The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

You know... They're like TV, but longer. And generally more finite.
">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Bigtymin504 » Tue May 08, 2012 4:34 pm

Great discussion in this thread. I didn't think Avengers was perfect, but it was damn close as far as comic book movies go. In regards to Cap's costume, I thought it looked much better on screen than in stills too. I think the only real problem with it is the helmet-neck connection. It looks awkward in real life and gives Cap that annoying Batman-movie stiff neck thing going on. They should have just had the helmet separate from the costume leaving the neck exposed like in The First Avenger. Other than that, I think the costume looked great when Cap rocked it helmetless.

I like a lot of the suggestions for where the MCU should go from here. Edgar Wright's Ant-Man is apparently closer than its ever been so I expect to see that within the next couple of years before Avengers 2. And I don't see any reason why Hank Pym can't be Giant-Man as well. There's also some top secret project Marvel Studios is apparently working on right now...could be anything from Guardians of the Galaxy to Doctor Strange. Now with the inclusion of Thanos, you gotta imagine that Guardians is on its way. A team consisting of Nova, Starlord, Rocket Raccoon & Groot, Gamora, and Adam Warlock sounds pretty awesome. It could be a hard sell to the public but given Marvel Studios' track record I think they could pull it off. If that happens I imagine there will be a Guardians-Avengers-Infinity Gauntlet Thanos clash in Avengers 2 for the fate of the Universe!

Characters I want introduced in the MCU in the very near future are: Ant-Man, Wasp, Ms. Marvel (or call her Captain Marvel), Black Panther, Doctor Strange, Iron Fist. I really think Black Panther, Dr. Strange, and Iron Fist could produce some awesome hit movies with the right leads.

In related news, I read somewhere that shawarma sales are up 80% since Avengers hit! :lol:
Image
User avatar
Bigtymin504
 
Posts: 2263
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:57 pm
Location: New Orleans

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Juswise » Tue May 08, 2012 5:02 pm

Was I the only one who noticed that the Staff that Loki had contained the MIND Infinity gem? I didnt put two and two together until my second viewing though.
Image

Image
User avatar
Juswise
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:10 pm

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Juswise » Tue May 08, 2012 5:55 pm

Also, Im surprised it took them THIS long to greenlight it http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/disney-announces-avengers-2-in-development/

AVENGERS 2 ANNOUNCED
Image

Image
User avatar
Juswise
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:10 pm

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby D-Rock » Tue May 08, 2012 8:15 pm

Juswise wrote:Was I the only one who noticed that the Staff that Loki had contained the MIND Infinity gem? I didnt put two and two together until my second viewing though.


I was thinking it could be one, though I guess the size threw me alittle.
Image
User avatar
D-Rock
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:39 pm
Location: Connecticut

">

Re: The Avengers (Film)

Postby D-Rock » Tue May 08, 2012 8:33 pm

Denim wrote:OH MY FUCKING GOD, I JUST SAW A MOVIE IN WHICH IRON MAN SHOOTS A REPULSER BEAM OFF OF CAPTAIN AMERICA'S MOTHERFUCKING SHIELD TO HIT A FUCKING ALIEN!


That was pretty awesome :lol:
Image
User avatar
D-Rock
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:39 pm
Location: Connecticut

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby D-Rock » Tue May 08, 2012 8:41 pm

Before the Ultimate universe, my vision of Nick Fury was typically Clint Eastwood. Now I've loved Samuel L. in many other films and I don't mind him as Fury, but there's that part of my brain that still wonders how different the character might be if he were played by someone like Clint. Now granted, nowadays Clint might be alittle too old to pull off an action role, but (to steal from the site) Riddle me this...

Based solely on the acting, would you rather keep Sam Jackson in the role or lean towards a "Dirty Harry" era Clint Eastwood (or someone else you might have pictured)
Image
User avatar
D-Rock
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:39 pm
Location: Connecticut

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Batman25JM » Tue May 08, 2012 10:10 pm

^I LOVE Samuel L. Jackson in the role. I'm so happy that they got him for it. If they ever went for a white Fury (which I don't really want because, as I said, I LOVE SLJ), I'd like to see Mark Harmon in the role.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Batman25JM
 
Posts: 4166
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:56 am
Location: Kalamazoo, MI

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Gojiratoho » Wed May 09, 2012 12:36 am

I want to see The Hoff reprise his role as Fury.
Image
User avatar
Gojiratoho
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:58 am

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Dr. Wade McNasty » Wed May 09, 2012 6:10 am

D-Rock wrote:Before the Ultimate universe, my vision of Nick Fury was typically Clint Eastwood. Now I've loved Samuel L. in many other films and I don't mind him as Fury, but there's that part of my brain that still wonders how different the character might be if he were played by someone like Clint. Now granted, nowadays Clint might be alittle too old to pull off an action role, but (to steal from the site) Riddle me this...

