#201  
Old 05-07-2012, 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChar4321 View Post
...Either way, cutting the cord works for me.
Haha nice reference to the previous speech between Caps and Stark.
Rodgers: "[You aren't willing to sacrifice yourself] when it gets down to the wire."
Stark: "I'd just cut it."
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 05-08-2012, 09:18 AM
No way this should be nominated for Best Picture or Best Director when a superior comic book film in 2008 was not even considered over shit like The Reader...fuck no. But maybe now since theres 10 best movie of the year nominees we might this this on the list.

Last edited by CuatroDiablos; 05-08-2012 at 09:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 05-08-2012, 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuatroDiablos View Post
No way this should be nominated for Best Picture or Best Director when a superior comic book film in 2008 was not even considered over shit like The Reader...fuck no. But maybe now since theres 10 best movie of the year nominees we might this this on the list.
The reason I wouldn't nominate it is because it's essentially a gimmicky popcorn comic book movie. It's no doubt the greatest popcorn comic book movie ever made, but it doesn't contain a great deal of substance to it. It's just a really fun well made gimmick. I feel like there was never an overwhelming amount of urgency that demanded that these characters be placed in a film together. Don't get me wrong, it's a really cool idea, but what does a film like Avengers do to advance the story of each indivdual character that an individual character film couldn't do?

I suppose if you're an exec at Marvel it obviously makes a ton of sense from a business standpoint; combine your beloved comic characters into one film to increase excitement and ticket sales. It worked in the comics, so why not in a film? However, just because you pull off a balancing act like Avengers doesn't necessarily entitle the film to an oscar.

Each character in the film gets a chance to shine a little bit, but the fact of the matter is that when you're busy juggling that many characters in a film their individual development is sacrificed a bit. It's not a really big drawback for the film, but I personally believe that oscar nominated films should have some really fleshed out characters and exceptional character development, (not just good development). The Avengers probably achieved its maximum capacity for character development in a film with an abundance of heroes in it, but that's not really oscar worthy.


I guess the point is that a film like Avengers doesn't have to be loaded with substance, but I personally don't feel films like it should be nominated for an oscar despite the fact that Whedon pulled off quite a feat with the assembly of the film. It's the best Marvel film ever made, but that doesn't really scream oscar to me. However, by no means do I think a film has to be overly self-serious to merit an oscar.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 05-08-2012, 06:08 PM
Breaking News - The Avengers sequel given a green light by Disney - http://bit.ly/IGDOzD
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 05-08-2012, 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
The reason I wouldn't nominate it is because it's essentially a gimmicky popcorn comic book movie. It's no doubt the greatest popcorn comic book movie ever made, but it doesn't contain a great deal of substance to it. It's just a really fun well made gimmick. I feel like there was never an overwhelming amount of urgency that demanded that these characters be placed in a film together. Don't get me wrong, it's a really cool idea, but what does a film like Avengers do to advance the story of each indivdual character that an individual character film couldn't do?

I suppose if you're an exec at Marvel it obviously makes a ton of sense from a business standpoint; combine your beloved comic characters into one film to increase excitement and ticket sales. It worked in the comics, so why not in a film? However, just because you pull off a balancing act like Avengers doesn't necessarily entitle the film to an oscar.

Each character in the film gets a chance to shine a little bit, but the fact of the matter is that when you're busy juggling that many characters in a film their individual development is sacrificed a bit. It's not a really big drawback for the film, but I personally believe that oscar nominated films should have some really fleshed out characters and exceptional character development, (not just good development). The Avengers probably achieved its maximum capacity for character development in a film with an abundance of heroes in it, but that's not really oscar worthy.


I guess the point is that a film like Avengers doesn't have to be loaded with substance, but I personally don't feel films like it should be nominated for an oscar despite the fact that Whedon pulled off quite a feat with the assembly of the film. It's the best Marvel film ever made, but that doesn't really scream oscar to me. However, by no means do I think a film has to be overly self-serious to merit an oscar.
Seeing this film in a couple of hours, and am super excited. I'll try to post some thoughts afterwards. If not, check back tomorrow, for a more in depth review.

That being said, do I think the Avengers will be an Oscar worthy experience? Let me answer that with a question, what is the Avengers? How good is it at doing what its supposed to do? Do I think there's a snowball's chance in hell it gets nominated? No. That's more on the academy than it is on anything else.

What is the #1 thing a movie, any movie, has to do? It has to entertain. That's why people watch. If its not entertaining, on some level, nobody will watch, and what was the point? In my LCS, the name we have for popcorn stuff is "big, dumb fun". I love big, dumb fun. I see nothing wrong with it. Executing it flawlessly is much more difficult than you would think. Do I think they should change the name of the award to "best dramatic picture" from "best picture"? Yes, because that's what they're doing, and that's what it really means. It doesn't make any sense to me that the award is to pick the best movie of any given year, and that only a certain number of really dramatic pieces even get considered. Popcorn films are as much a part of cinema as anything.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 05-08-2012, 08:46 PM
Wouldn't the Oscars be missing a huge opportunity to get more viewers by leaving Avengers out of any of the big categories? And isn't that what they always try to do?
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 05-08-2012, 10:31 PM
This movie was just a lot of fun. From the premise, the characters, the story, and especially the action, this movie was a blast from start to finish. You get a re-introduction to all the (main) characters, see how all the characters first interact with each other, and how the character relationships develop throughout the movie . . . and to an extent, why they develop the way they do. I thought the characters and those relationships were really well thought out, especially considering that there were six Avengers, not forgetting Nick Fury, Agent Coulson, and villain Loki. Hell, I liked how they even threw in Pepper Potts and Stellan Skaarsgard's character from Thor into the movie. The movie goes shows these characters clash to begin with, come together for a common purpose, and kick ass at the end with plenty of action, humor, and fun - the Hulk essentially steals the show at every turn during the final battle. Joss Whedon did a tremendous job of bringing it all together. Heaven knows it couldn't have been an easy task.

8/10
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 05-08-2012, 10:34 PM
What did Hulk say when he walked away from Loki after smashing him?

