.

He's struggles to maintain good looking production values in his shows/movies (although Avengers does look good).

His first shows were made for dirt cheap on a baby network, of course they had low production values. Firefly and Dollhouse looked fine, but still had smaller budgets than Abrams' shows.

His plotting is average at best.

This is just so far off. His long-term plotting was amazing. His shows had some of the best character arcs TV has seen. J.J. Abrams never even bothered to see any of his arcs through, and clearly never planned beyond the season in front of him.

And, so far, he's had about a tenth of the financial and critical success than Abrams has had.

The financial part is not surprising, since Abrams has always had broader, more mainstream sensibilities than him. Whedon is more unique, therefore quirkier in appeal. But critically, Whedon has done just as well. Pretty much every respected publication on the planet has mentioned how great his work is or put his shows on their "Best of All-Time" lists. Critics have always been champions of Whedon shows. And if you wanna limit it to the movies they directed, Serenity has a higher Metacritic score than 2 out of 3 of Abrams' movies, so they seem to be on equal footing there.

 

[psylockolussus]

I love the scene where they were standing in a circle!

Its so like the comic-book!

 

[IronGirl299]

^ agreed, that was truly badass. You notice everyone else has to reload, or put new arrows in their bows, or ready their weapons in different ways, and Hulk's just standing there like 'watchagonna do punkz?!?' MEGA excited!

 

[The Morningstar]

Yea but it was cheesy and has no real meaning behind it. Who cares if it looks ****ing awesome?

 

[Suzanne78]

Well on this we must simply disagree.
His first shows were made for dirt cheap on a baby network, of course they had low production values. Firefly and Dollhouse looked fine, but still had smaller budgets than Abrams' shows.

This is just so far off. His long-term plotting was amazing. His shows had some of the best character arcs TV has seen. J.J. Abrams never even bothered to see any of his arcs through, and clearly never planned beyond the season in front of him.

The financial part is not surprising, since Abrams has always had broader, more mainstream sensibilities than him. Whedon is more unique, therefore quirkier in appeal. But critically, Whedon has done just as well. Pretty much every respected publication on the planet has mentioned how great his work is or put his shows on their "Best of All-Time" lists. Critics have always been champions of Whedon shows. And if you wanna limit it to the movies they directed, Serenity has a higher Metacritic score than 2 out of 3 of Abrams' movies, so they seem to be on equal footing there.

Co-sign, yet again. I really like Abrams, his movies more than his TV shows, with the exception of Fringe, which is one of my absolute favorite TV shows of all time. His Star Trek reimaging was brilliant. Whedon, however, is my crack. He does things with characters that are rather extraordinary to behold (see Pryce, Wesley-Wyndham), his plots are unique and ambitious (see season 2-5 of Buffy and season 6's musical episode). And I absolutely cannot let it stand when someone says his dialogue is Lucas levels of fail. Wholeheartedly disagree with that point. His dialogue may not be you cup of tea, but no way does it line up with, "Hold me like you did back on Naboo...." or anything that comes out of Jar-Jar's mouth.

 

[Smashlilman]

Yea but it was cheesy and has no real meaning behind it. Who cares if it looks ****ing awesome?

I don't get the "it has no meaning". It didn't look cheesy to me. It looks like they were just dropped off in the city and they assembled in a circle to cover each others backs. It also looks like the team's about to break apart and head out in different directions with in the city.

 

[The Morningstar]

I was being sarcastic.

Looks to me that scene is unfinished. I'm 99% sure in the finished version we'll see the Avengers surrounded by numerous enemies. They're all going "back to back" as it were. Maybe it's after the Quinjet crashes and they have all regrouped on the ground.

Besides all that, it's just a great superhero visual, an iconic Avengers shot. You've gotta have that visual iconography in a movie like this. People who think it's corny and silly have no place being fans of the superhero genre. Because for me, visuals like that are part of what makes the superhero genre what it is.

It just looks like a superhero book come to life, from what i've seen. That shot of the explosion above Thor, Cap and Black Widow you can just imagine as a big splash page in a comic. The tracking shot of Iron Man dog fighting towards that portal in the sky also.

The visuals and action were my biggest doubts with Whedon on board, but it seems they were unfounded. And even though i'm not a massive fan of him, I know that he is strong with creating interesting characters that stand out and have believable development. I mean, even the much maligned Alien Resurrection had some great characters in Michael Wincott's (the coolest voice ever btw) band of space pirates.

My point is after the superbowl spot my anticipation has gone way up and I think, well hope, this will be the complete, live action superhero experience.

 

[Smashlilman]

I was being sarcastic.

Looks to me that scene is unfinished. I'm 99% sure in the finished version we'll see the Avengers surrounded by numerous enemies. They're all going "back to back" as it were. Maybe it's after the Quinjet crashes and they have all regrouped on the ground.

Besides all that, it's just a great superhero visual, an iconic Avengers shot. You've gotta have that visual iconography in a movie like this. People who think it's corny and silly have no place being fans of the superhero genre. Because for me, visuals like that are part of what makes the superhero genre what it is.

It just looks like a superhero book come to life, from what i've seen. That shot of the explosion above Thor, Cap and Black Widow you can just imagine as a big splash page in a comic. The tracking shot of Iron Man dog fighting towards that portal in the sky also.

