The Avengers

[Big Boss]

Soda that was a great write up and spot on! Thanks!

Originally Posted by soda

-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.

Have you ever read Hulk: The End? It was a great one-shot story about what might eventually happen to the Hulk and Banner in the future.

The story follows the narrative of Bruce Banner and the Hulk following a war which ended in a violent nuclear holocaust that only he could have survived.

Banner begins the story, talking to a camera left by a robot Recorder belonging to one of The Watchers to record "The Last Days of Earth" as an archival lesson for other planets.

While Banner is forced to drown in sorrow as the last human alive on Earth, wandering for years across the ruins of the old cities and remembering what he can of the world before, the Hulk is angry at Banner, in that with Banner he is still not alone in the World. During one of Banner's walks, he is beset upon some monstrously overgrown cockroaches, mutated by the nuclear fallout, and it is the Hulk who gets up to try and stop them.

When Banner awakens later, he watches a video recording made by the alien camera of the cockroaches eating the Hulk alive before he heals.

The story is mainly fueled by the fact that Banner and the Hulk's desires, even at the end of the world, are still conflicted; whereas Hulk still stubbornly wishes to prove himself the strongest being on Earth, Banner merely wishes to die, attempting suicides that fail when he becomes the Hulk again.

Not going to spoil it, but it is very good! And yes the Roaches do survive Nuclear Holocaust!

[Gilpesh]

Originally Posted by soda

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.

Be honest, you remember. There was four arcs: an alien made a mutant cure, the danger room went nuts, the Hellfire Club attacked, and finally that alien with the cure teamed up with the danger room to try and kill the X-Men because Colossus was the 'World-Breaker'.

Come on, son!

[DaMovieMan]

Brilliant. I just finished Astonishing X-Men. Now if Marvel/Whedon/Disney had the cohones to end the Avengers movie in such a way as Astonishing X-Men ended, it would of actually been much greater and could have equaled Nolan's Bat universe.

Ah well, it will still end up being the most entertaining movie of the year so that's big enough

[JoeChar4321]

Originally Posted by DaMovieMan

have equaled Nolan's Bat universe.

So wait, you wanted it to take a step backward and draw even with Nolan's bat universe? (sorry, I couldn't resist)

Oh and ...

Spoiler:

[JoeChar4321]

Originally Posted by poopontheshoes7

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.

I'd have to agree and even say that a clean plot is NOT a weak plot. There's nothing secondary about it. A good plot doesn't meander and doesn't throw in concepts or themes just for the sake of fooling the audience or in a vain attempt to seem clever. I'm so glad Avengers didn't fall in to that trap but with Whedon in charge, I knew that it wouldn't. It's exactly the plot, pace and structure this film needed. Every action is justified and every concept is smart and makes sense for the universe and the rules that they establish.

I feel any plot critique here is like a person critiquing a great meal not because it didn't taste good or wasn't satisfying but because there wasn't enough spices or ingredients used in the recipes. Whedon validates his master chef status so to speak and I don't care if he used saffron or turmeric. The results more than speak for itself.

[KcMsterpce]

I am really happy it's making shitloads of cash.
It's one of the first movies that I actually think is worthy of the praise and box office success it's getting. There are others which made over a billion bucks that aren't bad, but aren't as worthy of it as THE AVENGERS. I hope it beats out all the TRANSFORMERS shitfests (which it will do), HARRY POTTERs, SHREKS, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEANs, ALICE and destroying the STAR WARS prequels would be fucking awesome. It's just too bad that the top two spots will still be occupied by James Cameron's worst two movies.
This being a success makes up a little bit for all those times I think OTHER movies deserved more praise and never got it, and at the same time helps the sting of all the horrible fucking movies that makes tons of cash feel a little less insulting.

Also, I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon. So glad he finally got his "break" in the movie business, where the general audience will get to appreciate his superpower ability to write amazing dialog, as well as bring good action and adventure to a movie that only needs a slight amount of drama. Maybe it will make people look back on his past shit like FIREFLY/SERENITY and the BUFFY series (which I refused to watch until a few years ago; and so glad I did). As well as DR. HORRIBLE. Also Whedon's a big comic book geek, so this is basically a fanboy love letter to the Marvel's Avengers. It helps that he knows what he's doing.

