The Avengers

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1210
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Re: The Avengers

Post by Bill1978 » May 7th, 2012, 12:54 am

Unfortunately I will probably have to wait until DVD to see this movie, but I view it as no big deal as I have only ever seen the individual Avengers movie on the small screen.

I would imagine the colossal success of this movie will have Warner seriously thinking about getting the Justice League movie back off the ground.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25294
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: The Avengers

Post by Ben » May 7th, 2012, 10:45 am

Naturally, and I wouldn't be surprised if The Dark Knight Rises wasn't the last time we see Bale in the cowl. He may be done with Nolan's trilogy, but that doesn't mean The Bat won't show up with Nolan/Snyder's Superman et al at a future date (and don't forget that Green Lantern was an attempt to get the ball rolling on setting up such a set of characters to bring together).

It would be quite something to see if they can pull it off: DC easily has the best and most expansive collection of primary superhero characters in their line up, though they still (and will) have a lot of issues to sort out (like ironing out Wonder Woman and seeing how Superman does). I personally think WB may be going off in the wrong directions with Nolan's dark sensibilities: it works for Bats, yes, but we'll wait and see if Superman is anything less than super and I have a slight fear that it may be missing the lighter touch that is clearly needed if it is to match what Whedon has achieved with his super-team movie.

GeorgeC

Re: The Avengers

Post by GeorgeC » May 7th, 2012, 12:55 pm

I've said it many times and I'll say it again ---

This stuff is best done in animation.
- Spandex looks ridiculous in real life and begs alterations that you come to hate
- Have to deal with the onscreen egos
- HATE seeing all those shots with the cowls and masks off!
- The girls will NEVER get an equal shot in live-action
- Stylization works out better in animation... and so on.

But, given attitudes of the general public, the creators-that-be are going to continue to ruin this stuff in live-action!

(Not that Marvel's been great with animation so far... The DC characters have been translated far better to animation by a much better group of artists than what Marvel has working for its production companies thus far... Too bad DC management decided to ruin its monthly publishing in the mean-time!)

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 6634
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: The Avengers

Post by Dacey » May 7th, 2012, 3:08 pm

So George, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? ;)

Seriously, though, there's nothing quite like seeing this stuff in live-action. Sure, it works fine in animation--when done right, it can even be terrific--, but there's a real, genuine thrill in seeing these characters in action on screen "for real" that straight-to-DVD budget productions will never be able to capture.

And as for girls not getting enough of the action, I actually thought that The Avengers handled Black Widow really well. She was an active member of the team, not just a walk-on.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

GeorgeC

Re: The Avengers

Post by GeorgeC » May 7th, 2012, 11:21 pm

Dacey,

Come back and talk to me when you've read one-tenth the comic book storylines that I have...
It's far more fantastic what can be done in comics and animation than live-action.
As many people have commented on the past who've actually read the books many films are based on, the films just aren't the same or even half as good as the original books!
That's even more true for the movies based on superheroes.

Live-action has all kinds of problems translating the fantastic -- physics and not wanting to get real people killed, the egos of all the creators and actors, the limitations of presenting "comic book reality" within a real-world setting, and the very real budget constructs on building the cities and vehicles that populate comics.

Honestly, you don't have a clue how cut down the X-Men films were from the original comics written in the late 1970s and early 1980s or how visually boring the Chris Nolan Batman films are relative to the comics they were supposedly adapted from. It takes no imagination whatsoever to use a real-life city like Chicago or Cleveland as the backdrop of Bruce Wayne's world. For all their faults in the scripts and casting, the Burton Batman films at least had an interesting and more fantastic take on Gotham City and the Bat vehicles.

That's a big complaint about a lot of films being made now. The design is so bad, unbalanced, and generally unimaginative. The science fiction and fantasy films of 30-35 years ago were much better-designed and the worlds in those films were realized better than many of the $150million-$200 million that are being made today! The old-style practical effects, movie sets, and hand-built models were more convincing than 95% of what's being done in CGI today to supposedly save costs.

(CGI used to save money? What a joke! The films are more expensive than ever now IN SPITE of CGI! And honestly, they look worse and in many ways cheaper than many of their non-CGI predecessors ever did...)

To top it all off, the films 30-35 years actually had decent scripts and excellent casting. Lesser-known actors -- some of who eventually became icons -- were cast in the roles and did better jobs with the material given to them perhaps because they were hungry and appreciated the breaks they were being given.

A lot of those older films haven't aged badly.
The larger chunk of today's films will be forgotten within a year or two at most. The studios are just not producing anything like the classics that happened within a 5-year period way back when...