The visuals and action were my biggest doubts with Whedon on board, but it seems they were unfounded. And even though i'm not a massive fan of him, I know that he is strong with creating interesting characters that stand out and have believable development. I mean, even the much maligned Alien Resurrection had some great characters in Michael Wincott's (the coolest voice ever btw) band of space pirates.

My point is after the superbowl spot my anticipation has gone way up and I think, well hope, this will be the complete, live action superhero experience.

lol wasted opportunity to use this then

 

[flickchick85]

Co-sign, yet again. I really like Abrams, his movies more than his TV shows, with the exception of Fringe, which is one of my absolute favorite TV shows of all time.

Like many of his shows, Abrams deserves about zero credit for the show Fringe has become. The only Fringe Abrams was a part of was S1 Fringe, and I think we all know that's the lesser Fringe. Which further illustrates my point: he never sees his arcs through. Like he did with Alias and Lost before it (though he stuck with Alias for slightly longer than he did the others), he got the ball rolling in the first season, then left it to other showrunners to develop the arcs and determine an end game. He's not a long-term storyteller AT ALL. He plans for the season in front of him, and that's it. The only credit he deserves for Fringe's massive improvement over its early days is in making a good choice of showrunners to leave it to. He wasn't so lucky with Alias.

Whedon, however, is my crack. He does things with characters that are rather extraordinary to behold (see Pryce, Wesley-Wyndham), his plots are unique and ambitious (see season 2-5 of Buffy and season 6's musical episode). And I absolutely cannot let it stand when someone says his dialogue is Lucas levels of fail. Wholeheartedly disagree with that point. His dialogue may not be you cup of tea, but no way does it line up with, "Hold me like you did back on Naboo...." or anything that comes out of Jar-Jar's mouth.

So much agreement here. Especially the part about Wesley, my #1 favorite character arc in the Buffyverse. t:

 

[shigsy2003]

I was being sarcastic.

Looks to me that scene is unfinished. I'm 99% sure in the finished version we'll see the Avengers surrounded by numerous enemies. They're all going "back to back" as it were. Maybe it's after the Quinjet crashes and they have all regrouped on the ground.

The Leviathan should be in that shot as well, judging from how Thor is looking up and following the camera around. And if there are going to be ground enemies in the shot then they are far from the cleverest aliens ever. Hulk's there....they ain't going to get very far.

 

[CConn]

His first shows were made for dirt cheap on a baby network, of course they had low production values. Firefly and Dollhouse looked fine, but still had smaller budgets than Abrams' shows.

Dollhouse looked good, admittedly. But Firefly always seemed cheaply cheesy to me.

I totally understand having a shoestring budget - but that's when you, as a creator, should base shape your ideas around that budget and not add in effects or stories that will end up looking fake or cheesy when made with your low budget. But that's just my opinion.

This is just so far off. His long-term plotting was amazing. His shows had some of the best character arcs TV has seen. J.J. Abrams never even bothered to see any of his arcs through, and clearly never planned beyond the season in front of him.

Long term plotting, eh? You have a point with that. I was referring to their singular episode/movie plotting.

The financial part is not surprising, since Abrams has always had broader, more mainstream sensibilities than him. Whedon is more unique, therefore quirkier in appeal.

This concept kind of bothers me. I think, you can be as quirky as you want, if you're legitimately awesome, you'll end up regarded as such by the masses.

But critically, Whedon has done just as well. Pretty much every respected publication on the planet has mentioned how great his work is or put his shows on their "Best of All-Time" lists. Critics have always been champions of Whedon shows.

I would like to see some of those lists. Whenever I read anything about Whedon - even people who are big fans of him - often refer to him as making "b-movie" shows or movies; essentially, that he's more viewed as delivering entertainment, as opposed to art.

And if you wanna limit it to the movies they directed, Serenity has a higher Metacritic score than 2 out of 3 of Abrams' movies, so they seem to be on equal footing there.

Serenity was pretty good. But what frustrates me about it - and all of Whedon's work - if you put that concept or script (although I don't get why Whedon feels the need to mention vibrators and periods in his dialgoue to show he understands women ) in the hands of a better director - even Abrams, it would've been a better movie.

That's just my opinion, and a guess, of course, but it's pretty much how I feel about Whedon in general; he's a phenomenal concept man. Like Lucas, he can come up with incredible casts, and stories, etc. But, like Lucas, I've always felt his execution has fallen flat.

That's my big complaint: I see the quality in his work. I see the potential. But what I don't see, is that potential ever developed to what it should be.

 

[Son of Coul]

You heard it here first, folks: Art cannot be entertaining.

 

[CConn]

I didn't say that at all.

Nor did I mean to infer it.

 

[Chewy]

I wouldn't consider a single thing Abrams or Whedon has done to be art.

They have made entertaining shows/films based around terrific casts and concepts, but not art.

I don't think there's any shame in that.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

On the other hand tv shows and movies are creative endeavors and art is nothing but expressed creativity.

 

[CConn]

Hm. That's true.

 

[Smashlilman]

I wouldn't consider a single thing Abrams or Whedon has done to be art.

They have made entertaining shows/films based around terrific casts and concepts, but not art.

I don't think there's any shame in that.

Art is purly subjective. Anything and Every thing is Art.