Even more important, though, is that it's a good movie. It delivers in areas it intends to and still doesn't piss the audience off by being over-dumb because they believe the audience won't understand unless everything is explained to you. It's not a "smart" movie per se; in fact the storyline is one of the most generic and predictable ones out there... but that doesn't matter because it's not TRYING to be anything more than what it is. Kudos for that.
Even better is that the plot is serviceable, and not OVER-complicated. That's better than making things more convoluted as a means to make something simple appear to be more complex.

/endrant

[Dirtyfrog]

Originally Posted by Big Boss

Have you ever read Hulk: The End? It was a great one-shot story about what might eventually happen to the Hulk and Banner in the future.





Not going to spoil it, but it is very good! And yes the Roaches do survive Nuclear Holocaust!

In Civil Wars , Wolverine gets blown up while attempting to apprehend Nitro .... only his adamantium skeleton remains yet 10 panels later he is back in full strenght. I think Hulk would have some company

[The Gunslinger]

Seeing the weekend estimates on this, I really HOPE this beats that piece of shit Avatar film.

[jz68]

Originally Posted by The Gunslinger

Seeing the weekend estimates on this, I really HOPE this beats that piece of shit Avatar film.

Avatar made 2.8 billion, no way the Avengers even comes close.

Avatar was also the better film.

[miguel_montes]

Originally Posted by jz68

Avatar was also the better film.

[Big Boss]

Originally Posted by Dirtyfrog

In Civil Wars , Wolverine gets blown up while attempting to apprehend Nitro .... only his adamantium skeleton remains yet 10 panels later he is back in full strenght. I think Hulk would have some company

Yeah I remember that in Civil War. Said that his brain was encased in his adamantium skull and in one piece and he regenerated from that.

Hulk:The End was released before Civil War, so maybe pre-Civil War Wolverine would have died somehow, but like you said post-Civil War Wolverine might have survived.

The robot that was recording the end of humanity said that Banner was the last one left alive. This was also 200 years later. Wolverine's age, plus the fact that his healing factor would have to be running at 110% to keep him alive during all of the high radiation probably would have killed him. The Hulk just absorbed the radiation.

[Shinigami]

I also think Avatar was a better film. And I would add a 'much' in there to boot.

But while Avatar had a better hold weekend to weekend, it would have been almost impossible for Avengers to retain that hold after a 200 mil opening (Avatar's opening was a fraction of that). I think the third weekend will tell whether or not Avengers has a chance of surpassing Avatar's domestic take (or Titanic's, for that matter). This is an event film with audience response so positive it's almost ridiculous. It's possible, but it's going to depend on the third weekend drop. If it lowers another 50% or more this isn't going to happen, but there's no telling at this point.

[JoeChar4321]

Word of mouth was good for Avatar simply because of the effects. I HATED the story and most people think it's dumb as dirt but even I told friends and family to see it because the 3D was just so damn cool.

Avengers is a different story. Word of mouth is so good because the film itself is superb and highly entertaining.

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by JoeChar4321

Word of mouth was good for Avatar simply because of the effects. I HATED the story and most people think it's dumb as dirt but even I told friends and family to see it because the 3D was just so damn cool.

Avengers is a different story. Word of mouth is so good because the film itself is superb and highly entertaining.

I'm not seeing how the story for The Avengers is better or smarter than that of Avatar. Both have totally mediocre and unoriginal stories.

I doubt this reaches Avatar numbers (I don't think its WOM is on that level). Avatar was dropping like 10% every week (hell, it even had weekends where it increased from the previous weekend). Where The Avengers will be in the 50s in its third weekend, Avatar was nearly in the 70s in its third weekend. It had a staying power unlike anything we've ever seen. With new blockbusters being released every week this summer, The Avengers doesn't have a chance of holding that well.

It'll beat Titanic though.

[Darth Kenshin]

Avengers > Avatar.

But it won't make anywhere near as much money. As people have said, there are too many blockbusters coming out during the summer every week. Avatar was competing against nothing.

That effect is noticeable already with Dark Shadows. No, Dark Shadows didn't make a ton of money, but its release limited the amount of IMAX screens for Avengers. I can't even find Avengers in IMAX any more around me because of Dark Shadows.

Granted, IMAX isn't a huge part of revenue (tickets are very expensive, though), but this is only the 2nd weekend. As more big movies are released, Avengers will slow down.