Based solely on the acting, would you rather keep Sam Jackson in the role or lean towards a "Dirty Harry" era Clint Eastwood (or someone else you might have pictured)



My issue with 616 (white) Fury as opposed to Ultimate (black) Fury is that they are almost like two different people (mostly because they are but you know what I mean...). I'd have a hard time seeing 616 Fury do this role since he tends to be something of a one note character, almost a caricature. He's an irritable old man who wants you of his lawn (read anything with Nick Fury in it and add "grrrrr..." at the end of whatever he says. It fits perfectly because he's always mad :lol: ). He's gruff personified (and I say all this as someone who really likes 616 Nick Fury). Anything outside of that seems odd and unusual. Even when he is playing mentor (Secret Warriors), he is still all gruff. Him acting like anything else would seem odd. I mention this because while they could make modifications to the character and have him embody some aspects of this and that and I'm sure it would be a really cool character, the end result would not be 616 white Nick Fury. Clint would make an excellent 616 Nick Fury but I can't really fathom that Nick Fury working well for the Avengers movie, given it's fun tone and so forth. The end result would be something similar to Ultimate Nick Fury, so the whole thing seems less jarring that they went with Jackson as Fury. I think Jackson did a good job as Ultimate Fury, the only kind of Fury I could really see working well for this kind of movie.

As a character by himself, he worked well. He balanced being all aspects of Fury well and doled out the the intimidating stares like a boss (Uncle Phil from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air would be proud). In all seriousness, he did a decent job and truly became the character.

If I had to choose someone to play white Nick Fury, I'd go with...Dennis Quaid. If GI Joe taught us anything, among all the lessons of how to not make a movie, it was that Quaid can play the angry commander and fill the role with a lot of gruff, but not so much that you find yourself apologizing at the screen and feeling bad like you just broke someone's lawn ornament. In any case, I can't take the Hoff seriously so even if he was playing it straight, I would still feel like I am watching an episode of Baywatch Nights and yet expect him to break into song and dance. I love Clint but he is too far over on the gruff meter. Not only would I get bored with it, I already have enough hair on my chest as it is. Him as Nick Fury would be approaching Prince Albert levels. Last thing I want to happen to me is to be shot because someone mistook me for a bear.
It's been fun.
Image
Arsenal wrote: That whole fight makes me want to hire Wade to write a rant for me and fill it with .GIFs that show how upset I am with it.
User avatar
Dr. Wade McNasty
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:16 pm
Location: Engulfed in the hipster nihilism of our times.

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Dr. Wade McNasty » Wed May 09, 2012 8:58 am

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-tal ... 38080.html

And while I am having a hard time trying to not look at the glaring hypocrisy, I will say that it's kind of sad when a flimsy excuse like the ambiguity of SHIELD and who controls it holds up (and has been holding up for a long time. Thank you Dark Reign. Thank you Norman Osborn).

Image
It's been fun.
Image
Arsenal wrote: That whole fight makes me want to hire Wade to write a rant for me and fill it with .GIFs that show how upset I am with it.
User avatar
Dr. Wade McNasty
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:16 pm
Location: Engulfed in the hipster nihilism of our times.

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby elijahdprophet » Wed May 09, 2012 9:22 am

I read another article about the Pentagon's response that wasn't written quite as cheekily. In the other films where they gave official support the US military is portrayed as their own entity, SHIELD has always been "extra governmental" where a group like GI Joe is made up of international operatives but under direct US control. The issue was that the Pentagon brass didn't want it to look like US assets were under the control of a poorly lit international leadership group. Silly? sure, but not really hypocritical.
Image
User avatar
elijahdprophet
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:31 am
Location: South Bend

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Gojiratoho » Wed May 09, 2012 10:12 am

Juswise wrote:Was I the only one who noticed that the Staff that Loki had contained the MIND Infinity gem? I didnt put two and two together until my second viewing though.


It was definitely ambiguous enough that they could go that route for the sequel. Right now they could explain it away as being powered by the Tesseract, a conduit for Loki, a conduit for Thanos, or the Mind gem.
Image
User avatar
Gojiratoho
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:58 am

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Gojiratoho » Wed May 09, 2012 10:47 am

An excellent sentiment from Joss Whedon, empahsis his. (http://whedonesque.com/comments/28797)

"RDA: I've seen a lot of a talk about "the Availers" vs "the Dark Knight Rises". How will you feel if you're eclipsed by Nolan?