And who was the purple skinned Alien at the very end? Was that a Skrull? Even though Skrulls are green.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 05-08-2012, 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
What is the #1 thing a movie, any movie, has to do? It has to entertain. That's why people watch. If its not entertaining, on some level, nobody will watch, and what was the point? In my LCS, the name we have for popcorn stuff is "big, dumb fun". I love big, dumb fun. I see nothing wrong with it. Executing it flawlessly is much more difficult than you would think. Do I think they should change the name of the award to "best dramatic picture" from "best picture"? Yes, because that's what they're doing, and that's what it really means. It doesn't make any sense to me that the award is to pick the best movie of any given year, and that only a certain number of really dramatic pieces even get considered. Popcorn films are as much a part of cinema as anything.
Your idea of considering popcorn films for oscar noms on the basis of their ability to entertain might make for a more entertaining oscar show, but I have to disagree with it nonetheless. Constructing and orchestrating thoughtful and well developed films seems, to me, a great deal harder than bringing a popcorn film to fruition. Avengers is better than your average popcorn film and it's even a little more thoughtful than most films in that category, but to me it still resides in the category of big dumb fun, as you called it. I don't want to suggest that the best picture category should only contain dramas, it's just that dramas tend to be the most thoughtful and poignant films a majority of the time. I would love to see a comedy or action movie get nominated, but a majority of films in those categories tend to be mindless fun and no substance.

My point is, with a prestigious awards show like the oscars, shouldn't the judges aspire to award films for achievments beyond the merit of pure entertainment? People are entertained when they watch videos of monkey's throwing their shit at the zoo, so I think the best picture category calls for something more.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 05-08-2012, 11:50 PM
Well I agree with pshycheoutsteve on this one. But I think what the Academy should do is create a new category all together, something like "Best Cinematic Event"? I dunno, I'm not completely sober but something along those lines where Avengers would be a shoe-in for as a nominee (I'm still placing bets on TDKR).

So i just came back from it and it met my ridiculously high expectations. Everything pretty much just worked. It was hilarious, some of the best one liners from Tony Stark, though I think everyone gets good solid laughs out and that was key I think, spreading the humor almost equally across the board. The Hulk, like everyone's been saying, is the star of the show towards the end. The graphics were beyond incredible and the 3D really amplified the experience.

Got a question though:

Spoiler:
what the fuck was Black Widow on about when she was talking about the "ledger"?


I'm probably going to see it one more time at the cinemas.

And that's that. 9/10
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 05-09-2012, 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
Well I agree with pshycheoutsteve on this one. But I think what the Academy should do is create a new category all together, something like "Best Cinematic Event"? I dunno, I'm not completely sober but something along those lines where Avengers would be a shoe-in for as a nominee (I'm still placing bets on TDKR).

So i just came back from it and it met my ridiculously high expectations. Everything pretty much just worked. It was hilarious, some of the best one liners from Tony Stark, though I think everyone gets good solid laughs out and that was key I think, spreading the humor almost equally across the board. The Hulk, like everyone's been saying, is the star of the show towards the end. The graphics were beyond incredible and the 3D really amplified the experience.

Got a question though:

Spoiler:
what the fuck was Black Widow on about when she was talking about the "ledger"?


I'm probably going to see it one more time at the cinemas.

And that's that. 9/10
Spoiler:
She's killed a lot of people and wanted to make up for it by doing good. Red in my ledger, meaning blood.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 05-09-2012, 02:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zevulun View Post
And who was the purple skinned Alien at the very end?
Thanos.

Just got back from seeing it, but its late west coast time. Will post a review tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 05-09-2012, 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
Just got back from seeing it, but its late west coast time. Will post a review tomorrow.
Waiting patiently
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 05-09-2012, 11:55 AM
Whedon's letter to the fans

http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/jos...uture-in-film/
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 05-09-2012, 12:42 PM
Figure I'd put this here as there is no thread for it yet and it ties into The Avengers.

Rebecca Hall joins Iron Man 3 - http://bit.ly/ICT9Ta
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 05-09-2012, 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuatroDiablos View Post
No way this should be nominated for Best Picture or Best Director when a superior comic book film in 2008 was not even considered over shit like The Reader...fuck no. But maybe now since theres 10 best movie of the year nominees we might this this on the list.
Well you are right, Avengers will get ignored in the main categories BUT now that we know Avengers 2 is coming out Joss just needs to convince Sean Penn to do a quick cameo for a guaranteed nomination. Penn always brings the noms.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 05-09-2012, 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
Spoiler:
She's killed a lot of people and wanted to make up for it by doing good. Red in my ledger, meaning blood.
Oh I see. Hm, I thought that was it but since they made it so dramatic I figured I missed something. Guess not. That was a bit unneccessary really, along with just a few more wtf lines and things that happened...

But overall though, crazy experience.

Looking forward to what soda has to say.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 05-09-2012, 02:11 PM
I have read that a lot of you have thought that Loki was a lame villain. And yeah, to a degree I agree. He is a bit on the underwhelming side when it comes to a threat for all these superheroes to assemble. But in Avengers issue 1, Loki was who The Avengers fought...I thought it was puzzling because in the comic, he was THE ONLY threat in the first issue. I thought it was weird because one Thor-Specific villain is the "single threat no one hero could withstand!" it seemed interesting.

I think that Loki was the one who brought The Chitauri is Whedon trying to be faithful to the Comics. I actually enjoyed the fact that Loki was the threat in Avengers issue 1 in the Earth 616 universe and The Chitauri were the threat in Avengers issue 1 in The Ultimate Marvel universe...and in the Cinematic Marvel Universe both threats are together.

Loki maybe lame, but at least Whedon is faithful to the comics.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 05-09-2012, 02:45 PM
I didn't think Loki was lame at all...the guy's a freakin God. He was a formidable opponent.

Don't know anything about Thanos though, but I'm guessing he's not so puny?
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 05-09-2012, 03:35 PM
I don't agree with Loki being lame either. I thought he was plenty threatening enough.

Hell
Spoiler:
he slaughters a room full of S.H.E.I.L.D. peeps as soon as he arrives on Earth.


I also loved his Lector-esque scene with Black Widow. Good shit.


Loki was formidable enough, imo.
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 05-09-2012, 03:44 PM


Loki's entire character in one line. I dont think he really meant for it to go this far.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 05-09-2012, 05:08 PM
You know, I have no idea if he was being sincere in that scene. He is the god of mischief, after all.
That's one of the aspects of the character I find appealing, and Hiddleston does wonders with it. Was he being honest? Was he tricking Thor? He certainly looks sincere. But is he? Doubts, doubts, doubts.