My prediction: $560 million domestic, $1.9 billion worldwide.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Both stories were pretty rote in regards to Avengers and Avatar, but I left Avengers with a big smile on my face, knowing that this is how you do a great entertaining blockbuster. Avatar, on the other hand, left me with a feeling that I came, it looked cool, and...yeah, that was it.

Anyways, regarding the box office, I'm pretty sure Avatar will still remain supreme, but perhaps there could be a surprise along the way. You never know

[KcMsterpce]

Haha, bringing Avatar into the conversation. I think that's a little insulting to The Avengers.
Reason being that to me, Avatar exuded extremely bad writing with forced exposition; laughably horrendous dialog; the attitude that the audience is too dumb to even assume the obvious; a storyline that's not only simplistic but has the air of superiority and pretentiousness which forces you to either laugh and be angry or to take it at the level of seriousness it begs for. The worst part is that it is so badly done I can't even enjoy it at a superficial level.

The Avengers on the other hand - IMO - has an attitude that's about having fun and isn't TRYING to send any kind of message our way. There's no theme of "let's save our environment/military is evil/corporations are evil and lie/save the minority groups/I demand for my underlying messages to be taken seriously and understood!!!!!!"
Instead The Avengers just is. It knows it's a brainless action blockbuster, and with that knowledge it has fun with existing at JUST that level. Moreover, it doesn't force obvious plotlines down our throats too much. It's like Whedon's saying "look I know this is a simple movie in terms of the story. I'm not going to spend too much time dwelling on it and we'll just carry on with more important things - action and character interaction."

Once again I point out that this is my opinion, and so Avatar lovers will always feel that it's a better movie because well... they feel that way.
Cool with me.
My dream would be - as stated in an earlier post - that The Avengers destroys all big movies' previous records because I so often DISAGREE with what I think deserves to be a success that I'm excited to finally be part of the majority for a change.

But looking at the surprise success of both TITANIC and AVATAR... I doubt The Avengers could do it. Not only because those were wildly unpredictable results (Titanic held first place for over 20 weeks), but both of those movies had no major competition for SEVERAL MONTHS. Especially TITANIC.
This is summer movie time. The Avengers will fall behind much quicker.

[Shinigami]

Avatar and Avengers are also wildly different movies with wildly different parts and ambitions. They are auto-comparisons when you are talking about box office, but it starts falling apart for me once the dollar signs go away. I had to throw in the two cents on which I preferred, but I can't figure out a valid comparison. Different movies with different focuses from different directors with different strengths. Whedon might not have the eye that Cameron has, and certainly not the tech, but his writing is so quick and elaborate that a few times it took me one or two seconds before I registered the joke (when his jokes are often really economic riffs on the genre or the archetype). Whedon might have been upfront about throwing in aliens and wormholes and gods and gamma and mind control with nary a lick of ponderous substance, but Avatar was so beautiful I saw it multiple times in theaters. And if somebody is going to be heavy handed with a family friendly message, please don't murder nature is a perfectly fine hand to play families, no matter how much ham and cheese is in the deck.

The first time I saw Avatar I laughed out loud a few times at scenes I wasn't supposed to be laughing at, but when you're as attractive as that movie is you can stand some personality flaws. Which is probably something a ton of Avengers fans can agree with, for different reasons. Whedon put together Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Eyepatch man, Loki and playing cards into a single movie, and not only captured the basics of the icons, but gave all eight of them an equal shake, a distinct personality in the script, and 'somehow' made it all interact so well that the effortlessness of the whole thing is pretty incredible to think back on. That a lot of things surrounding this accomplishment were imo silly or contrived (and not always in an entertaining way) doesn't really matter, because Avengers got the right part... Right.

I figure Cameron and Whedon both delivered their individual spectacles. And now they are both tits deep in pussy.

I mean!

And now they are both tits deep in pussy.

[ericdraven]

Originally Posted by jz68

Avatar made 2.8 billion, no way the Avengers even comes close.

Avatar was also the better film.

Avatar = James Cameron green screen whoring AND money whoring.

Avengers = movie actually made for the fans and making a shit ton of money in the process.

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by KcMsterpce

Haha, bringing Avatar into the conversation. I think that's a little insulting to The Avengers.

It was brought into the conversation through comparison of box-office, so at this point, if anything, it's insulting to Avatar.

All jokes aside, I do think The Avengers is maybe a slightly better movie, but ultimately, the strengths of each film do not come from their stories, which are both borderline pathetic. I prefer when a blockbuster has the character strength of The Avengers, the visual spectacle/cinematic nature of Avatar, and a strong story that neither one of those films possess. There are maybe one or two directors who can do all of those things, and their names aren't Joss Whedon or James Cameron.

[JoeChar4321]

Originally Posted by KcMsterpce

Haha, bringing Avatar into the conversation. I think that's a little insulting to The Avengers.

Reason being that to me, Avatar exuded extremely bad writing with forced exposition; laughably horrendous dialog; the attitude that the audience is too dumb to even assume the obvious; a storyline that's not only simplistic but has the air of superiority and pretentiousness which forces you to either laugh and be angry or to take it at the level of seriousness it begs for. The worst part is that it is so badly done I can't even enjoy it at a superficial level.

The Avengers on the other hand - IMO - has an attitude that's about having fun and isn't TRYING to send any kind of message our way. There's no theme of "let's save our environment/military is evil/corporations are evil and lie/save the minority groups/I demand for my underlying messages to be taken seriously and understood!!!!!!"

That is exactly right. Avatar is a pretentious joke that literally is laughably bad. Avengers positively pulses with panache, wit and excitement and is exactly as smart as it needs and wants to be.

I know it's all conjecture and hypothetical at this point but if you would have released both Avengers and Avatar without 3D or IMAX Avatar wouldn't even have broken $200 million domestic. The Avatar that is showing on TV right this minute would have fizzled fast, guaranteed. Avengers wouldn't have had a $200 million opening weekend with 2D prices but would still have been epically big. Honestly, Avatar was a gimmick film that was visually stunning but, outside of the lame-brain hippie culture, didn't resonate past the level of being mocked. Avengers works all on its own.

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by JoeChar4321

I know it's all conjecture and hypothetical at this point but if you would have released both Avengers and Avatar without 3D or IMAX Avatar wouldn't even have broken $200 million domestic.

I'm pretty sure Avatar made around $200 million domestically from 2D screens alone (I think it was just under), so this isn't really a hypothetical... it's incorrect.

[The Gunslinger]

I'm sorry but the fact it took Cameron twelve years to come up with an unoriginal story, lame acting and focus more on changing how we see 3D instead of the previous, is pathetic and an insult to movie fans, his fans and the handicap.

I'm not too sure but I'm going to assume Whedon took on the task to write and direct one of the biggest films of all time in less two years maybe? Cameron doesn't give a shit anymore about his fans, he's all about making more and more money, finding random shit in the ocean.

Whedon is and will always be a fan.

[Shinigami]

Avatar = James Cameron green screen whoring AND money whoring.

Green screen stuff is deceptive these days. With the exception of a few on location shoots, Avengers used sets too. They benefited from a green screen in the distance, out a window, or, in many instances, everywhere. I'm surprised a movie fan would put down Cameron's innovation with Avatar like that. The Wachowskis made a similar innovation with The Matrix despite their scenes of key innovation being done completely against green screen. Regardless of how the movie itself turned out, innovation on that level is a good thing.

Avengers = movie actually made for the fans and making a shit ton of money in the process.

Can an original property be made for the fans?

I'm sorry but the fact it took Cameron twelve years to come up with an unoriginal story, lame acting and focus more on changing how we see 3D instead of the previous, is pathetic and an insult to movie fans, his fans and the handicap.

Apparently it took so long to film because the technology wouldn't support Cameron's ambitions back in 95, when he wrote the first treatment of the story.

I'm surprised some movie fans are cynical about innovations on the scale of Avatar. I'm not a big fan of the Avengers, but I'm still interested in the innovative way it used franchise fare. Something new in cinema is still something new in cinema, and that's a thing to celebrate. I'm a movie fan, not a fanboy.

[The Gunslinger]

Originally Posted by Shinigami

Apparently it took so long to film because the technology wouldn't support Cameron's ambitions back in 95, when he wrote the first treatment of the story.

I'm surprised some movie fans are cynical about innovations on the scale of Avatar. I'm not a big fan of the Avengers, but I'm still interested in the innovative way it used franchise fare. Something new in cinema is still something new in cinema, and that's a thing to celebrate. I'm a movie fan, not a fanboy.

I saw nothing NEW in Avatar. Nothing felt original to me.