JW: I'm glad I made you ask that. I will feel sad. But let's look at the bigger picture, and I can't say this enough: THIS IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. Our successes, whoever has the mostest, are a boon to each other. We're in the business of proving that superhero movies aren't just eye-candy (they're eye-TRUFFLES!). People seem intent on setting us against each other, and though I'm proud to be Woody Strode to Nolan's Kirk Douglas, I think they're missing the point. Whatever TDKR does on its first weekend, the only stat that matters to me is the ticket I'M definitely buying. Nolan and Raimi INVENTED the true superhero flick, yo. (Special mention to Jon Favreau and James Gunn.) Happy to be in the mix."
Image
User avatar
Gojiratoho
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:58 am

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Spazzy » Wed May 09, 2012 4:24 pm

^ wow
User avatar
Spazzy
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:02 am
Location: Texas!

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Bigtymin504 » Thu May 10, 2012 6:32 pm

Gojiratoho wrote:An excellent sentiment from Joss Whedon, empahsis his. (http://whedonesque.com/comments/28797)

"RDA: I've seen a lot of a talk about "the Availers" vs "the Dark Knight Rises". How will you feel if you're eclipsed by Nolan?

JW: I'm glad I made you ask that. I will feel sad. But let's look at the bigger picture, and I can't say this enough: THIS IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. Our successes, whoever has the mostest, are a boon to each other. We're in the business of proving that superhero movies aren't just eye-candy (they're eye-TRUFFLES!). People seem intent on setting us against each other, and though I'm proud to be Woody Strode to Nolan's Kirk Douglas, I think they're missing the point. Whatever TDKR does on its first weekend, the only stat that matters to me is the ticket I'M definitely buying. Nolan and Raimi INVENTED the true superhero flick, yo. (Special mention to Jon Favreau and James Gunn.) Happy to be in the mix."


I'd put Bryan Singer in there too in terms of "inventing" the modern superhero flick, yo. Maybe even more so than those guys since X-Men 1 was essentially the first serious modern superhero movie to hit it big. It resurrected the genre. Or even Blade if you wanna get technical.
Image
User avatar
Bigtymin504
 
Posts: 2263
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:57 pm
Location: New Orleans

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby shark6495 » Thu May 10, 2012 7:21 pm

I think too many people forget/dont recognize that Blade is a comic book movie. And the X-men/Spiderman movies really brought the idea of a good comic movie to the screen (the rebirth of good comic movies). Since then, it has gotten much better.
User avatar
shark6495
 
Posts: 579
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:49 am

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Sexton Hardcastle » Thu May 10, 2012 10:52 pm

Bigtymin504 wrote:
Gojiratoho wrote:An excellent sentiment from Joss Whedon, empahsis his. (http://whedonesque.com/comments/28797)

"RDA: I've seen a lot of a talk about "the Availers" vs "the Dark Knight Rises". How will you feel if you're eclipsed by Nolan?

JW: I'm glad I made you ask that. I will feel sad. But let's look at the bigger picture, and I can't say this enough: THIS IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. Our successes, whoever has the mostest, are a boon to each other. We're in the business of proving that superhero movies aren't just eye-candy (they're eye-TRUFFLES!). People seem intent on setting us against each other, and though I'm proud to be Woody Strode to Nolan's Kirk Douglas, I think they're missing the point. Whatever TDKR does on its first weekend, the only stat that matters to me is the ticket I'M definitely buying. Nolan and Raimi INVENTED the true superhero flick, yo. (Special mention to Jon Favreau and James Gunn.) Happy to be in the mix."


I'd put Bryan Singer in there too in terms of "inventing" the modern superhero flick, yo. Maybe even more so than those guys since X-Men 1 was essentially the first serious modern superhero movie to hit it big. It resurrected the genre. Or even Blade if you wanna get technical.

Truth.

I still hold X2 as a great movie in general. Maybe the best of the comic movies. I can only hope Singer can work his magic again in the next X-Men flick. He needs the rebound after Superman Returns.
Image
User avatar
Sexton Hardcastle
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:03 am
Location: Just down the road

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Gojiratoho » Fri May 11, 2012 9:13 am

shark6495 wrote:I think too many people forget/dont recognize that Blade is a comic book movie. And the X-men/Spiderman movies really brought the idea of a good comic movie to the screen (the rebirth of good comic movies). Since then, it has gotten much better.


To be fair, Norrington (Blade) and Singer (X-Men) made excellent action films based on comic book properties, but Nolan and Raimi turned comic book films from decent action movies into summer blockbusters.
Image
User avatar
Gojiratoho
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:58 am

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Joshua » Fri May 11, 2012 12:47 pm

Gojiratoho wrote:
shark6495 wrote:I think too many people forget/dont recognize that Blade is a comic book movie. And the X-men/Spiderman movies really brought the idea of a good comic movie to the screen (the rebirth of good comic movies). Since then, it has gotten much better.


To be fair, Norrington (Blade) and Singer (X-Men) made excellent action films based on comic book properties, but Nolan and Raimi turned comic book films from decent action movies into summer blockbusters.