Last edited by miguel_montes; 05-09-2012 at 05:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 05-09-2012, 05:10 PM
Is the scene
Spoiler:
Thanos
online yet?
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 05-09-2012, 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gunslinger View Post
Is the scene
Spoiler:
Thanos
online yet?

Spoiler:
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 05-09-2012, 05:42 PM


Black Widow, IRL.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 05-09-2012, 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post


Black Widow, IRL.
That's not black widow. That's like.... every single asian woman alive.

Spoiler:
they're all martial arts experts
Spoiler:
yea
Spoiler:
i just said that
Spoiler:
get at me
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 05-09-2012, 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
Spoiler:
She's killed a lot of people and wanted to make up for it by doing good. Red in my ledger, meaning blood.
Yeah and I also thought...

Spoiler:
The second time she brought it up was after Hawkeye asked her why she's willing to go from spy to full out soldier. I thought the red in her ledger at that point was not just her past but what Loki had put there by killing Shield agents and by what he did to Clint. Widow was saying that "by deeply hurting you he hurt me." Clint would understand that sentiment without getting all gushy. Pretty deep stuff to me.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 05-09-2012, 09:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post


Loki's entire character in one line. I dont think he really meant for it to go this far.
Spoiler:
I think he did, that's why he stabs Thor after the line. He's aware of the measures he had to take in order to conquer Earth.


And I have a quick question. How was Black Widow able to do anything at the end? I know she was wearing some type of special gloves made up of some of the power from the cube, but I didn't see anything come from them.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 05-09-2012, 10:22 PM
Okay, so finally got a chance to do this write up. Here goes:

The Avengers is exactly what a Wheddon fan, like myself, expected to get and got. It was truth in advertising. I read his entire run of Astonishing x-men, and here's something I can say about that run that occurred to me today: I couldn't tell you what the plot was. The plot, from what I vaguely remember, had something to do with some giant missle being pointed towards earth by an alien who was convinced earth was going to wipe out his race, or something. Again, I don't remember much. What I do remember, and what I'll remember about that book for the rest of my life, are the character moments. Kitty Pryde glowed, her relationship with Collussus, just wow. The warmth, the humanity, the social banter, why Shadowcat is Wolverine's "little buddy", why, in many ways, she's wired the same way Logan is (that's not something most writers see, when they look at her slender physique). I remember Emma Frost. I remember Chuck's inner demons. That's why that book was gold: the plot was secondary, and was never really in any doubt. What made it were how much Wheddon loved these characters, and how much he showed you what they were really all about. He showed you why you don't mess with Shadowcat when the rubber meets the road.

I felt the same way about the Avengers. Five years from now, I doubt I'll be able to tell you what the plot was. I remember it had something to with Loki trying to launch an Alien invasion with something, and that there was a big fight scene with some aliens, and that Thanos appeared at the end (which was unbelievably cool, more on that later). But if pressed, I couldn't tell you what it was about. However, what I'll carry with me from this film for the rest of my life were the character moments, the character development, and how Wheddon so loves each and every single one of them. Where to start? Some that stood out to me:

-in the beginning, when Agent Coulston calls Black Widow while she's "working", to me, what's cool about that scene is not just how Black Widow kicks all kinds of ass from a chair, but Agent Coulston's reaction is GOLD. He's listening to it on the phone, and he's not visibly worried at all, he's just standing there waiting for Natasha to finish her business. From his reaction, it was like she told him to hang on a sec, that she had to go downstairs and answer the door, and she'd be right back. If Wheddon wanted to build drama, he could have made Coulston seem a bit more tense, but he didn't, Coulston knew exactly how this would end, from his point of view. That's character, that's how you imagine he would actually be.

-To me, the early banter between Steve and Tony is just incredible. When Steve tells Tony that he treats everything like a joke and that he's not willing to put his life on the line, and that the armor is all that he is, and Tony replies with, essentially, how did you get your powers? We both know Steve and Tony well enough to know that they're both wrong about each other, and they haven't found out yet, but that's how two people from there perspectives in life would actually react to each other. Everyone knows Steve is not just the Super Soldier serum, that he's the greatest war hero of the greatest generation because there's no quit, there's no stopping, in him. We all know Tony is who he is, a super genius with an ego and a ready wit, but also a guy who will do what's needed when push comes to shove.

-To me, Tony's greatest character moment came in a scene that no one's talked about, it came when he had his one on one conversation with Loki. What does Tony do? He takes off his armor, and comes downstairs, and he offers the villain a drink. ("No, I'm fine", the look on Loki's face, priceless.) There's a brash confidence to Tony, a bluster, a bravado. He believes he's the smartest guy in the room, and that his intellect can and does get him out of every situation. Even going so far as to be be able to outwit the villain, whose the god of trickery and deceit. The way RDJ acts it, its just very cool. You can see that underneath the outward brashness, that Tony really is worried in his interview with Loki, but he conceals it like a diplomat.

-The scene where there's that pan shot of all the Avengers in the middle of New York, and Steve turns around and issues everyone their marching orders. That's Steve Rodgers. Even if you don't like him, you respect him. He's a natural leader of men, and always has been, and even people with huge egos can generally see that Steve is right. It was really nice to Captain America be Captain America, the leader of the Avengers, and the guy who everyone looks up to and respects, even those who don't see eye to eye with him.

There's plenty left to be said:

-Agent Coulston was the heart of the movie. How Nick Fury is visibly shaken when Coulston dies (those who know Nick? he's never shaken by anything) How he carries those Captain America trading cards with him, how he's a fan, and a guy who believes in the mission. When he tells Loki "you don't believe in anything", it just shakes you that he has to bite the bullet.

-How it sucks to be Bruce Banner. I was particularly moved when he said "I put a gun in my mouth and pulled the trigger, and he spit it out." or something like that. To have this monster inside of you, that you cannot get away from, and that, to take it one step further, the monster won't even allow you to kill yourself to escape from him. Just wow.

-Clint and Natasha's "moment", its an "awwww" in a tough guys kinda way. There are few people who would know what Natasha was talking about more than Clint (who just went through being brainwashed in the beginning of the movie). Remember, Natasha is former KGB, she's a cold war era soviet spy (that's her background) and in that job, she killed repeatedly for the Reds. When she says she has a red ledger, that's what she means.