[jz68]

Yeah, Avatar was unoriginal but the guy that does a film with superheroes that have been around for 70 years is somehow giving us something original. Avengers must have been really hard film to write. Hey guys, I need another line, bring be a stack of comic books and lets see what we can find. Must be nice when you don't have to come up with an original idea. A few one liners and the Hulk smashing stuff and the fanboys will proclaim it a masterpiece of cinema.

Nothing about Avengers was any better than Avatar, not the acting, not the plot and not the dialogue. One thing we know for sure is that Avatar had the better special effects.

There's a reason Avatar made 2.8 billion dollars and Avengers won't come close to topping it.

[The Gunslinger]

Originally Posted by jz68

Yeah, Avatar was unoriginal but the guy that does a film with superheroes that have been around for 70 years is somehow giving us something original. Avengers must have been really hard film to write. Hey guys, I need another line, bring be a stack of comic books and lets see what we can find. Must be nice when you don't have to come up with an original idea. A few one liners and the Hulk smashing stuff and the fanboys will proclaim it a masterpiece of cinema.

Nothing about Avengers was any better than Avatar, not the acting, not the plot and not the dialogue. One thing we know for sure is that Avatar had the better special effects.

There's a reason Avatar made 2.8 billion dollars and Avengers won't come close to topping it.

If that's the case, then every Superhero film should be perfect then if they're all written that way. Avengers had a lot of potential to fail before Whedon came along.

And considering box office wise. Avengers can come close to beating Titanic or Avatar. In two days, it will beat the $400 million barrier in the US and for the next two upcoming weeks, it has to worry about Battleship and MiB3 slowing it down? Yeah, all right.

[jz68]

Originally Posted by The Gunslinger

If that's the case, then every Superhero film should be perfect then if they're all written that way. Avengers had a lot of potential to fail before Whedon came along.

It would have taken a complete moron to screw it up given that everything was already there due to the individual movies. Had this been the first time we were seeing these characters on screen, I'd agree with you.

Whedon took established characters and brought them together. Cameron did infinitely more work by establishing an entire new world and then filling it with his own creations.

[The Gunslinger]

Originally Posted by jz68

It would have taken a complete moron to screw it up given that everything was already there due to the individual movies. Had this been the first time we were seeing these characters on screen, I'd agree with you.

Whedon took established characters and brought them together. Cameron did infinitely more work by establishing an entire new world and then filling it with his own creations.

Really? Because his entire new world reminded me a hell of a lot of Fern Gully... (joke)

I'm all about story. Avatar did not have one that was original and Avengers didn't either but at least it succeeded in bringing all these superheros together in a satisfying way. And just to let you know, there are a lot of morons in Hollywood so The Avengers easily could've failed. I have no doubt in my mind if one of the directors from the individual films stepped up to direct this, it wouldn't have been nowhere near as good as Whedon's version.

I love Cameron's films before Titanic, to me he just seems like he's all about the money and nothing else. I mean, he recently just dumped all these other projects he was getting the fans excited for just to stick in the "Avatar" business.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Before Avengers was released fanboys were just happy to have some potential fapping material because all these b level Marvel icons were going to be in the same movie, then when it broke the opening weekend record ( not a big deal anymore, happens every month it seems ), now just enjoying the film isn't enough, now the film has to beat Avatar's domestic and worldwide take .

Nothing will be right with the world if Avengers doesn't pass what they think was a hollow Cameron self flagellation of a film.

I don't know, i'm not going into the finer points of narrative concerning both films, i can't anyway because i have no intention of seeing the Hyperions, but to me just on the surface it looks damn generic in comparison to Avatar. Loud, bombastic, self aware, an empty shell. If you love these characters and that universe i guess it's a wet dream but i don't, so it looks bland .

I'm not crazy about Avatar but it was a unique experience a couple of times around and it did have an effective message that enhanced the visuals even if it may have seemed heavy handed at times.

I don't see any depth in Avengers, alien invaders, yep, i want to see that again ( if they were zombies, that's different, never get tired of the pussbags, i'm being silly bringing that up, but that's true ). I'm not saying it's going for depth or trying to send a message but one of the reasons Avatar held up so well is because of the controversial "message", it resonated with people in addition to the striking visuals .

I don't know why Avenger fans are so hard up for it to top Avatar, i guess it would be confirmation that it's a superior film, to me that only tells me they are an insecure bunch.

If they truly feel Avengers is the better film they wouldn't even be paying any mind to Avatar at least not on this level

Sounds like they got box office envy.