X-men was a Summer blockbuster...
ImageImage
Image
User avatar
Joshua
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Fort Worth

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Z-R0E » Fri May 11, 2012 8:19 pm

Gojiratoho wrote:
shark6495 wrote:I think too many people forget/dont recognize that Blade is a comic book movie. And the X-men/Spiderman movies really brought the idea of a good comic movie to the screen (the rebirth of good comic movies). Since then, it has gotten much better.

To be fair, Norrington (Blade) and Singer (X-Men) made excellent action films based on comic book properties, but Nolan and Raimi turned comic book films from decent action movies into summer blockbusters.

I don't consider Blade a comic book movie. Is 300 a comic book movie? Scott Pilgrim? Aliens vs Predator was a comic before it was ever a movie. I think I'd define "comic book movie" as a movie that the broad public recognizes first as a comic book. People know Spider-Man is comic books. They know Superman is comic books. They know X-Men is comic books (though most probably couldn't name many x-men, they know the term is comics). Blade did well as an action movie, but I think the vast majority had no idea there was a comic. So, in my opinion X-Men (and thus Singer) deserves the credit for really kick starting the modern comic book movie, as most people knew it for it's comic roots before seeing it.
Image
User avatar
Z-R0E
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:16 am
Location: Behind you

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby K-Nice if ur Nasty » Fri May 11, 2012 10:16 pm

Z-R0E wrote: Is 300 a comic book movie? Scott Pilgrim?


Yes and Yes.
User avatar
K-Nice if ur Nasty
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:27 pm

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Sexton Hardcastle » Fri May 11, 2012 10:31 pm

300 is arguable the most truly interpreted comic-to-movie adaptation. Word for Word, frame for frame. Maybe along with Watchmen. Then again, I guess you can't really do that considering they're graphic novels and Spiderman, X-Men, etc... are issues. Although, I think people are overlooking Tim Burton's "Batman". It did really well at the box office in '89, well before X-men. It actually did better than "Batman Begins".
Image
User avatar
Sexton Hardcastle
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:03 am
Location: Just down the road

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby K-Nice if ur Nasty » Fri May 11, 2012 11:26 pm

Sexton Hardcastle wrote:Although, I think people are overlooking Tim Burton's "Batman". It did really well at the box office in '89, well before X-men. It actually did better than "Batman Begins".


Batman was more a Burton movie than it was a Batman movie or a comic movie, I'd say. Even though I love it.

There's Ninja Turtles, as well....but in the sense of the new comic movie boom, X-Men started it off and Spider-Man blew it open.
User avatar
K-Nice if ur Nasty
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:27 pm

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Aussiemandias » Sat May 12, 2012 8:20 pm

I realise they're probably not considered "modern" now, which makes me feel really old, but the original Superman and Superman II did exceptionally well, were hugely popular and I thought did a good job for the time of bringing comics to the big screen. I know they blew my mind (especially the 2nd one) and I totally loved those films when they came out.

But if we're talking modern I don't think you can even include the Tim Burton Batman any more. That movie came out over 20 years ago now which seems crazy.

Also when talking comic book movies maybe we need to differentiate comic book and super-hero movies. Road to Perdition and A History of Violence are "comic book" movies but very different genres to Avengers.
User avatar
Aussiemandias
 
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

">

Re: The Avengers (SPOILER WARNING)

Postby Sexton Hardcastle » Sun May 13, 2012 1:23 am

K-Nice if ur Nasty wrote:
Sexton Hardcastle wrote:Although, I think people are overlooking Tim Burton's "Batman". It did really well at the box office in '89, well before X-men. It actually did better than "Batman Begins".


Batman was more a Burton movie than it was a Batman movie or a comic movie, I'd say. Even though I love it.

There's Ninja Turtles, as well....but in the sense of the new comic movie boom, X-Men started it off and Spider-Man blew it open.

Really? I think Tim did better in keeping with the comic more-so than Nolan did. Keaton looked more like the comic Batman, as opposed to Bale who looked like he was wearing SWAT armor. Tim's vehicles looked more like the comics. And I love both versions of the Joker, but Jack's was more comic book than Ledger's to me. Now, the look of Gotham was definitely more Tim's vision than the comic, whereas Nolan's was more Chicago/comic Gotham.

I do have retract my previous statement though about X2 being my favorite/best comic movie. the '82 Conan the Barbarian tops my list. I absolutely loved that movie ever since I was a kid and I still do. One of the best casting jobs ever. More importantly, the abomination of a remake didn't outgross it.

"What is best in life?"
"Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. And hear the lamentations of the women."

C'mon, they don't write them like that anymore.
Image
User avatar
Sexton Hardcastle
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:03 am
Location: Just down the road

PreviousNext

Return to Movies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests