What people DIDN'T like from The Avenger ........Spoilers - Part 2

Not Hawkeye.

 

*confused* In what way would War Machine "break" the plot? One more Starktech armor would have been helpful, sure, but the Avengers were being slowly overwhelmed as is, Tony included. All Rhodey would have changed would be that a relative few more invading aliens would be dead prior to the "tide beginning the turn" stage.

 

I didn't say War Machine would break the plot, though a too powerful military showing up easily could. I do think they would be extremely powerful against the lightly-armored Chitauri invasion. Think IM2 when Tony and Rhodey just stood there blasting the HammerDrones, that's what War Machine would do, just stand and be a turret. That's also what I think the military would do, but way more of it and from every possible direction.

I think by including the military, they would have either been an overwhelming force or a bunch of bungling idiots. I think War Machine would have been very effective sitting in an intersection or rooftop, probably too effective. In this film, I think he would be Hawkeye with guns, but Hawkeye's bow and arrows are much cooler than a gun and his limitations are much more fun to play with.

Would a dude sitting on a roof with a rifle picking off Chitauri have been fun? Not really. But a dude with a bow and arrows that do cool stuff, hellz yeah! That's fun.

 

True, tho Joss does say he had realised he'd messed up there.
I liked how it was handled tho, personally.
In the Comics Hawkeye started out as a "badguy" too, now that his "origin" or RE-origin has been covered we can move on with the character, because all we knew was Clint was working for SHIELD in Thor and not much else.

 

Well the one problem with Rodey is, he's got his orders to obey. I would think War Machine was more than likely protecting the President and couldn't help the Avengers.
It's sort of the reason U.S.Agent came about. The military realises Steve is technically still THEIRS to order around.

 

In the Iron Man 3 prelude comic that came out a couple months ago, it's revealed that Rhodey/War Machine was tied up in Hong Kong investigating some stuff related to The Ten Rings when the Battle of New York goes down, he doesn't get back to NY until after the battle is over and the gang is enjoying their Shawarma

 

Thanks Moon,
Thought there was something on it. Still tho, he was working for the Goverment, That much I remembered and Like Steve's reason for becoming U.S.Agent, the Government kept sending him on Missions he couldn't do any real good.

 

I was using War Machine as an example of what the military would look like against the Chitauri. If you, like me, believe War Machine would be overpowered v. the Chitauri, then imagine what the US military would do.

 

Which I find a weird argument, all the weirder for that I'm the one having to counter it ( I more often have to argue against people trying to poo-poo modern military power ). What, exactly, could military forces have done other than kill some number of the Chitauri infantry at the expense of high casualties amongst their own?

-The leviathans were sufficiently armored that only the heaviest firepower amongst the Avengers could actually take them out, I can't see any conventional ordinance doing much.

-The flying chariots were almost as fast as Iron Man and capable of maneuvering at speed through the streets; combined with being smaller than normal aircraft by a lot, I'm kind of dubious of how effective OTH anti-air missiles would be, even if they did leave NYC.

-And the actual Chitauri infantry themselves could be killed by gunfire and arrows, yes. . . when applied to their unarmored face or other weak points, by people of sufficiently insane skill. I have no doubt that mass automatic weapons fire could do the same, albeit less efficiently. Unfortunately, the Chitauri are still stronger, more mobile, more durable, carrying heavier firepower, and possessing stronger morale than the troops opposing them.

What, exactly, would the US military deploy that would be particularly game-changing?

 

Vice Pres Dick Cheney? hahahahaha

 

Enough bullets and you'll hit something vital. I'm pretty sure 120mm armor piercing rounds from a tank will probably be effective against any armor the Chitauri had. The military has a lot of toys.

The Chitauri infantry weren't that well armored or durable. They were the definition of canon fodder but a dude with a shield who does gymnastics, a big angry green monster that punches hard, and a guy with a hammer that can shoot lightning from his ass can only do so much against overwhelming numbers.

The flying chariots would have been a problem for our jets but a couple helicopter gunships would have been pretty effective until they were, in turn, shot down. The Quinjet canon was very effective in the short time it was deployed. More of those would have been helpful.

The only real problem the Chitauri gave the Avengers was that they had overwhelming numbers. Yes, 1 on 1, they are better than a typical soldier, but we have more soldiers than they do (the Chitauri hadn't spread out past a couple blocks by the end of the film). Without the WSC deploying the nuke, the Avengers would have lost, that much was clear. The military would have evened the odds a bit. Whether they would have ultimately defeated the invasion using conventional weaponry is another question.

New York was being invaded. The WSC deployed a nuke that would have killed millions. Oh no, a soldier is gonna die attempting to fight off an invading force from another planet If there is one thing I have no problem soldiers dying for it's fighting off an invasion of my country. America, **** yeah!

Going back to the original issue, I think by including the military the film would have ended up being the Avengers and the military rather than just the Avengers. The military would have either been stomped, looking weak and dumb (like the civilians and police who already had that role) or they would have held their own and stolen some of the Avengers spotlight. By not including the military, the film ended up being the Avengers v. the Chitauri which looks better on film.

Ultimately I'm not sure why this is an issue. Someone had to have raised this question at some point because there is a line between the police officers that addresses why the military isn't on scene. Mr. Whedon thought about it and dismissed the idea of including the military. If there was no mention of the military in the film, then you have a point. Because there is an acknowledgement of the military, this discussion is pointless.

