#281  
Old 05-14-2012, 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KcMsterpce View Post
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.
You are delusional if you think that the effects in T2 were anywhere close to what we saw in Avatar. I remember being impressed with T2 back in 1991 when it was released but in going back and watching it now, the special effects are nothing to talk about. Go back and watch the scene of the T-1000 walking through the steel bars and you'll see what I'm talking about. There are some scenes that still hold up well, but anything involving CGI looks dated.

Let me guess, you think the special effects in Avengers were better than those in Avatar, right?
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 05-14-2012, 03:31 PM
KC Masterpiece just summed up my exact thoughts on both of these films. Bravo, my fellow Schmoe!
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 05-14-2012, 06:26 PM
Jon Favreau talks Avengers and Iron Man 3 - http://bit.ly/IUAfpI
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 05-14-2012, 07:16 PM
Saw it last weekend and it was a great time at the movies. I felt The Avengers was a bit slow at the beginning but during half of the film it started to move forward to more excitement and wham now this is looking awesome. Now Brian Singer, Mathew Vaughn, Sam Raimi and Josh Whedom are the only directors that can make a great Marvel movie. Also about the movie...

Spoiler:
The scenes with Hulk were the funniest ones especially beating Loki to the ground at Stark Building. Also saw the cameo by Stan Lee but no Lou Ferigno cameo like in the past two Hulk movies.
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 05-14-2012, 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gunslinger View Post
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.
Yeah, I think TDKR doesn't have the same appeal as Avengers. Obviously, I'm just guessing, as it isn't even out yet, but Avengers is more fun and probably has a broader audience (I have colleagues in their 50's who saw it and loved it). It also probably has more rewatch value than a Batman movie. But we'll see.
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 05-14-2012, 08:30 PM
I respect Nolan for fighting the studio and winning when it came to not filming TDKR in 3D.
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 05-14-2012, 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidnightAngel View Post
Spoiler:
no Lou Ferigno cameo like in the past two Hulk movies.
Spoiler:
That's because The Avengers isn't a Hulk movie. If you get my drift?
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 05-14-2012, 10:34 PM
So I didn't know whether or not I'd weigh in on this topic, but here goes. As a fan, I really don't care who makes more money, or whose better, The Avengers or Avatar. Personal preference is what its all about, you like your thing, and I'll like mine. If we like what each other is a fan of, peachy, if not, there's no need to get bent out of shape. Rivalries exist, and humans are a species with a group mentality: we identify with those people who identify with the things we do. That's why we root for sports teams (guilty as charged), that's why Democrats hate Republicans and vice versa.

I thought Avatar was a pretty okay film. Nothing that knocked my socks off, but okay. I thought Avengers was a bit better. Neither one will change the course of my life, but for passing an afternoon, yeah, that'll work. However, to echo what others on this thread have said: they are two very different films, very different. My principle complaint about Avatar has less to do with the film than it has to do with the lessons Hollywood learned from that film (not everything has to be 3-D).

As an old comic guy, it reminds me of the rift between Marvel and DC. There are Marvel zombies (like JoeChar) who are fiercely partisan about anything from the house of ideas. There are DC guys who are the opposite. Which one you are has to do with personal tastes, which era you grew up in, who your friends were, etc. There are fans who think you have to pick a side. I don't.

You hear it all the time from small press people. The argument goes: "well, how can we make a dollar when Marvel and DC are gobbling up 90% of the market share?" That argument is backwards. The budget of most fans is not a fixed thing. When Marvel and DC are both strong, small publishers tend to sell more books, the reason being that when the big two are churning out quality, more people go to the shop every week, look at what's on the rack and impulse buy. When the big two are weak, fewer people go to the shop, leading to less eyeballs on the small press stuff. I think movie rivalries work the same way, a rising tide lifts all boats. When all the house are strong, and when Avatar makes $$$ and Avengers makes $$$, everyone wins. I don't see it as a zero sum game. I know my movie spending budget isn't fixed, its fluid. If there's a great film I want to see, I'll go see it, regardless of how much I spent to watch Avatar or the Avengers.

Again, the popularity of Avatar is unlikely to have any affect on the Avengers. Very different movies, with different styles and different things they wanted to get accomplished. Last weekend (the same Saturday the Avengers was released) was Free Comic Book day, and it struck me, as I got my pack, that all the publishers that give out free comics on that day are doing so for a single reason: to promote their product line, but that they go about it in very, very different ways. Taking the big two, because those are the books most people have read, Marvel and DC could not have been more different in their approach.

Marvel told an Avengers story with Ultron as the villain. It was a good story. Good dialogue, snappy plot, excellent one shot. DC went the polar opposite, their offering was a heavy mythology book, one that tied in intricately to the current happenings of the broader DCU. Marvel's book was a Marvel's book was a well executed self contained story, but it was very paint by numbers. It was bland and a bit unimaginative, but it was cool in the way it was presented. It was exactly what you thought it would be, and nothing more. I would call it an excellent bridge for movie fans who saw the Avengers and wanted to check out the comic for free.

DC's offering took a lot of creative risk, it was bolder, more innovative, more daring, but also very cryptic. If you aren't a comic fan, and you aren't weened onto the styles and conventions of the genre, I can easily see this book leaving you confused. But to vets like me, it was unspeakably cool, and that's what DC intended, that's the demo they were after, and to pique the curiosity of those who aren't like me. One big creative risk that DC took is something that, if the press was paying attention to this stuff, would probably get a publisher in hot water.

Now, it should be obvious I preferred DC's offering. I'm an initiate, as well as a big follower of history and folklore. I like what DC did, but I see why Marvel did what they did. Different strokes for different folks, the two styles are inherently difficult to compare, and at the end of the day, they were both successful if and only if people read the book and liked it. In that way, Avatar and Avenger's box office is relevant, but in the big scheme of things what matters most is how much you got out of a movie. Why you thought it was good or bad and why. The rest is just window-dressing.
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 05-14-2012, 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericdraven View Post
Avatar was ONE GIANT GREEN SCREEN. There was no natural scene in the fucking movie, meanwhile Avengers is using moderate green screen.
Well, of course Avatar didn't have a natural scene in the entirety of its run time, that was the point, right? Cameron created an entire world using the latest mocap technology, it was never meant to incorporate any live action scenes. To me, his goal was to see if he could fully immerse the audience in a cineamtic world created entirely with computers, which before Avatar, had really never been accomplished successfully before, (as far as representing humans and their environment realistically goes). Zemeckis' efforts with the technology felt too alien and detached, while Cameron's came the closest to making the characters and the world feel relatable and accessable for the audience. He could of gone the route of shooting everything live action with green screens, but I think he got a more seamless result by computerizing everything. It was a better overall blend for his vision.
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 05-15-2012, 12:35 AM
So now Avatar is a bad movie because everything was computer generated, got it.

Avengers gets a pass because only 65% of it was filmed against a green screen. Come on people, there are rules here.



Just look at that realism.
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 05-15-2012, 12:43 AM


On location with The Avengers.
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 05-15-2012, 12:55 AM
My father can beat yours !

OMG ... some troll praises Avatar in this topic and people fall for it. How the hell did this turned into a thread about Avengers into "Which is better : Avengers or Avatar ? "

I prefered Avengers .... deal with it.

Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 05-15-2012, 01:43 AM
I also don't like discussion on a discussion board?
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 05-15-2012, 01:45 AM
Avatar is responsible for starting this 3D craze, that's its only contribution. I like people who say Avatar was a great movie, then I ask them the name of the villain and they become quiet...
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 05-15-2012, 04:40 AM
Avatar is a movie I thought was solidly enjoyable but far from great when I first saw it in theaters. It does not hold up nearly as well in repeat viewings, however.


I have yet to give The Avengers a second watch. I'll probably do it later on, on IMAX 3D. But I can actually see myself enjoying more on a second or third viewing. Right now I have it as a 7/10, but it wouldn't surprise me if I upped that to an 8 once I see it again.
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 05-15-2012, 09:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
Avatar is responsible for starting this 3D craze, that's its only contribution. I like people who say Avatar was a great movie, then I ask them the name of the villain and they become quiet...
Yep, lets ignore the technological advancements he came up with.

Other than Loki, how about you name the villains in Avengers?

Why so quiet?
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 05-15-2012, 09:18 AM
Saw this movie again and the best part is the las 30 minutes ..the whole helicarrier section bored the fuck out of me. There's really nothing at stake here cause you know who is going to win...and agent Coulson death had 0 emotional impact.

Still 6/10
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 05-15-2012, 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz68 View Post
Yep, lets ignore the technological advancements he came up with.

Other than Loki, how about you name the villains in Avengers?
I thought Loki was the villain in the movie.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 05-15-2012, 09:55 AM
Loki is the only villain in the movie. Or does Thanos count?

The Chitauri aren't villains, they're weapons.
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 05-15-2012, 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred760 View Post
I thought Loki was the villain in the movie.
The alien creatures had a name too. My point was to the guy making the comment about people not being able to name the bad guys in Avatar. Just pointing out how dumb it is in implying that a movie is somehow not up to some standard if you can't cite the name of a specific character.
Reply With Quote
  #301  
Old 05-15-2012, 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by miguel_montes View Post
Loki is the only villain in the movie. Or does Thanos count?

The Chitauri aren't villains, they're weapons.
Just to make things clear .... from Marvel Wiki

The Chitauri are a powerful, technologically advanced race of alien cyborg-like creatures, and they're on Thanos' service. When the Mad Titan allies himself with the exiled Asgardian Loki Laufeyson, the Chitauri are granted to him as his personal army to conquer Earth and gain the Tesseract.

Thanos cameo at the end isn't out of the blue
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 05-15-2012, 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz68 View Post
The alien creatures had a name too. My point was to the guy making the comment about people not being able to name the bad guys in Avatar. Just pointing out how dumb it is in implying that a movie is somehow not up to some standard if you can't cite the name of a specific character.
I was referencing the 'main' baddie. Everyone knew it was Loki because he's memorable, his actions had real implications, and the death of a particular agent was felt throughout the theater and the team on screen. The 'General' from Avatar is a forgettable character, and the reason I said when people become quiet when you ask to name the villain in Avatar is either A) most people didn't care or B) his performance was so two-dimensional that he's easily forgotten. So no, I wasn't so quiet because I didn't immediately respond to your post. Clearly you have a soft spot for Avatar, and I'm sorry if I offended you
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 05-15-2012, 12:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
I was referencing the 'main' baddie. Everyone knew it was Loki because he's memorable, his actions had real implications, and the death of a particular agent was felt throughout the theater and the team on screen. The 'General' from Avatar is a forgettable character, and the reason I said when people become quiet when you ask to name the villain in Avatar is either A) most people didn't care or B) his performance was so two-dimensional that he's easily forgotten. So no, I wasn't so quiet because I didn't immediately respond to your post. Clearly you have a soft spot for Avatar, and I'm sorry if I offended you
Glorious.
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 05-15-2012, 01:10 PM
Loki is definitely a memorable name. He is based off the character in norse mythology. Do we remember the name Loki because the character really penetrated into our minds, or because the character was named Loki? I didn't know the name of Agent Coulson until I read enough of this thread to get the name hammered into my brain, and he was in, like, five movies. Maybe I wasn't paying attention. I liked him enough. I don't remember the name of the army man in Avatar either, but I thought he was a great villain for that sort of movie. I refer to Michelle Rodríguez's character as Michelle Rodríguez's character because I also can't remember her name, but I enjoyed the character because I enjoy the actress. I do remember the name of Loki even though I thought he was silly in both movies. I know who Captain America is even though I forgot his name was Steve. I know who Ghost Rider is because his name is Ghost Rider. I know Black Widow and Hawkeye, but I forgot what their real names are. I have before forgotten Michael Cane and Gary Oldman's character names in the Batman movies, remembering later only because they are staples to the franchise whose names have floated around some six movies and franchise iterations. But I like both of them. Maybe it would have been easier to remember Alfred if they called him 'Perseus' (speaking of Perseus, that's why I remember the lead in the Titan movies).

Quote:
But I can actually see myself enjoying more on a second or third viewing. Right now I have it as a 7/10, but it wouldn't surprise me if I upped that to an 8 once I see it again.
I think so too.

And on the green screen front:

-Avatar generated all the imagery for the Pandora scenes, but not the other scenes. For the real world scenes they used sets on green screen 'lots', just like Avengers. And Avengers, apparently, shot on location only once, and the on location novelty shows up in the movie for about two minutes, because it's mostly interspersed with set scenes like the photos posted. Everything else used the amount of green screen in those pictures. Comparing green screen in Avatar and Avengers isn't showing how different the movies are, it's showing how similar the movies are.

Imo if you want to talk about a contrast, talk Nolan. Avengers and Avatar are both effects heavy movies with slim to nil on location shoots. They rely heavily on green screens and computer generated imagery.
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 05-15-2012, 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post

As an old comic guy, it reminds me of the rift between Marvel and DC. There are Marvel zombies (like JoeChar) who are fiercely partisan about anything from the house of ideas. There are DC guys who are the opposite. Which one you are has to do with personal tastes, which era you grew up in, who your friends were, etc. There are fans who think you have to pick a side. I don't.
I do favor my Marvel and have never hidden that fact nor would I try. Having a favorite doesn't mean I can't be level headed, however. Intimately knowing the characters may give more depth to what I see and it's hard to factor that out of the equation.

