The Avengers (May 2012)

[aohige]

Originally Posted by JokerD

I like the interaction of Bruce with Tony, feels like 2 old friends connecting with each other. Black Widow's fear of Bruce in the scenes where they were together was nice as well.

Question, since the helicarrier was cloaked after they lifted off, why was the cloak not on when the attack happeded? Or was the cloaking scene just to show off? (or decloak to let the 'supply plane' know where to land)

My memory is blurry, but didn't they approach it from above?
The cloaking device cloaked the bottom by displaying the sky above, which would make the cloaking one sided.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Sure, like that worked so well when something causes Banner to start Hulking out outside the cage in the Helicarrier, like happened in the movie. Efficient protocol there, relying on Banner to keep sane enough to get himself in the cage before going Hulk.

That's why Banner was asked if he needed to cool off in the cage earlier. The cage is a preventative, not a solution. If he actually hulks out it is already too late. It is also a thinly veiled explanation that they would throw Banner off the ship if he is becoming a risk.

One has to understand, that Banner is actually in control for some time before being recruited. Many strongly believe he was magically induced into transforming by the close proximity to the mind-altering staff. So Banner isn't as much a threat to society at this point, than his first on-film transformation indicated.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

That's why Banner was asked if he needed to cool off in the cage earlier. The cage is a preventative, not a solution. If he actually hulks out it is already too late.

Ah, I must've missed that. That explains it. Still not the most effective solution imo, but eh.

[sunset]

Originally Posted by creb

Iron Man basically stole the show, with characters like the Black Widow seemingly afterthoughts. It's hard for me to view it as the Avengers, and not just Iron Man 3.

I think everyone got a chance at the spotlight.
Tony did get quite a few lines in but so did the Hulk who owned every scenne he was in.

And Black Widow definitely earned her spot in the team.

[Anh_Minh]

Black Widow looks like a great interrogator and all, but the guns were just unconvincing.

And Cap wasn't as bad as that, but still not the paragon he's in the comics. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, come to think of it.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Ah, I must've missed that. That explains it. Still not the most effective solution imo, but eh.

It is the Hulk...there are no effective solutions...only temporary ones.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Speaking of Hulk, you know what? The Hulk in Avengers resembles Ang Lee’s Hulk more than Louis Leterrier’s Incredible Hulk in terms of power and Bruce Banner casts' physical feature, which is a good thing. I think the Hulk in Hulk is much more badass than in Incredible. I always fond of Ang Lee’s Hulk coz it explores the character’s more and the chemistry between the casts is excellent, unlike the zero chemistry we got between Ed Norton & Liv Tyler in Incredible Hulk. Oh well, I can always pretend that Hulk is the one precedes The Avengers and ignored Incredible .

[Mr. DJ]

As long as they avoided The Incredible Inflatable Hulk that Ang Lee had, I'm good.

[Nightengale]

Personally, I felt that it was difficult for Capt's character to be properly captured in The Avengers.

Never thought I said this, but he felt to me like the Avenger who gel-ed into the movie the least of the entire cast.

What I liked about the movie was that pretty much everyone had their own personal story or stake within the context of the plot, or at least a continuum built from previous movies.

Tony was 'nuff said. Not only did he have 2 movies worth of development, for what it was worth, he was a spark starter, and his entire character revolved around him, but also how he got everyone thinking and talking. His versatility, as an actor, Iron Man and Tony also made him a character that was extremely multi-functional. Needed someone in the team to cause problem? Tony's the guy. Need someone to be that voice that speaks what no one else could? Tony. Need someone to be the smartass? Tony. Need someone to handle fights that range from small-scale to big-scale? Iron Man.

Banners didn't have much going into Avengers, but the way his character was involved in his own personal battle, how he's placed in an awkward situation of being the literal timebomb of the team and how Loki manipulated that made him a strong character coming out of the movie. Nevermind that he got a lot of great scenes in the movie. His story was both a lot of personal character development for Hulk/Banners, but with an interesting plot-link that didn't feel tacked on.

Thor's presence in the movie was actually pretty weak imo, but he had a personal investment in the story with Loki as the villain. He was the emotional connection from the hero's side on the fight with the villain. The Thor-Loki thing wasn't well-handled in my opinion, but it wasn't bad.

Turning Hawkeye into a temporary mid-boss was imo, the best thing they could had done for his character in the movie. Given his combat roles and character type, adding him into the 'Avengers timebomb' wouldn't had given him much anyway, and would had easily been overshadowed by the 'Guys With Movies' team. But making him a villain, thus diverting his place away from the A-Team and creating a subplot with Black Widow that was for most parts, a different story plot from the Avengers timebomb made the pair a lot more memorable than they would had been if they were just decorations to the A-Team.

Capt on the other hand though... he had a connection to the main plot via the Terrasect plot, but that was something that didn't weight on him.

It wasn't a personal or emotional link, unlike Thor-Loki. The connection with Tony's dad wasn't well established aside from Tony's one-liner of 'that Howard never stopped talking about him.'

Capt had decent character development from the first movie, but the new setting, for most parts, also pressed the reset button on Capt to the point that his character should had been explored first before.

It's hard to explain, but it felt to me that the first thing on the Capt 'story to resolve' was him finding a place within the new world he woke up to, not him bonding with a team, when he hasn't even fully embraced his current environment.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Nightengale

Capt on the other hand though... he had a connection to the main plot via the Terrasect plot, but that was something that didn't weight on him.

It wasn't a personal or emotional link, unlike Thor-Loki. The connection with Tony's dad wasn't well established aside from Tony's one-liner of 'that Howard never stopped talking about him.'

Capt had decent character development from the first movie, but the new setting, for most parts, also pressed the reset button on Capt to the point that his character should had been explored first before.

It's hard to explain, but it felt to me that the first thing on the Capt 'story to resolve' was him finding a place within the new world he woke up to, not him bonding with a team, when he hasn't even fully embraced his current environment.

I got good news then. As an earlier post mentioned, the DVD version of the Avengers will contain the 30 minutes of cut content involving Steve Rogers at the start of the movie. So yes, Steve did lose out in development in the screened version, but the full length one would make up for it. The truth is they had to cut something, or it would be four hours long.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Nightengale

Capt on the other hand though... he had a connection to the main plot via the Terrasect plot, but that was something that didn't weight on him.

It wasn't a personal or emotional link, unlike Thor-Loki. The connection with Tony's dad wasn't well established aside from Tony's one-liner of 'that Howard never stopped talking about him.'

Capt had decent character development from the first movie, but the new setting, for most parts, also pressed the reset button on Capt to the point that his character should had been explored first before.

It's hard to explain, but it felt to me that the first thing on the Capt 'story to resolve' was him finding a place within the new world he woke up to, not him bonding with a team, when he hasn't even fully embraced his current environment.

Yeah, he seemed to still have his head in the war, somehow. (Not unjustified, really. It wasn't that long ago, to him.) Even his relationship with Tony looked like an echo of his rivalry with Howard.

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

Saw it again today.

It amused me to note how similar the opening is to the opening act of Half Life. I was looking in the background to try and pick out a bearded scientist.

Spoiler for just in case:

I do wonder if Loki was completely under his own faculties, yeah he is mentally damaged and all full of vengeance. But it was more apparent that he seemed to be under the influence of some sort of control, something from that staff of his perhaps.

The above theory seems to be possibly supported by the way the scepter (Loki) drove the main characters into the verbal argument on the Airship, they were all experiencing heightened aggression, suspicion and near manic behavior. The dialog, particularly Rogers lines to Stark (the one being argued about a page or so back), and Fury's to Banner were fairly telling of the scepters effects. Looking at the scenes where Loki had the staff he was usually shown with pallid complexion, sweating and manic looks. Once the staff was away from him he seemed to clear up, still full of wrath, but he seemed less chaotic evil and more lawful evil. So my theory would be that he was being played while he was playing others - he may or may not have been aware of it, but his allies motives are definitely suspect. I do not believe the Chitauri or their master would have let him really keep Earth.

Oh side note, Banner mysteriously turning up in the 3rd act, it wasn't really a mystery. He saw on the computer before all went to hell on the Airship where the Tesseract was. He just didn't get to tell anyone.

At least those are my observations from a second time through.

I hope in Thor 2 we see more of a dynamic between the two, maybe a forced team up or whatever. Kind of like Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling. I think Loki was quite a bit more one dimensional when compared to his portrayal in Thor.

[MakubeX2]

^ I don't know. In Thor, Loki's eyes were mostly green. In Avengers, it was Blue. In the shade to what Agent Barton's was in the first half and Dr Selvig's most of the film. Just sayin'.

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

I noticed that too, forgot to mention it. That just supports my theory even more.

When he is having the flashback petitioning the Chitauri can you see his eyes then? I can't remember.

Oh, anyone else expect to see Loki standing in the center of the group while they were arguing on the airship when the camera was upside down? When I saw Fury's coat while the camera was panning it reminded me so much of the scene at the end of Thor.

[kenjiharima]

highest paid Avenger

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/who-is-the...-avenger-.html

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kenjiharima

highest paid Avenger

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/who-is-the...-avenger-.html

Funny that. RDJ wasn't even the highest paid actor in his own Ironman 1.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Mr Hat and Clogs

Oh side note, Banner mysteriously turning up in the 3rd act, it wasn't really a mystery. He saw on the computer before all went to hell on the Airship where the Tesseract was. He just didn't get to tell anyone.

We have no idea where the Hulk fell in relation to Stark Tower, so it is unknown how long it took Banner to get to the tower (while still having time to acquire new clothes beyond the pants given to him, and a motorcycle (which is generally harder to find than a car)). Consequently, Banner turning up so suddenly is "mysterious".

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

The old guy gave him a shirt and pants, not just pants. That and 'finding' a bike (maybe he stole it, maybe he asked to borrow it, maybe he purchased one or he built one from scraps in the building he fell on) and how long it took him to get into New York (?) isn't nearly as big a 'plot hole' as not knowing where to go at all. Besides that scene was set for comedic value, I think there is even a trope for turning up like that.

You could consider how Thor turned up to be a bit of a plot hole as well. Since he wasn't told where it was, he just kind of rocked up. (although I give him a pass because of mysterious magical powers letting him sense where Loki is and the big ol energy beam)

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Mr Hat and Clogs

You could consider how Thor turned up to be a bit of a plot hole as well. Since he wasn't told where it was, he just kind of rocked up. (although I give him a pass because of mysterious magical powers letting him sense where Loki is and the big ol energy beam)

You give Thor a pass, but not the Hulk who was brought onto the Helicarrier specifically because he could sense/track the gamma rays from the Cosmic Cube who happened to show up near said Cosmic Cube?

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

I didn't say that. I didn't have a problem with how the Hulk turned up, that's other people. Besides Thor could track Loki, not the cube. Loki wants to open a portal, go to Loki and find the portal - nice simple thought process for him. That and I just aded that part in the brackets for the folks who'd be all like super magic powers!

As a general rule, I don't get bent out of shape by things in movies. Unless it totally destroys the movie, like say.... Gandalf starts throwing Fireballs or something.