Doesn't matter, they will be all butthurt when TDKR breaks all the records it's currently breaking

[The Gunslinger]

Originally Posted by dellamorte dellamore

Before Avengers was released fanboys were just happy to have some potential fapping material because all these b level Marvel icons were going to be in the same movie, then when it broke the opening weekend record ( not a big deal anymore, happens every month it seems ), now just enjoying the film isn't enough, now the film has to beat Avatar's domestic and worldwide take .

Nothing will be right with the world if Avengers doesn't pass what they think was a hollow Cameron self flagellation of a film.

I don't know, i'm not going into the finer points of narrative concerning both films, i can't anyway because i have no intention of seeing the Hyperions, but to me just on the surface it looks damn generic in comparison to Avatar. Loud, bombastic, self aware, an empty shell. If you love these characters and that universe i guess it's a wet dream but i don't, so it looks bland .

I'm not crazy about Avatar but it was a unique experience a couple of times around and it did have an effective message that enhanced the visuals even if it may have seemed heavy handed at times.

I don't see any depth in Avengers, alien invaders, yep, i want to see that again ( if they were zombies, that's different, never get tired of the pussbags, i'm being silly bringing that up, but that's true ). I'm not saying it's going for depth or trying to send a message but one of the reasons Avatar held up so well is because of the controversial "message", it resonated with people in addition to the striking visuals .

I don't know why Avenger fans are so hard up for it to top Avatar, i guess it would be confirmation that it's a superior film, to me that only tells me they are an insecure bunch.

If they truly feel Avengers is the better film they wouldn't even be paying any mind to Avatar at least not on this level

Sounds like they got box office envy.

Doesn't matter, they will be all butthurt when TDKR breaks all the records it's currently breaking

The thing is, I just flat out hate Avatar and when I saw how much Avengers made this weekend, I was happy because I've been pissed for the last few years about how Avatar made so much money. Also, I'm a Batman fan then Marvel's property heroes and as much as I want TDKR to pull in money like Avengers is doing right now, it more than likely won't.

[jz68]

Originally Posted by The Gunslinger

I'm all about story. Avatar did not have one that was original and Avengers didn't either but at least it succeeded in bringing all these superheros together in a satisfying way.

You're giving Avengers a pass for a weak, unoriginal plot because all people wanted to see were the Avengers doing their thing. So why is it that Avatar needs to be held to a higher standard instead of just being a showcase for the unique world that Cameron created?

Cameron created a new world and filled it with creatures, animals, plants and other things that we had never seen before. He also developed new technology to film it in a way that had never been done, resulting in the best visuals ever seen on screen.

Whedon took characters that had been around for 70 years and had been recently portrayed on screen and put them in the same movie. The studio then converted it to 3D for obvious reasons.

Any criticism made about Avatar is even more true for Avengers.

[Dirtyfrog]

Avatar was visually great but failed on characters ... Avengers is success on both sides.

I really don't care if Avengers best Avatar at the box office. I got a better experience out of Avengers than Avatar and for me , that's all that matters.

PUNY TROLL!

[MisoGenie]

I would contribute more to this Thread after going to see The Avengers this weekend, but there isn't much left to be said but screw Avatar!!

[jz68]

Originally Posted by ericdraven

Avatar = James Cameron green screen whoring AND money whoring.

Avengers = movie actually made for the fans and making a shit ton of money in the process.

So you're saying that Avengers didn't use green screens? Wow, that's pretty damn impressive, especially the fully functional flying aircraft carrier that they built.

Lets see, Cameron spends millions of dollars of his own money developing technology used in the filming of Avatar, resulting in the most visually stunning movie of all time.

Avengers was post converted to 3D.

Tell me again which movie was whoring for extra money?

Nice try though.

[Shinigami]

It's definitely a slippery slope when you start qualifying filmmakers based on presumptions about their character. We know enough about film to come to a website like this and we know enough about film to criticize film independently, without getting personal with film makers. Cameron used millions of his own dollars to put together Avatar, while it doesn't seem that Whedon used any of his own money to fund Avengers. But that doesn't disqualify Whedon. Avatar innovated 3d to the level that Avengers later aped for profit, but that doesn't disqualify Avengers. People have decided that Cameron is a whore for money, despite the production facts leading up to his last two movies. Both Titanic and Avatar were huge financial risks, the likes of which the blockbuster industry rarely sees. Maybe he's indulging in his risk made reward to throw himself into Avatar completely, but what do I know.