-Thor, his scene with his brother, where he wants to kill Loki and end this, but can't bring himself to, is just moving and touching. I also loved watching Thor's fight scene with the Hulk on the heli-carrier (one of the best done ones in the film), there's something about the Hulk getting hit in the face with the hammer, and the look on his face when he finally encounters something he can't lift, that's just priceless.

All in all, I loved the lighthearted banter (in my movie theatre, when Steve knocks out the punching bag and grabs the next one from the line of many, people erupted), I loved the character development, I loved the depth of detail in the interactions. Okay, now for the negatives, and there was a big one (before I close with one big positive):

-The plot. Like I said, this film treats the plot as "eh, who needs a plot, when you have the Hulk?" AvX, to name one example, is a lot like that: "let's do an event book where the x-men fight the Avengers. What would the plot be? Why would it need a plot? Okay, well, we'll just throw something together." I didn't feel like the Avengers were ever really threatened, nor did I feel like the end of movie plot-hammer was particularly convincing (really? you're going to end your plot the same way Independence Day and Phantom Menace ended their's?) That's okay for this film, because the plot with a thin thread to get the superheroes together fighting for a common cause anyway, but still, I felt the plot of this film talked down to the audience, and if its one thing I'm sick of, its comic book movies where the plot talks down to the audience. In a movie as rich in character as the Avengers is, seeing a plot that's an eight year old would find intellectually insulting particularly stands out. If Avengers was just a bad movie, it would be more pardonable, but it delivers so well in other areas that it just hits you and bothers you.

That's why as much as I liked the Avengers, I cannot give it a score as high as the Dark Knight. I'd rank it a notch above some of the other Marvel films I've seen, but debating with myself where to put it on the list of the best ones. Its clearly good, but its plot is the lead weight that drags the film down. Hollywood seems to have gotten it in its collective nut that superhero movies have to end with formulaic endings to formulaic plots. I was hoping TDK would chance some of that, as I felt it was the first superhero movie that I saw that treated me like an adult. Now, don't get me wrong, a lot of superhero comics do end this way, (where the writer has built up the plot through 6 and 7/8th issues, and has seven issues to play with, so has two pages to resolve everything. It happens) but I guess part of my problem is that I expected more out of Wheddon. I also remember his Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and I remember how unconventional that was. Marvel comics made its name as the house of ideas, as the house that took creative risks to win the game with DC, but Marvel movies have been deep character sketches with unimaginative plots. The original Iron Man was so great particularly because it took creative risks (taking on the issue of global terroism and the military-industrial complex) and I liked Captain America because it was a risk too (Marvel's polling had to show that the public didn't have much of an appetite for a WW2 era period piece). I didn't feel like the Avengers had any of that.

Okay, so I'll close with something I did like. I did really dig the shot of Thanos at the end. For an old comic book guy like me, that was gold, and it was deep calling onto deep. Comics do that all that time, where you get to the end of a story, and there's a shadowy figure whose been the puppet master of the whole thing the whole time. Comics lives for the "big reveeal", the single panel, the single image, that can turn around the entire meaning of the book on a dime. The kind that can wet the appetite for the next book in the series, and that can make a customer for the whole run. That's what Thanos is, he's as big and as bad as there is in comics.

How do you know? Thanos is an eternal, a race that the legendary Jack Kirby created for Marvel (how legendary was Kirby? He took the concept, changed all the names, and sold the same concept to DC as "the new gods". That's called playing the game.) I can't wait for what we'll get in Avengers 2, for Thanos storming the halls of Asgard to try to get the infinity gauntlet (remember, that's where it is right now), succeeding, and then using his new weapon to take on the avengers. I can't wait for the next movies in this marvel series. I'm hoping for an Ant Man movie. I love Hank, as a character, I love the fact that, as a scientist, his nature is the polar opposite of Tony's, despite being just as brilliant, if not more so. Even more than Ant-Man, I'm hoping that the introduction of Hank introduces two of my favorite Avengers related characters, who didn't get a mention in this film: Ultron and the Vision. The vision is a classic Avenger, and Ulton is maybe their most dangerous opponent.

I know people like DaveyJoeG are iffy on the whole Universe tie-in idea, but that's the way comics work. its like saying "why are politicians so partisan? Can't they ever say anything good about each other?" Well, the reason why is that doing so costs you votes. That what politicians are good at: maximizing campaign money and getting votes. That's why Marvel is tying all their movies together: it makes money, because people have shown, conclusively, that they like it and that advertising future films in your current one makes money in future films. For me, having Thanos appear at the end to preview Avengers 2 is good story-telling, tease the next one, leave the audience wanting more.

So, final grade for this film? Probably and 8.5 out of 10. High up on the very, very good scale, but far from perfect. I got my ten bucks worth, and I'm happy I went, it was entertaining as hell, and a golden start to the summer.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 05-09-2012, 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
Okay, so finally got a chance to do this write up. Here goes:

The Avengers is exactly what a Wheddon fan, like myself, expected to get and got. It was truth in advertising. I read his entire run of Astonishing x-men, and here's something I can say about that run that occurred to me today: I couldn't tell you what the plot was. The plot, from what I vaguely remember, had something to do with some giant missle being pointed towards earth by an alien who was convinced earth was going to wipe out his race, or something. Again, I don't remember much. What I do remember, and what I'll remember about that book for the rest of my life, are the character moments. Kitty Pryde glowed, her relationship with Collussus, just wow. The warmth, the humanity, the social banter, why Shadowcat is Wolverine's "little buddy", why, in many ways, she's wired the same way Logan is (that's not something most writers see, when they look at her slender physique). I remember Emma Frost. I remember Chuck's inner demons. That's why that book was gold: the plot was secondary, and was never really in any doubt. What made it were how much Wheddon loved these characters, and how much he showed you what they were really all about. He showed you why you don't mess with Shadowcat when the rubber meets the road.