Also, being a fan of Marvel means they do get the benefit of the doubt from me but when crap like Ghost Rider or Elektra hits the screen, I know it's bad as a movie fan. Usually, being pro-Marvel doesn't mean I have to be anti-anything else. Avatar is a crap film, that has NOTHING to do with anything Marvel has done. All this box office stuff is a lark but I've never needed box office stats to validate what I know to be true or what I like.

I really think I can fairly judge anything non-Marvel even franchises others deem as competition. I have no overly sentimental attachment to Nolan's Batman yet my thumb was up for TDK. I own that film and paid to see it many times. I grew up reading JLA and Batman 89 was one of my favorite films for years. I've just grown to enjoy what Marvel has done more.

Spider-Man is as Marvel as it gets yet I've stayed away from that board and have my doubts about that new film. I'll see it and judge it for what it is.

TDKR looks a lot like Spider-Man 3 to me and I actually enjoyed a lot of that film but acknowledge its short-comings. If TDKR lands in or below that territory I'm going to say so. If it's great, I'll say that as well. It will have NOTHING to do with anything Marvel or the rivalry. If Battleship is crap, I'll say so only because of its own merit and quality.

I know where my loyalties are at and usually stay on my side of the fence out of respect. I've never gone on Avatar boards or Transformers boards to consistently blast what others enjoy. If that's their parade, I won't try to rain on it. I may state my review and my opinion but usually will move on (unless the film itself truly offends me as a movie goer).

If Avengers or its success offends others and want to try to hack away at it then I will be "fiercely partisan" without flinching. For whatever reason, I enjoyed the film more than enough to do that and to keep savoring it's quality.
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 05-15-2012, 02:36 PM
Avatar could've used real actors in makeup. I like Hulk n all, but one of the reasons - i feel - the films arent very successful is that an audience just cant connect on the same emotional level with a CG character as they can with a real actor.

Let's face it, Avatar could've been Sam Worthington and whats-her-tits in makeup with a CG world - and it probably wouldve been better.
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 05-15-2012, 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
I was referencing the 'main' baddie. Everyone knew it was Loki because he's memorable, his actions had real implications, and the death of a particular agent was felt throughout the theater and the team on screen.
I agree that Colonel Quaritch was weakly written, but don't think remembering the name of a villain is indicative of how good of a villain he/she is. There are several characters in some of my favorite movies who I couldn't tell you the names of. Loki has the advantage of having a distinct sounding name. I didn't find that he was a memorable villain at all. He was pretty much a cardboard cutout with the only thing distinguishing him from other mediocre villains being those cheesy looking horns. However, Hiddleston did almost save him from the lazy writing of that character.

I also thought the death of that particular agent was poorly handled. The guy is barely in the movie and then I'm supposed to buy it being an emotional enough death that it brings everyone together? I expect better than that.

Last edited by Bourne101; 05-15-2012 at 02:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 05-15-2012, 02:47 PM
Marvel always played it safe .... The Avengers was a meticulously orchestrated event.

DC is more daring. I think the Batman reboot prove them right.

The Spiderman reboot is an attempt to get to the same level as Nolan's Batman.

Edit: my point is competition is always good in the long run.
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 05-15-2012, 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChar4321 View Post
I know where my loyalties are at and usually stay on my side of the fence out of respect. I've never gone on Avatar boards or Transformers boards to consistently blast what others enjoy. If that's their parade, I won't try to rain on it. I may state my review and my opinion but usually will move on (unless the film itself truly offends me as a movie goer).
I know you didn't really say this (you may have implied it), but no one is here to blast The Avengers in any way. I hope you don't think that. I don't think there is a single negative review or reaction in the thread. There are just some schmoes who think that maybe, just maybe, The Avengers isn't exactly a perfect movie. I think people pointing out flaws and die hard fans responding is nothing more than healthy discussion. The box-office discussion was bound to happen (I mean, c'mon, this thing is a beast, comparisons to other huge hits are pretty much necessary). If this thread was merely an Avengers circle jerk with the occasional person chiming in and giving a less than perfect rating to it, but then not coming back to discuss, it would get pretty damn boring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChar4321 View Post
If Avengers or its success offends others and want to try to hack away at it then I will be "fiercely partisan" without flinching.
I don't think its success offends anyone on here. No one is "hacking away at it", we're merely discussing box-office and the good and bad qualities of the film. Most would probably agree that it is more worthy of success than the majority of crappy blockbusters that get released each summer.
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 05-15-2012, 03:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post

I also thought the death of that particular agent was poorly handled. The guy is barely in the movie and then I'm supposed to buy it being an emotional enough death that it brings everyone together? I expect better than that.