 

I'd say that the leviathans are what would be the biggest threat to the military though. Iron Man's arsenal couldn't do anything to their armor so I'd mostly see those just smashing through what the military brought. I agree with the rest.

 

Iron Man only tried once with the laser thing against the Leviathan's armor, though his conventional weaponry worked very well on their fleshy parts, as did electrical shock from Thor. I think a howitzer round at close range may make a dent but I'm willing to concede that point as it can't be concluded either way.

I wasn't expecting 100% agreement so I'll take it.

 

There's also the issue that the Avengers pretty much handled things before significant military could have been sent in anyway... and on top of that, by the time a military response came up, the WSC, who ostensibly would have some pull with the American military machine, would have suggested (mandated?) and enacted the nuclear strike. Apparently the MCU military machine isn't all that heroic. When they are faced with an overwhelming force, they escalate right to the top, no questions asked.

 

When you got an alien force destroying earth, the only thing that a human army can do is escalate right to the top.

 

The order to launch a nuclear strike was still beyond ridiculous. Not only would new york be destroyed but so much of the surrounding regions as well from nuclear fall out. It was the ultimate over-reaction, they'd be doing loki a favour by speeding up the destruction 10 fold.

 

I found Loki a very weak villain for this film, either way it worked better this way since the focus can be on the team, i think the final city fight was overrated, i actually prefered the Transformers 3 one, never once did i find the chitari threatening or think the heroes were at risk, even Iron Man's sacrifice felt a little too sudden and fast for me to give a crap, it's probably due to the sacrifice and surviving cliche being so overused.

I found the film very forgetable and during the entire first half there wasn't really any plot and the time on the helicarrier was really boring. The heroes b*****g about SHIELD having secrets, really, what were they expecting? They're a government organization that has to keep peace at all costs,there are many things the general population shouldn't know.

People tend to complain about the Sar Wars prequels, Matrix and other films from the first half of the 2000s overusing CGI and say certain effects are terrible when the normal public barelly notices a thing, and even today i still see many big profile films having worse CGI than those 10 years ago, yet these new films never get complains about overusing or bad CGI.

The Avengers actually had good CGI, however i think it felt really fake, and was overused.

 

Two odd things about this. First of all the nuclear strike might certainly interrupt the wormhole since it requires the device to continuously pump energy into it. Secondly Loki's plan wasn't to destroy everything.

I personally don't see any comparison with the Star Wars prequels and The Avengers. I'm not a person that uses hyperbole and says that everything sucks or is great, but I'd say that Lucas is a poor script writer and director. He's very interested in the technical parts of filmmaking so some of his scenes come across as effects for the sake of effects, while Whedon is a very strong writer when it comes to characters so I think every scene manages to put something else above the effects.

 

Well said. Whedon is a story teller. Lucas is a film technician.

 

That's true, but that complain was about people complaining about the prequels having "bad CGI", many don't say badly placed CGI, they just say it was bad, when it was in fact the best CGI of its time and has barelly aged, the problem in those films was that it was indeed overused, besides the scripts being bad.

I wouldn't call Joss Whedon a good plot writer, his plot's nothing special, he's a characters writer who excells in writing scripts, George Lucas is a good storyteller, the original trilogy should be enough to show that, he's just terrible in writing scripts.

 

You watch too many movies. You do realize that this is the first superhero movie ever to include multiple heroes from different movies (more than 4) and do a single movie with them right? So of course they're going to play it safe and give the Avengers a battle that is not such a huge threat to the world. Give them Loki so that he can play all kinds of mind tricks with them and test them. Test them mentally to force them to communicate and work like a team that way in the future they can face bigger threats like Thanos and Ultron.

lawl. You're one of those people that just pay attention to the action and CGI, hence why you even mentioned that disaster of a movie called Transformers 3. Maybe if you paid attention to the movie you would be wanting to connect everything to the past movies. The MU movies are kind of like a puzzle that you have to connect, but of course, that's only if you're actually a big fan of Marvel. I found the 4 minute fight between IronMan, Thor, and Captain much more entertaining than Bane VS Batman in TDKR. I mean it's a dream to see these superheros clash it out even if it's just for a few minutes. And the Hell-carrier part of the movie was more to show how things are moving to quick and how the Avengers are starting to question the organization that brought them all together. I mean if S.H.I.E.L.D would've just brought these 4 and they were okay with it that would be disastrous for the movie and make it look like if it was made by Fox.

The avengers are far from just "general" people. They are being brought in for one of the most important missions ever so of course they're going to want to know what S.H.I.E.L.D does and what they're next motives are.

Lol. This is the best it'll get and to me it's not a problem because as long as you're into the story, and the CGI is 'good' like you said, it'll be a good time watching the movie.

 

..how the climax battle at the Oil Rig in "Iron Man 3" felt more raw and tense than the Battle of New York.

 

Co-signed, and I had even more issues. But I'm not going to ruffle feathers.

 

PERSONALLY that whole fight with the Chitauri read like a Comic book action sequence SHOULD.
It flowed from one character to the next flawlessly, to ME not A single super hero film has done that and basically covered most of Manhatten over one block at a time.

 

Yeah but Joss admited he muffed that up lol