I felt the same way about the Avengers. Five years from now, I doubt I'll be able to tell you what the plot was. I remember it had something to with Loki trying to launch an Alien invasion with something, and that there was a big fight scene with some aliens, and that Thanos appeared at the end (which was unbelievably cool, more on that later). But if pressed, I couldn't tell you what it was about. However, what I'll carry with me from this film for the rest of my life were the character moments, the character development, and how Wheddon so loves each and every single one of them. Where to start? Some that stood out to me:

-in the beginning, when Agent Coulston calls Black Widow while she's "working", to me, what's cool about that scene is not just how Black Widow kicks all kinds of ass from a chair, but Agent Coulston's reaction is GOLD. He's listening to it on the phone, and he's not visibly worried at all, he's just standing there waiting for Natasha to finish her business. From his reaction, it was like she told him to hang on a sec, that she had to go downstairs and answer the door, and she'd be right back. If Wheddon wanted to build drama, he could have made Coulston seem a bit more tense, but he didn't, Coulston knew exactly how this would end, from his point of view. That's character, that's how you imagine he would actually be.

-To me, the early banter between Steve and Tony is just incredible. When Steve tells Tony that he treats everything like a joke and that he's not willing to put his life on the line, and that the armor is all that he is, and Tony replies with, essentially, how did you get your powers? We both know Steve and Tony well enough to know that they're both wrong about each other, and they haven't found out yet, but that's how two people from there perspectives in life would actually react to each other. Everyone knows Steve is not just the Super Soldier serum, that he's the greatest war hero of the greatest generation because there's no quit, there's no stopping, in him. We all know Tony is who he is, a super genius with an ego and a ready wit, but also a guy who will do what's needed when push comes to shove.

-To me, Tony's greatest character moment came in a scene that no one's talked about, it came when he had his one on one conversation with Loki. What does Tony do? He takes off his armor, and comes downstairs, and he offers the villain a drink. ("No, I'm fine", the look on Loki's face, priceless.) There's a brash confidence to Tony, a bluster, a bravado. He believes he's the smartest guy in the room, and that his intellect can and does get him out of every situation. Even going so far as to be be able to outwit the villain, whose the god of trickery and deceit. The way RDJ acts it, its just very cool. You can see that underneath the outward brashness, that Tony really is worried in his interview with Loki, but he conceals it like a diplomat.

-The scene where there's that pan shot of all the Avengers in the middle of New York, and Steve turns around and issues everyone their marching orders. That's Steve Rodgers. Even if you don't like him, you respect him. He's a natural leader of men, and always has been, and even people with huge egos can generally see that Steve is right. It was really nice to Captain America be Captain America, the leader of the Avengers, and the guy who everyone looks up to and respects, even those who don't see eye to eye with him.

There's plenty left to be said:

-Agent Coulston was the heart of the movie. How Nick Fury is visibly shaken when Coulston dies (those who know Nick? he's never shaken by anything) How he carries those Captain America trading cards with him, how he's a fan, and a guy who believes in the mission. When he tells Loki "you don't believe in anything", it just shakes you that he has to bite the bullet.

-How it sucks to be Bruce Banner. I was particularly moved when he said "I put a gun in my mouth and pulled the trigger, and he spit it out." or something like that. To have this monster inside of you, that you cannot get away from, and that, to take it one step further, the monster won't even allow you to kill yourself to escape from him. Just wow.

-Clint and Natasha's "moment", its an "awwww" in a tough guys kinda way. There are few people who would know what Natasha was talking about more than Clint (who just went through being brainwashed in the beginning of the movie). Remember, Natasha is former KGB, she's a cold war era soviet spy (that's her background) and in that job, she killed repeatedly for the Reds. When she says she has a red ledger, that's what she means.

-Thor, his scene with his brother, where he wants to kill Loki and end this, but can't bring himself to, is just moving and touching. I also loved watching Thor's fight scene with the Hulk on the heli-carrier (one of the best done ones in the film), there's something about the Hulk getting hit in the face with the hammer, and the look on his face when he finally encounters something he can't lift, that's just priceless.

All in all, I loved the lighthearted banter (in my movie theatre, when Steve knocks out the punching bag and grabs the next one from the line of many, people erupted), I loved the character development, I loved the depth of detail in the interactions. Okay, now for the negatives, and there was a big one (before I close with one big positive):

-The plot. Like I said, this film treats the plot as "eh, who needs a plot, when you have the Hulk?" AvX, to name one example, is a lot like that: "let's do an event book where the x-men fight the Avengers. What would the plot be? Why would it need a plot? Okay, well, we'll just throw something together." I didn't feel like the Avengers were ever really threatened, nor did I feel like the end of movie plot-hammer was particularly convincing (really? you're going to end your plot the same way Independence Day and Phantom Menace ended their's?) That's okay for this film, because the plot with a thin thread to get the superheroes together fighting for a common cause anyway, but still, I felt the plot of this film talked down to the audience, and if its one thing I'm sick of, its comic book movies where the plot talks down to the audience. In a movie as rich in character as the Avengers is, seeing a plot that's an eight year old would find intellectually insulting particularly stands out. If Avengers was just a bad movie, it would be more pardonable, but it delivers so well in other areas that it just hits you and bothers you.

That's why as much as I liked the Avengers, I cannot give it a score as high as the Dark Knight. I'd rank it a notch above some of the other Marvel films I've seen, but debating with myself where to put it on the list of the best ones. Its clearly good, but its plot is the lead weight that drags the film down. Hollywood seems to have gotten it in its collective nut that superhero movies have to end with formulaic endings to formulaic plots. I was hoping TDK would chance some of that, as I felt it was the first superhero movie that I saw that treated me like an adult. Now, don't get me wrong, a lot of superhero comics do end this way, (where the writer has built up the plot through 6 and 7/8th issues, and has seven issues to play with, so has two pages to resolve everything. It happens) but I guess part of my problem is that I expected more out of Wheddon. I also remember his Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and I remember how unconventional that was. Marvel comics made its name as the house of ideas, as the house that took creative risks to win the game with DC, but Marvel movies have been deep character sketches with unimaginative plots. The original Iron Man was so great particularly because it took creative risks (taking on the issue of global terroism and the military-industrial complex) and I liked Captain America because it was a risk too (Marvel's polling had to show that the public didn't have much of an appetite for a WW2 era period piece). I didn't feel like the Avengers had any of that.

Okay, so I'll close with something I did like. I did really dig the shot of Thanos at the end. For an old comic book guy like me, that was gold, and it was deep calling onto deep. Comics do that all that time, where you get to the end of a story, and there's a shadowy figure whose been the puppet master of the whole thing the whole time. Comics lives for the "big reveeal", the single panel, the single image, that can turn around the entire meaning of the book on a dime. The kind that can wet the appetite for the next book in the series, and that can make a customer for the whole run. That's what Thanos is, he's as big and as bad as there is in comics.