Wow. I could not disagree with you more on this. That death really hit me. It was sad because I had really gotten to like him. He may not have been a "MAJOR" character, but he was always likeable and I thought the movie handled that well. The main person it hit close to was Stark and that was believable because they had obviously gotten to be kind of close. But I still believed that his death was big enough to get the team to finally act like a team and stop bickering like little children. Really loved that about the movie.
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 05-15-2012, 03:45 PM
Coulson will become Vision. He said he's dating a cellist, right?

Scarlet Witch = Cellist.

Scarlet Witch = Vision's Wife.
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 05-15-2012, 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
Wow. I could not disagree with you more on this. That death really hit me. It was sad because I had really gotten to like him. He may not have been a "MAJOR" character, but he was always likeable and I thought the movie handled that well. The main person it hit close to was Stark and that was believable because they had obviously gotten to be kind of close. But I still believed that his death was big enough to get the team to finally act like a team and stop bickering like little children. Really loved that about the movie.
He doesn't have to be a major character, but I need to believe that characters other than Iron Man actually give a shit about him. I also wasn't a fan of the scene itself, not just the idea of it. As soon as he starts playing around with the weapon and getting laughs from the audience you know Loki is going to kill him. How else was that scene going to end? If it were a little more surprising and well-executed, I might be a little more forgiving of my other complaints about that situation.
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 05-15-2012, 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
He doesn't have to be a major character, but I need to believe that characters other than Iron Man actually give a shit about him.
I felt they did, some through words, others through facial expressions: apart from Stark, Nick Fury says "I lost my one good eye"; Thor obviously cared about Coulson, we can see it in his face when he's locked up; Black Widow also cared about him, we can tell she's sad when she hears the news; Captain America is saddened by the loss of a soldier who idolized him (I felt it gave that "wire speech" against Stark a new meaning); regarding Bruce Banner and Hawkeye, we can't know for sure, one is out of the helicarrier in Hulk form, the other one is under that sort of mind-control.
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:38 AM
As for Agent Coulson
Spoiler:
I doubt he's dead.
First, he closes his eyes after telling Fury the group needs something to bring them together. It's obviously him telling Fury to let them know he's "dead". He was giving advice to Fury.
Further evidence is that Fury does shady shit all the time - even straight up lies - to piss people off and/or get them motivated. Case in point being him taking the cards out of the locker and throwing them on the table for extra dramatic punch.
We don't actually SEE Coulson dead. Fury just says "it's too late. They called it." But we didn't hear the medical team call it.

I'm just not convinced he's dead. Sure it'll feel like a cheap shot when it's revealed he's still alive BUT this is the comic book world; no one's ever really dead. There's always something that brings them back.
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 05-16-2012, 01:34 PM
I guess he has super powers then cause he got a spear through the heart.
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 05-16-2012, 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
I also thought the death of that particular agent was poorly handled. The guy is barely in the movie and then I'm supposed to buy it being an emotional enough death that it brings everyone together? I expect better than that.
His death means more to fans of the recent line of Marvel films. Sounds like someone did not see IM1, IM2, Thor and I'm pretty much convinced you did not see the short films from Marvel one shots:

The Consultant http://scifimafia.com/2011/08/new-cl...arvel-studios/

Or “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Thor’s Hammer“ http://scifimafia.com/2011/10/watch-...-thors-hammer/


The only way Agent Coulson can come back without making a fool out of audiences is to bring him back as The Vision. In fact, I actually hope this happens, it just makes sense. They're going to need him if the sequal's villain is as bad ass, as he is in the comics.

Last edited by petey; 05-16-2012 at 02:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 05-16-2012, 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by petey View Post
His death means more to fans of the recent line of Marvel films. Sounds like someone did not see IM1, IM2, Thor and I'm pretty much convinced you did not see the short films from Marvel one shots:

The Consultant http://scifimafia.com/2011/08/new-cl...arvel-studios/

Or “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Thor’s Hammer“ http://scifimafia.com/2011/10/watch-...-thors-hammer/
I've seen Iron Man and Iron Man 2. I haven't seen Thor, and I haven't seen any Marvel short films as I have no interest.

Whether I have or haven't seen them shouldn't matter though. If you want me to sympathize with a character and believe that 7 characters deeply care about him, you need to show that within an individual film. Whedon himself has even said that it was his intent to make the plot and character dynamics make sense for those who hadn't seen every Marvel movie.

Last edited by Bourne101; 05-16-2012 at 10:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 05-16-2012, 06:17 PM
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 05-16-2012, 09:15 PM
Good lord, you guys are vicious. Chill out.
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 05-16-2012, 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digifruitella View Post
I'm tellin' ya, that's discharge.
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