Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246
That being said, there was no true emotional weight to the film. Besides a surprise death at the end of the second act, none of the characters really have any great emotional revelations or, in many respects, made any significant changes. While I love Tom Hiddleston's Loki, I can't help but feel that the film would have been better served if the character had been killed by the end of the movie. In fact, Whedon even tempts us with the one character death that we know with full certainty would never happen (thus eliminating a great deal of said character's growth in the situation). As it stands, "Captain America", "Thor" and to a lesser extent "Iron Man", have greater emotional depth and character growth than "The Avengers".
|
I can't help but feel like Whedon had no choice. Mashing so many superheroes in one movie means you have to cover a
lot of emotional ground if you want to get through each one. I think it is probably best to tell most of the story/character growth in the individual movies (Iron Man 1 & 2, Thor, Captain America, The Hulk) rather than in a joint franchise. Frankly, I'm surprised at how much they managed to fit into the movie and that most characters had their shining moments. (Though the Hawk had very few introspective moments, he had CRAPLOADS of screentime)
In essence, I am looking forward to each individual stories, but when they are together, as a group, I'd rather push forward the group's narrative rather than the individual threads. I thought that Whedon's balancing act was well done.