How do you know? Thanos is an eternal, a race that the legendary Jack Kirby created for Marvel (how legendary was Kirby? He took the concept, changed all the names, and sold the same concept to DC as "the new gods". That's called playing the game.) I can't wait for what we'll get in Avengers 2, for Thanos storming the halls of Asgard to try to get the infinity gauntlet (remember, that's where it is right now), succeeding, and then using his new weapon to take on the avengers. I can't wait for the next movies in this marvel series. I'm hoping for an Ant Man movie. I love Hank, as a character, I love the fact that, as a scientist, his nature is the polar opposite of Tony's, despite being just as brilliant, if not more so. Even more than Ant-Man, I'm hoping that the introduction of Hank introduces two of my favorite Avengers related characters, who didn't get a mention in this film: Ultron and the Vision. The vision is a classic Avenger, and Ulton is maybe their most dangerous opponent.

I know people like DaveyJoeG are iffy on the whole Universe tie-in idea, but that's the way comics work. its like saying "why are politicians so partisan? Can't they ever say anything good about each other?" Well, the reason why is that doing so costs you votes. That what politicians are good at: maximizing campaign money and getting votes. That's why Marvel is tying all their movies together: it makes money, because people have shown, conclusively, that they like it and that advertising future films in your current one makes money in future films. For me, having Thanos appear at the end to preview Avengers 2 is good story-telling, tease the next one, leave the audience wanting more.

So, final grade for this film? Probably and 8.5 out of 10. High up on the very, very good scale, but far from perfect. I got my ten bucks worth, and I'm happy I went, it was entertaining as hell, and a golden start to the summer.
Great review! So this is why people can't wait for your input?
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 05-09-2012, 10:36 PM
"Loki's mind is a box of cats."
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 05-09-2012, 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
Thanos is an eternal, a race that the legendary Jack Kirby created for Marvel (how legendary was Kirby? He took the concept, changed all the names, and sold the same concept to DC as "the new gods". That's called playing the game.)
Wasn't Thanos originally a copycat of DC's Darkseid ? (quote from wikipedia but a lore buff might shed some light on that )

Starlin has admitted the character is influenced by Jack Kirby's Darkseid:
ôKirby had done the New Gods, which I thought was terrific. He was over at DC at the time. I came up with some things that were inspired by that. You'd think that Thanos was inspired by Darkseid, but that was not the case when I showed up. In my first Thanos drawings, if he looked like anybody, it was Metron. I had all these different gods and things I wanted to do, which became Thanos and the Titans. Roy took one look at the guy in the Metron-like chair and said : "Beef him up! If you're going to steal one of the New Gods, at least rip off Darkseid, the really good one!"



and some random fanart

Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 05-09-2012, 11:37 PM
Great review soda. I want to see The Dark Knight again before comparing the two, but to me it seems like where Dark Knight was constructing each scene just to get to an action piece, with very little character development, The Avengers did the same but with humor. Lots of dialogue or scenes occurred just to get to a great punch line. Best example being

Spoiler:
The Hulk storming toward Loki who cuts him off and starts talking down to him in God mode, only to make way for one of the Hulk's best and most hilarious moments. In my theater the audience erupted so much after that scene that I didn't even hear him say "Puny God"


The action in the case of the Avengers, in my first impression, felt really natural. Every action set piece really felt right and made the whole film flow and be paced so well. It gets big points for that. (Funnily enough, what there was of humor in TDK felt really natural too).

But you're right on the money when talking about Whedon's plots. I'm just about done with the Astonishing X-Men and the plot is really secondary to the character relationships, Emma's inner turmoil, Kitty's trepidation over Peter etc. The plot just looks and feels big enough for the X-Men (and then half of the Marvel universe it seems) to get involved in....planets destroying other planets will do that. And Gods wanting to enslave mankind will do that too in the case of The Avengers here.

But are we not entertained? Hell yes we are. Concentrating too much on plot for a comic book movie will certainly make a harsh critic out of you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
"Loki's mind is a box of cats."
He really had some of the best lines, Stark is the only that one-ups him I think. "What does he want me to do? Swallow it?" I think is my favorite from Banner

Last edited by DaMovieMan; 05-09-2012 at 11:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 05-10-2012, 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
And I have a quick question. How was Black Widow able to do anything at the end? I know she was wearing some type of special gloves made up of some of the power from the cube, but I didn't see anything come from them.
What?
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 05-10-2012, 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
What?
Black Widow, during the invasion at the end, only has two handguns and frequently goes back and forth using alien weaponry. How does she stand toe-to-toe with these creatures? My initial question was does she actually use the glowing gloves (did you notice them?) she was given prior to the team entering the ship on there way to New York?
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 05-10-2012, 11:53 AM
Quote:
But you're right on the money when talking about Whedon's plots. I'm just about done with the Astonishing X-Men and the plot is really secondary to the character relationships, Emma's inner turmoil, Kitty's trepidation over Peter etc.
Whedon did a great job. Working with icons is just as difficult as working with any other character set. But comic fans have the benefit of decades-long relationships with these guys, and I think it's almost inevitable for comic fans to enjoy the depth (and you know someone like Whedon was writing with a depth of knowledge). Soda's bullet points on a few choice character moments - Coulson, the banter between Steve and Tony, and the commanding presence Whedon gave Steve in the movie - are well written and well realized, defining a few characters who are probably older than well over half of the audience turning out for Avengers, and comic fans have a mythology which frames these things.

But the scene with Coulson calling Black Widow while she is working has been done over and over and over in 'heightened reality' movies, most of which aren't met with this kind of response. We watch a suit and tie man call Jason Statham when he's tied up and on the floor to tell him to get going for another operation, and Statham throws out his one liner (give me a minute, I'm kind of tied up with something at the moment, etc) before getting the upper hand on a group of foursome bad guys, and it's enjoyable, but we're not thinking about it and we're not considering it characterization. The scene has been done so often that it's almost an archetype of that context, as an introduction between the suit and tie man and the badass whoever. But I'm not talking about originality, because that's an old hat and movie fans overuse the term. I'm talking about why some audiences are reacting to this scene in the context of the Avengers when they would react differently to the same scene in another movie not steeped in mythology. We have also watched uncountable characters who gained power from a suit, technology, weapons or money be challenged with the idea they are nothing without their suit, technology, weapons or money, and what makes the banter interesting is because they have a long mythology giving importance and resonance to the lines that separates them from throwaway situations acted out between throwaway characters. It's not what is present onscreen. It's what has come before.

