El Payaso, you can like or not like the humor, but the Avengers moments you've singled out are not at all like the humor in almost any other superhero movie. And it's far from simplistic or lowest common denominator. I explained this in detail in the critic's reviews thread, so I won't go into it again.
[BLACKOUT]Character about to die throws a lastone-liner or humorous line:
- Coulson: agh, so THIS is what this weapon does.
- Green Goblin (SM1): Uh-oh.
Yes, Coulson's last line is a sentence while Goblin's is a sound. Both had the same effect though: they ruined what the director himself proposed as a dramatic death.[/BLACKOUT]
[BLACKOUT]Villiain in the middle of a grand speech is suddenly beaten and ridiculed at the same time.
- Scarecrow (BB).
- Loki.
And in this case I consider Scarecrow's scene worse.
[/BLACKOUT]
But, not to stir up this dumb feud, because I respect Nolan and love the Dark Knight, the humor in Avengers is FAR more sophisticated than the humor in Nolan's bat films, which is very conventional and mostly consists of cliched one-liners that could be given to nearly any character ("Does it come in black?" "I've got to get me one of those!").
[BLACKOUT]So THIS is what this weapon does[/BLACKOUT] sounds in the same league. [BLACKOUT]The tough character is hurt and dying but always have strenght for a last cool line.[/BLACKOUT] How's that any less cliche.
Plus, I hate the bias that says things that are funny are somehow less sophisticated -- humor is the hardest thing to do well, and Nolan, frankly, has a lot to learn in this area (though of course he's great in many other areas).
In that area and in the fights area. But character development is something all the rest has to learn from him, so it's all a balance.
But nobody's saying that humour is a no-no. As long as it's funny and doesn't take you from what is supposed to be serious, it's okay. But nowadays, Hollywood blockbusters consider humour the same as love interests: no matter how cliched, misplaced, unnecessary or superflous it might be, it has to be there. Even if the story benefits from its absence.
Partially because it involves characters we're already in love with before we plant our butts in the seat. Despite me not having read comics for a long time, I still love these characters. Ive waited 30 years to see some of the stuff we are treated to in the last 30 minutes of that film. Sure things that go boom can be entertaining, but how many people are gonna want to do cartwheels down the aisles watching Battleship? Meanwhile some heads might explode in theaters when they see Thors lightning melee attack, Hulk bashing around a certain person, etc.
It really comes down to realization of the characters and what they can do. Technology has finally come to a point where filmmakers can put on screen what fans have been reading about in comic books, in some cases, forever (I picked up my first Avengers comic book in the mid70s). Watching a building crumble in distaster film #10 can be cool visually, but its complete mindblowing badassery when Hulk does it taking on a giant Leviathon.
Technology reached that point years ago. There has been a lot of things going on from the 70's to date.
And I get that they put all of those characters together for the first time.
But I asked how was that
visually different from many other similar movies. And I mean diferent in a way that this is setting a new bar. Visually.
I mean really, you guys should have been around for this...
I totally was. Couldn't believe they revived the Hulk TV series for that.
Anyways, don't tell me that there's nothing between The Incredible Hulk Returns and The Avengers so the latter is groundbreaking.
This is what kind of superhero we would be 
t:
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbbJRSeYhkc[/YT]
Hehehehe.