But I can agree Whedon is a fan, and probably closer to guys like soda than movie producers picking up movies for their viability in profit. I doubt money entered Whedon's brain when he was given the opportunity. He probably just wanted to make Avengers.

[KcMsterpce]

Originally Posted by Shinigami

I'm surprised some movie fans are cynical about innovations on the scale of Avatar. I'm not a big fan of the Avengers, but I'm still interested in the innovative way it used franchise fare. Something new in cinema is still something new in cinema, and that's a thing to celebrate. I'm a movie fan, not a fanboy.

I'm not cynical about the "innovations" of Avatar. What I don't get is that in the past, Cameron has always pushed the envelope with modern technology. I watch T2 today and I'm STILL wildly impressed with the CGI used in that movie and how well it meshes with the practical effects. More often than not you are seeing real-world makeup design because it cost so much at the time to do the liquid metal effects (and took a long time to create)... it's almost seamless in most cases and looks good EVEN NOW.
Then there's Avatar... a movie he waited over a decade to make so the "technology could catch up to" his vision. Well, - once again this is all about opinion, but - I think it looks rather shitty. It is just a hugeass animated picture the likes of a Zemeckis flick, but trying to pass itself off as "real world" in appearance.
Not once did I feel like I was actually watching a movie taking place in "reality". It felt like an animated CGI movie that happened to have real-life actors amongst the imaginary reality. I was not convinced at all. This isn't because "it's a world that doesn't look like our own and so it's hard to accept." No - I just did NOT think that it ever looked "real". It looked pretty, but I was pissed off that Avatar was insisting that it's not just another digital backlot movie like SIN CITY, 300, or other movies that do such work for artistic effect.

I don't see, frankly, where the money went.
Also, you'd think after 10 years he'd have a good screenplay. Instead it's a complete knockoff of Fern Gully/Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves (diary entries, going native)/Dune (the kwisatz haderach - or any other "chosen one" theme) and SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD (the trees), but dumbed down so that there's no chance of anything exciting or surprising happening during the entire 2 hours+ run time. It's a big blue cartoon.

Originally Posted by jz68

Whedon took established characters and brought them together. Cameron did infinitely more work by establishing an entire new world and then filling it with his own creations.

Going back to how others have stated that these really ARE two very different movies with only the fantasy/fiction element connected and that they made / are making lots of money.
The thing is, I don't think Avatar's world was all that exciting or even imaginative. Most of his "creations" are based on past work and designs of his own and many things that are from Earth - just stylized. And once again, to me, predictable. If I could make my own "alien world" I would do so much more with that kind of budget. Holy shit it would be soooo different.

Originally Posted by Shinigami

But I can agree Whedon is a fan, and probably closer to guys like soda than movie producers picking up movies for their viability in profit. I doubt money entered Whedon's brain when he was given the opportunity. He probably just wanted to make Avengers.

That's kinda how I feel about it. My thoughts are that it's a movie FOR the fans, made BY a fan. I also know he wanted complete authority of the screenplay so if questions were ever asked of him by the studio he'd know exactly how to answer it. Which is cool.
I don't think The Avengers is a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination. I think it's perfect summer action fare, a great "fanboy" comic book movie, and not as insulting to the audiences' intelligence as most of the top level blockbusters. Which is why I'm so happy it's doing well. Compared to the other shit that is recognized by ticket sales alone, I want Avengers to make three billion dollars. It won't keep other movies from being shitty and worthless but successful; it will, however, reign supreme for a while (if it makes that much) and I'll be happy that a movie I LIKE is up at the top spot for a time.

[The Gunslinger]

Originally Posted by KcMsterpce

I'm not cynical about the "innovations" of Avatar. What I don't get is that in the past, Cameron has always pushed the envelope with modern technology. I watch T2 today and I'm STILL wildly impressed with the CGI used in that movie and how well it meshes with the practical effects. More often than not you are seeing real-world makeup design because it cost so much at the time to do the liquid metal effects (and took a long time to create)... it's almost seamless in most cases and looks good EVEN NOW.
Then there's Avatar... a movie he waited over a decade to make so the "technology could catch up to" his vision. Well, - once again this is all about opinion, but - I think it looks rather shitty. It is just a hugeass animated picture the likes of a Zemeckis flick, but trying to pass itself off as "real world" in appearance.
Not once did I feel like I was actually watching a movie taking place in "reality". It felt like an animated CGI movie that happened to have real-life actors amongst the imaginary reality. I was not convinced at all. This isn't because "it's a world that doesn't look like our own and so it's hard to accept." No - I just did NOT think that it ever looked "real". It looked pretty, but I was pissed off that Avatar was insisting that it's not just another digital backlot movie like SIN CITY, 300, or other movies that do such work for artistic effect.