And I think that's a different skill set than most filmmakers are used to. This goes back to the idea of 'serialization', and I'm assuming it's a new experience for audiences. I'm not not used to serialized storytelling in movies. I'm not used to a movie that is able to exist as a climax, and I'm not used to acknowledging continuity to this extent.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 05-10-2012, 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
Okay, so finally got a chance to do this write up. Here goes:

-The plot. Like I said, this film treats the plot as "eh, who needs a plot, when you have the Hulk?" AvX, to name one example, is a lot like that: "let's do an event book where the x-men fight the Avengers. What would the plot be? Why would it need a plot? Okay, well, we'll just throw something together." I didn't feel like the Avengers were ever really threatened, nor did I feel like the end of movie plot-hammer was particularly convincing (really? you're going to end your plot the same way Independence Day and Phantom Menace ended their's?) That's okay for this film, because the plot with a thin thread to get the superheroes together fighting for a common cause anyway, but still, I felt the plot of this film talked down to the audience, and if its one thing I'm sick of, its comic book movies where the plot talks down to the audience. In a movie as rich in character as the Avengers is, seeing a plot that's an eight year old would find intellectually insulting particularly stands out. If Avengers was just a bad movie, it would be more pardonable, but it delivers so well in other areas that it just hits you and bothers you.

That's why as much as I liked the Avengers, I cannot give it a score as high as the Dark Knight. I'd rank it a notch above some of the other Marvel films I've seen, but debating with myself where to put it on the list of the best ones. Its clearly good, but its plot is the lead weight that drags the film down. Hollywood seems to have gotten it in its collective nut that superhero movies have to end with formulaic endings to formulaic plots. I was hoping TDK would chance some of that, as I felt it was the first superhero movie that I saw that treated me like an adult. Now, don't get me wrong, a lot of superhero comics do end this way, (where the writer has built up the plot through 6 and 7/8th issues, and has seven issues to play with, so has two pages to resolve everything. It happens) but I guess part of my problem is that I expected more out of Wheddon. I also remember his Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and I remember how unconventional that was. Marvel comics made its name as the house of ideas, as the house that took creative risks to win the game with DC, but Marvel movies have been deep character sketches with unimaginative plots. The original Iron Man was so great particularly because it took creative risks (taking on the issue of global terroism and the military-industrial complex) and I liked Captain America because it was a risk too (Marvel's polling had to show that the public didn't have much of an appetite for a WW2 era period piece). I didn't feel like the Avengers had any of that.

Okay, so I'll close with something I did like. I did really dig the shot of Thanos at the end. For an old comic book guy like me, that was gold, and it was deep calling onto deep. Comics do that all that time, where you get to the end of a story, and there's a shadowy figure whose been the puppet master of the whole thing the whole time. Comics lives for the "big reveeal", the single panel, the single image, that can turn around the entire meaning of the book on a dime. The kind that can wet the appetite for the next book in the series, and that can make a customer for the whole run. That's what Thanos is, he's as big and as bad as there is in comics.

How do you know? Thanos is an eternal, a race that the legendary Jack Kirby created for Marvel (how legendary was Kirby? He took the concept, changed all the names, and sold the same concept to DC as "the new gods". That's called playing the game.) I can't wait for what we'll get in Avengers 2, for Thanos storming the halls of Asgard to try to get the infinity gauntlet (remember, that's where it is right now), succeeding, and then using his new weapon to take on the avengers. I can't wait for the next movies in this marvel series. I'm hoping for an Ant Man movie. I love Hank, as a character, I love the fact that, as a scientist, his nature is the polar opposite of Tony's, despite being just as brilliant, if not more so. Even more than Ant-Man, I'm hoping that the introduction of Hank introduces two of my favorite Avengers related characters, who didn't get a mention in this film: Ultron and the Vision. The vision is a classic Avenger, and Ulton is maybe their most dangerous opponent.

I know people like DaveyJoeG are iffy on the whole Universe tie-in idea, but that's the way comics work. its like saying "why are politicians so partisan? Can't they ever say anything good about each other?" Well, the reason why is that doing so costs you votes. That what politicians are good at: maximizing campaign money and getting votes. That's why Marvel is tying all their movies together: it makes money, because people have shown, conclusively, that they like it and that advertising future films in your current one makes money in future films. For me, having Thanos appear at the end to preview Avengers 2 is good story-telling, tease the next one, leave the audience wanting more.

So, final grade for this film? Probably and 8.5 out of 10. High up on the very, very good scale, but far from perfect. I got my ten bucks worth, and I'm happy I went, it was entertaining as hell, and a golden start to the summer.


Wonderful write up, but I don't feel the plot talks down to the audience at all. It is secondary to the characters, humor, and action? Yes, it is. no doubt about it. That is exactly the point of the movie imo. I'm not saying Whedon shouldn't try to write a stronger plot, but I didn't feel the lack of a complex plot hindered the purpose of the film at all. Imo, I feel if Whedon tried to weave a complex plot together on top of establishing all of our characters the movie would have imploded on itself. I think Whedon knew this, and did the right thing. He focused on the character moments. The plot was the Mcguffin to get the heroes together and to achieve it's goal of doing that realistically and entertainingly.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 05-11-2012, 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtyfrog View Post
Wasn't Thanos originally a copycat of DC's Darkseid ? (quote from wikipedia but a lore buff might shed some light on that )

Starlin has admitted the character is influenced by Jack Kirby's Darkseid:
“Kirby had done the New Gods, which I thought was terrific. He was over at DC at the time. I came up with some things that were inspired by that. You'd think that Thanos was inspired by Darkseid, but that was not the case when I showed up. In my first Thanos drawings, if he looked like anybody, it was Metron. I had all these different gods and things I wanted to do, which became Thanos and the Titans. Roy took one look at the guy in the Metron-like chair and said : "Beef him up! If you're going to steal one of the New Gods, at least rip off Darkseid, the really good one!"
In comics, pretty much everything is a copy of something else. That comes from the nature of the business. Back in the day, before telecommunications, every comic writer and artist, for both Marvel and DC, lived in New York. You worked for DC, and then worked for Marvel, went back to DC, back to Marvel, etc. Everyone was friends, they all went to the same parties. That's still very true, even in our age. Everyone's met, they've all gone to the same conventions, etc.