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 376
Joined: March 19th, 2010
Location: Probably Cinemark

Re: The Avengers

Post by LotsoA113 » May 8th, 2012, 8:16 am

As a gigantic fan of The Avengers and it's comics, I'd just like to note that The Avengers not only works as an adpatation of the comics, but as a great film period!

Seriously, if you haven't seen it yet..see it!! Can't even describe it's awesomenss!! :mrgreen:
I love all things cinema, from silent movies to world cinema to animated cinema to big blockbusters to documentaries and everything in between!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 5192
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: The Avengers

Post by EricJ » May 8th, 2012, 6:36 pm

I was SUPPOSED to see it today on Bargain Tuesday, but we're stuck with three days of bad weather.
I was going to see it in our fancy Cinemark XD theaters, but since they don't have bargain days, I'm not tied to any schedule. I'll just tough it out and hide from the crowds until Thursday or Friday, or whenever it's safe to go out again. :(

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 7261
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Re: The Avengers

Post by Randall » May 9th, 2012, 9:30 am

Saw it. It does live up to the hype as a grand superhero adventure, with lots of action and laughs, as well as good character interplay. Truly impressive, and fun. Whedon nailed it.

As far as "best ever superhero movie," maybe...but definitely not my "favorite." Superman: The Movie will likely always hold that honor, for what it meant to me when I viewed it at age 8 in the theatre, and how it influenced my life. And The Dark Knight had way more of a punch (I could hardly speak after leaving the theatre after that one), though it was also a way different type of film.

User avatar
AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 1819
Joined: March 27th, 2008

Re: The Avengers

Post by Dan » May 13th, 2012, 8:00 pm

The fun I had seeing this film, I had to see it again. Fantastic from start to finish, surely one of the best superhero films to date. Whedon is to be applauded for just how well he helped developed the story and then told it in such a compelling way to hold the attention of the audience until the "Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures" tag appears at the very end.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25294
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: The Avengers

Post by Ben » May 15th, 2012, 6:43 am

Or even "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures", as it their new name for Buena Vista. :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 376
Joined: March 19th, 2010
Location: Probably Cinemark

Re: The Avengers

Post by LotsoA113 » May 15th, 2012, 8:07 am

BTW, that is one thing that irked me was the fact that the Disney logo wasn't on it. Instead the Paramount Pictures logo was on it. I knew about the marketing material agreement, but I thought Disney at least could put their logo on the film itself. Very strange.
I love all things cinema, from silent movies to world cinema to animated cinema to big blockbusters to documentaries and everything in between!

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 7261
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Re: The Avengers

Post by Randall » May 15th, 2012, 9:25 am

As you said, that's the deal they came up with. And after all, it began life as a Paramount film once upon a time. Whatever deal was made, though, Disney is getting the better of it judging by the box office, even if Paramount is still getting a cut (and I'm not sure they are). It's certainly helping Disney take the sting out of their John Carter fiasco.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25294
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: The Avengers

Post by Ben » May 15th, 2012, 9:34 am

I don't think Paramount are getting anything from it, though I could be wrong (they may be on a license cut or something). But they did get paid out to the tune of a few hundred mil or so, so they didn't do too bad (and they get the same for Iron Man 3).

So glad that Rich Ross has gone over JCM. He can't as hell claim that Avengers should count for something on his watch as it was planned long before he arrived and basically would have sold itself. I also hope DreamWorks now start to have some better box-office luck through their Disney arrangement, since the marketing on their films has been lousy too (as Spielberg has been very public about and even had a spat with Ross over War Horse).

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 6634
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: The Avengers

Post by Dacey » May 15th, 2012, 1:19 pm

From my understanding, Paramount either gets $115 million, or 8% of the film's gross (whichever is more). The same will go for "Iron Man 3." After that, I think the movies finally become completely Disney's.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1419
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Re: The Avengers

Post by Macaluso » May 17th, 2012, 10:22 am

GeorgeC wrote:Dacey,

Come back and talk to me when you've read one-tenth the comic book storylines that I have...
lmao @ this

Anyway, saw the movie. It was awesome as hell. I was surprised that the funniest moments and best audience reactions didn't come from Stark but from the Hulk. Seriously our audience erupted into laughter when
Hulk made a ragdoll out of Loki.
Holy moly that was funny.

Also the after after credits thing (not the first one midway through the credits) is great and I thought it was the perfect way to end the movie.

It's a shame they didn't have the rights to Spiderman though. It would have been awesome to see him participating with everyone.

Post Reply