I don't see, frankly, where the money went.
Also, you'd think after 10 years he'd have a good screenplay. Instead it's a complete knockoff of Fern Gully/Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves (diary entries, going native)/Dune (the kwisatz haderach - or any other "chosen one" theme) and SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD (the trees), but dumbed down so that there's no chance of anything exciting or surprising happening during the entire 2 hours+ run time. It's a big blue cartoon.



Going back to how others have stated that these really ARE two very different movies with only the fantasy/fiction element connected and that they made / are making lots of money.
The thing is, I don't think Avatar's world was all that exciting or even imaginative. Most of his "creations" are based on past work and designs of his own and many things that are from Earth - just stylized. And once again, to me, predictable. If I could make my own "alien world" I would do so much more with that kind of budget. Holy shit it would be soooo different.


That's kinda how I feel about it. My thoughts are that it's a movie FOR the fans, made BY a fan. I also know he wanted complete authority of the screenplay so if questions were ever asked of him by the studio he'd know exactly how to answer it. Which is cool.
I don't think The Avengers is a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination. I think it's perfect summer action fare, a great "fanboy" comic book movie, and not as insulting to the audiences' intelligence as most of the top level blockbusters. Which is why I'm so happy it's doing well. Compared to the other shit that is recognized by ticket sales alone, I want Avengers to make three billion dollars. It won't keep other movies from being shitty and worthless but successful; it will, however, reign supreme for a while (if it makes that much) and I'll be happy that a movie I LIKE is up at the top spot for a time.

Everything said in this post is right on the money. I agree with every word.

[Shinigami]

Then there's Avatar... a movie he waited over a decade to make so the "technology could catch up to" his vision. Well, - once again this is all about opinion, but - I think it looks rather shitty. It is just a hugeass animated picture the likes of a Zemeckis flick, but trying to pass itself off as "real world" in appearance.
Not once did I feel like I was actually watching a movie taking place in "reality". It felt like an animated CGI movie that happened to have real-life actors amongst the imaginary reality. I was not convinced at all. This isn't because "it's a world that doesn't look like our own and so it's hard to accept." No - I just did NOT think that it ever looked "real". It looked pretty, but I was pissed off that Avatar was insisting that it's not just another digital backlot movie like SIN CITY, 300, or other movies that do such work for artistic effect.

Despite some early doubts about the technology, by the end of Avatar I was really impressed with the spectacle. Part of the reason I never bothered to watch it out of theaters. But if I hadn't been impressed there goes my whole shpiel, so I can't really argue against the opinion. Although the innovation dealt as much with stereoscopic 3d technology - his 'reality camera system', or virtual camera system, or whatever he rigged up - as it did with special effects (and this is coming from somebody who avoids 3d movies because it doesn't often enhance the experience for me and I already wear goddamn glasses). I think the technical innovation Cameron brought for Avatar meets T2, and beyond my personal opinion, it has changed the way the movie industry films movies and directly inspired quite a few filmmakers by their own admission (Spielberg, Lucas, Jackson, Bay, even Scorsese), which is the definition of pioneering.

But I also thought Ang Lee's Hulk creation looked better than Gollum, so my eye is just my own.

.And now I'm just talking about Avatar, and not even in contrast with Avengers. I'm off topic.

Spoiler:

[ericdraven]

Originally Posted by jz68

So you're saying that Avengers didn't use green screens? Wow, that's pretty damn impressive, especially the fully functional flying aircraft carrier that they built.

Lets see, Cameron spends millions of dollars of his own money developing technology used in the filming of Avatar, resulting in the most visually stunning movie of all time.

Avengers was post converted to 3D.

Tell me again which movie was whoring for extra money?

Nice try though.

Avatar was ONE GIANT GREEN SCREEN. There was no natural scene in the fucking movie, meanwhile Avengers is using moderate green screen.