When I said Thanos was an eternal, I probably should have been clearer: he's a Titan (from the moon Titan) and his race is a cousin of the Eternals. Jim Starlin did create him, but I've always had this nagging suspicion that there were political reasons involved for trying to distance Thanos from the eternals, and from Kirby. (its clear from your quote, which I was not previously aware of, that one of Kirby's greatest creations, Darkseid, was very much a motivator, another one, Metron, was in Starlin's mind. So, maybe Thanos isn't a Kirby creation per se, but the influence is clearly there)

In any case, one of the things you learn is that politics matter. DC invented the Doom Patrol. Marvel saw it, copied it, changed a few things, and created the x-men. DC saw that, copied it, changed a few things, and made the teen titans. Robin was the first teen sidekick, a bit later, Bucky came along, and Namor also got a sidekick. The vision was very popular as an avenger, a while later, DC came up with Red Tornado. There are, literally, a million examples of one company "borrowing" from the other.

Last edited by soda; 05-11-2012 at 12:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 05-11-2012, 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinigami View Post
Whedon did a great job. Working with icons is just as difficult as working with any other character set. But comic fans have the benefit of decades-long relationships with these guys, and I think it's almost inevitable for comic fans to enjoy the depth (and you know someone like Whedon was writing with a depth of knowledge). Soda's bullet points on a few choice character moments - Coulson, the banter between Steve and Tony, and the commanding presence Whedon gave Steve in the movie - are well written and well realized, defining a few characters who are probably older than well over half of the audience turning out for Avengers, and comic fans have a mythology which frames these things.

But the scene with Coulson calling Black Widow while she is working has been done over and over and over in 'heightened reality' movies, most of which aren't met with this kind of response. We watch a suit and tie man call Jason Statham when he's tied up and on the floor to tell him to get going for another operation, and Statham throws out his one liner (give me a minute, I'm kind of tied up with something at the moment, etc) before getting the upper hand on a group of foursome bad guys, and it's enjoyable, but we're not thinking about it and we're not considering it characterization. The scene has been done so often that it's almost an archetype of that context, as an introduction between the suit and tie man and the badass whoever. But I'm not talking about originality, because that's an old hat and movie fans overuse the term. I'm talking about why some audiences are reacting to this scene in the context of the Avengers when they would react differently to the same scene in another movie not steeped in mythology. We have also watched uncountable characters who gained power from a suit, technology, weapons or money be challenged with the idea they are nothing without their suit, technology, weapons or money, and what makes the banter interesting is because they have a long mythology giving importance and resonance to the lines that separates them from throwaway situations acted out between throwaway characters. It's not what is present onscreen. It's what has come before.

And I think that's a different skill set than most filmmakers are used to. This goes back to the idea of 'serialization', and I'm assuming it's a new experience for audiences. I'm not not used to serialized storytelling in movies. I'm not used to a movie that is able to exist as a climax, and I'm not used to acknowledging continuity to this extent.
Comics probably has the most long running continuity in popular culture. Whereas a tv show may have a continuity of a few seasons, comic book continuity can span decades (which is odd, because a lot of people who were fans a decade or so ago aren't now, and vice versa). This is especially true in DC comics. Marvel tends to embrace their continuity when it suits them and totally disregard it when it doesn't. DC thinks that everything has to have an in story explanation, even universe reboots. So, for example, when Geoff Johns wrote Infinite crisis a few years ago, he was picking up the threads of a story that was published in 1985, over two decades had passed, but the old story still "counted".

To that extent, when fans got to the last page of Infinite Crisis #1, and saw:



To guys like me, who had read COIE (I'm not old enough to have read it when it first came out, but its one of the must read trades), that was the pinnacle of unbelieveably cool. Johns pulled out something that hadn't been used in twenty years, and gave it a brand new direction. That last panel (much like the shot of Thanos in the Avengers) turned the entire story on a dime, and was the talk of comics. People may not be used to continuity over decades, but you know was? The Ancients. Ancient mythology and story-telling was the same kind of deal: a shared mythology, where stories were added, the archtypes designed, and the accepted core mythology something that was hashed out over many generations. Homer didn't invent Greek mythology, and after Homer, that wasn't the last myth that was ever told in ancient Greece. The tales were embellished, discarded, updated, created, and revised over the coming generations.

As a historian and a mythology nut, I'm very comfortable with this brand of storytelling because, in viewing the differences in the stories generation after generation, you get an effective mirror for what a society is at any given time. Some things never change about humans: we, like those who came before us, love "big dumb fun". The ancients weren't above a dirty joke, or a raunchy comedy. Other things do, as time goes on. Back in the day, every character in superhero comics was white, and there were a handful of women.

Comic book companies have made a conscious decision to be more inclusive. There are gay and lesbian hereoes and villians, open ones too, and others don't treat them any differently. There are black hereos, hispanics, asian. We've seen an explosion in female hereos and villians. The most popular ones are still the old, white males, but there is a conscious effort towards social change. The Avengers you saw in the film are by no means representative of what the team looks like in comics right now. That tells me a lot about what our society thinks about itself. We're an increasingly diversified (and in many places, like where I live and went to school, and extremely diversified) society, one that's trying to figure out what it all means in a world that's more and more connected. Some fear that, others are excited by it. Comics reflects that part of our civilization very well. You have terrorist organizations that would make OBL (if he were alive, good riddance) stop and think "holy shit, why didn't I think of that?" (there's fanatical devotion, and then, there's the league of Shadows and HYDRA.)

That mirror changes over time, I got a stack of the wolfman/perez teen titans a while ago and read through it, and it amazed me how different social views and norms were back in the 80s. That constancy, the fact that someone didn't just write something then, and someone else wrote something now, but that its continuous, and that you can read it and follow along, is a part of the process I find very appealing. However, at the end of the day, whatever works for you, or, as the classic eighties tv show would say: "different strokes for different folks."
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 05-11-2012, 12:48 AM
good to hear from a well-versed lore buff. I used to read comics 25 years ago but the Avengers movie kinda rekindle the flame. I just finished Civil Wars and i have to admit that comics are more than simple action cartoon now ... pretty touchy subject in there. =)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump