View Poll Results: Grade The Movie!

Voters
407. In order to vote on this poll, you must be a registered user and/or logged in
  • A+--Greatest Comic Movie Ever!

    209 51.35%
  • A--Excellent!

    154 37.84%
  • B---Very Good but could have been better

    33 8.11%
  • C---Meh, just okay

    5 1.23%
  • D--Very let down; even "Catwoman" was better!

    3 0.74%
  • F---Complete Failure; what happened??

    3 0.74%
Page 265 of 293 FirstFirst ... 165215255261262263264265266267268269275 ... LastLast
Results 3,961 to 3,975 of 4382
  1. #3961
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    462

    Default

    This all seems... horrible.

  2. #3962
    Senior Member Death by Mime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ImpulseUCF View Post
    Sure it can, but you act like it's mandatory.
    To show how high the stakes were if it was something to consider. Again, not everything needs to be commentary. Widow's subsequent scene rendered the issue moot.
    Nonsense. "SHIELD is incompetent" was never a major theme of these films. SHIELD has been shown to be highly competent and proactive. If anything, the point is how well-executed and powerful the new threat is to have put them in such a bad way. This is a common trope of this type of show. The good guys are initially overwhelmed but rally for the rebound win.
    No, I do not. I said any fallout that does need to be addressed can be handled in the next movie if the creators see the need to take the narrative there. The narrative in this film didn't require it.
    You're the one making assumptions. Your statement comes off like they have disbanded to go about their separate ways henceforth and forever. The intended interpretation is clearly "they go their separate ways.....for NOW! Until they are needed again!" They bonded, learned the need and value of working together and saw their potential together. Of course they will be back together when they are needed. To suggest otherwise is either willful obfuscation or the sound of the point whooshing over your head.
    It's more "Oh, man, shit is serious if we have to consider this. Oh, okay, one of the other tactics worked. Good."

    Again, you are entitled to dislike the movie, but your criticisms come off as excruciatingly anal nitpicking.
    A repeated theme throughout the film is that SHIELD cannot be trusted with power. They cannot be trusted to develop Phase 2. They cannot be trusted to keep the tesseract, which is why it is a happy ending when Thor takes it back. The action in the film does not go, SHIELD is strong; Loki beats SHIELD, he is stronger; Avengers are strongest of all. It has SHIELD and the Avengers getting into a fight because they disagree with each others' methods. Loki incites this fight, and then punks them both while they are arguing.

    Why are the Avengers against Phase 2? The stakes are high (alien invasion) and SHIELD is being proactive by preparing weapons against them. And yet all the Avengers not already working for SHIELD are resolutely against Phase 2, because they all see it as immoral for various reasons. And yet, when Nick Fury suggests torturing Loki because "the stakes are high", Thor looks pensive and considers it. Loki, the guy he just tried to rescue and got into a fight with Iron Man and Cap over. Why aren't their reactions consistent? "Sure, the stakes are high, but that's still no reason to plan doing something so terrible, I'm opposed to this!" Why are they anti-WMD's, but okay with torture?

    The point is, they are still needed when they disband, because SHIELD and the Council still exist, and still mark an ongoing threat of some city getting nuked or some dude getting tortured or some people getting wiretapped. They disband because they obviously don't believe they're needed to combat the Council. Why not?

    And here is the point I am getting at with your sequel talk. You said whatever "need[s] to be addressed can be handled in the next movie if the creators see the need to take the narrative there. The narrative in this film didn't require it." How can something both need to be addressed in the next movie, and not need to be addressed in the current one? If something is not important enough even to refer to in a movie, why on earth would you return to it in a sequel?

  3. #3963
    Senior Member Death by Mime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaric Rivad View Post
    This all seems... horrible.
    Yes you're right

  4. #3964
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    158

    Default

    I think Avengers was a boring movie. It would have been much better if they just got together for no apparent reason and beat the shit out of shadowy council members who wants to nuke NY for no apparent reason.

  5. #3965
    Senior Member Lascoden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,756

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Death by Mime View Post
    A repeated theme throughout the film is that SHIELD cannot be trusted with power. They cannot be trusted to develop Phase 2. They cannot be trusted to keep the tesseract, which is why it is a happy ending when Thor takes it back. The action in the film does not go, SHIELD is strong; Loki beats SHIELD, he is stronger; Avengers are strongest of all. It has SHIELD and the Avengers getting into a fight because they disagree with each others' methods. Loki incites this fight, and then punks them both while they are arguing.

    Why are the Avengers against Phase 2? The stakes are high (alien invasion) and SHIELD is being proactive by preparing weapons against them. And yet all the Avengers not already working for SHIELD are resolutely against Phase 2, because they all see it as immoral for various reasons. And yet, when Nick Fury suggests torturing Loki because "the stakes are high", Thor looks pensive and considers it. Loki, the guy he just tried to rescue and got into a fight with Iron Man and Cap over. Why aren't their reactions consistent? "Sure, the stakes are high, but that's still no reason to plan doing something so terrible, I'm opposed to this!" Why are they anti-WMD's, but okay with torture?

    The point is, they are still needed when they disband, because SHIELD and the Council still exist, and still mark an ongoing threat of some city getting nuked or some dude getting tortured or some people getting wiretapped. They disband because they obviously don't believe they're needed to combat the Council. Why not?

    And here is the point I am getting at with your sequel talk. You said whatever "need[s] to be addressed can be handled in the next movie if the creators see the need to take the narrative there. The narrative in this film didn't require it." How can something both need to be addressed in the next movie, and not need to be addressed in the current one? If something is not important enough even to refer to in a movie, why on earth would you return to it in a sequel?
    They can't just attack and destroy SHIELD and The Council. They are not "threats" in the traditional sense, and they are not something you can just face head on. They are, for better or worse, a governmental power. They are no different then the military, the police, or the FBI. They serve a larger function, and SHIELD, and probably the Council, do a lot of good for the world. SHIELD is a peacekeeping force, after all. It would be like if Spider-Man took out the NYPD since they keep getting in his way. Sure, his problem is gone, and now he save the world more effectively, but can you imagine the terrible consequences that would arise out of it? They are not something the Avengers can just defeat, as odd as that sounds. They are something they have to contend with, but it serves a necessary role. Do I really have to explain what happens when heroes start changing the government to suit their needs?

  6. #3966
    Senior Member Death by Mime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lascoden View Post
    They can't just attack and destroy SHIELD and The Council. They are not "threats" in the traditional sense, and they are not something you can just face head on. They are, for better or worse, a governmental power. They are no different then the military, the police, or the FBI. They serve a larger function, and SHIELD, and probably the Council, do a lot of good for the world. SHIELD is a peacekeeping force, after all. It would be like if Spider-Man took out the NYPD since they keep getting in his way. Sure, his problem is gone, and now he save the world more effectively, but can you imagine the terrible consequences that would arise out of it? They are not something the Avengers can just defeat, as odd as that sounds. They are something they have to contend with, but it serves a necessary role. Do I really have to explain what happens when heroes start changing the government to suit their needs?
    Do you really believe that the Council is a legitimate governing body? Do you believe that it is representative of government as a whole and that its individual members cannot be replaced or censured? Here's the thing, you do not have to be a superhero to change the government according to your needs, ideally you ought to be able to accomplish this as a citizen. No one wants a movie where the Avengers turn to legislative means to defeat their enemies, but you can do stories with lots of punching where the good guys take out some evil politicians and don't end up as dictators for it. See: Norman Osborn.

  7. #3967
    Senior Member Lascoden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,756

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Death by Mime View Post
    Do you really believe that the Council is a legitimate governing body? Do you believe that it is representative of government as a whole and that its individual members cannot be replaced or censured? Here's the thing, you do not have to be a superhero to change the government according to your needs, ideally you ought to be able to accomplish this as a citizen. No one wants a movie where the Avengers turn to legislative means to defeat their enemies, but you can do stories with lots of punching where the good guys take out some evil politicians and don't end up as dictators for it. See: Norman Osborn.
    Yes, I do believe that they are a legitimate body, though a secretive one. They have control of SHIELD, which is in charge of protecting Earth, and has inter-governmental backing. Also, they are able to deploy troops and arms on US soil, including firing a nuclear warhead. This requires a great deal of executive power. There is nothing suggesting that they are some rogue group, everything they did was perfectly legal. And the Avengers, and pretty much superheros as a whole, are not policymakers. They can influence it by speaking out, but that is the extent of their power. Nothing greater then that of a normal citizen. You mentioned taking out Osborn. That is a false equivalence. They only removed Osborn from power after he went rogue, and was fired by the president. The Siege of Asgard was against orders, so he was committing treason and insubordination at the time. Outside of Barton, they never attempted to overthrow Osborn. If you remember, they all said that that was a terrible, stupid, idiotic idea that would only cause more problems. You know what really tarnishes your image? Staging coups.

  8. #3968
    Senior Member Death by Mime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lascoden View Post
    Yes, I do believe that they are a legitimate body, though a secretive one. They have control of SHIELD, which is in charge of protecting Earth, and has inter-governmental backing. Also, they are able to deploy troops and arms on US soil, including firing a nuclear warhead. This requires a great deal of executive power. There is nothing suggesting that they are some rogue group, everything they did was perfectly legal. And the Avengers, and pretty much superheros as a whole, are not policymakers. They can influence it by speaking out, but that is the extent of their power. Nothing greater then that of a normal citizen. You mentioned taking out Osborn. That is a false equivalence. They only removed Osborn from power after he went rogue, and was fired by the president. The Siege of Asgard was against orders, so he was committing treason and insubordination at the time. Outside of Barton, they never attempted to overthrow Osborn. If you remember, they all said that that was a terrible, stupid, idiotic idea that would only cause more problems. You know what really tarnishes your image? Staging coups.
    Tarnishing your image. Okay. That's an interesting choice of phrase.

    So, you believe this shadowy anonymous Council is entirely legitimate, that nuking New York City would have been entirely legal, and that the Council's decision to do so would be considered a valid decision by the various governments that back them, that everything they did would have been validated by the system.

    You know what, okay. I can't argue with that. I will go along with your beliefs. Questions:

    Why do the Avengers not do anything about nearly getting nuked? They don't need to stage a coup! I mentioned Nick Fury as an authority figure who supports the Avengers and opposes the Council, they can ask him to do something on that level. They can speak out against the Council, like you said. They don't. Why not?

    How do you feel about the Avengers' opposition to Phase 2, and Thor's unilateral decision to take back the tesseract at the end of the movie?

  9. #3969
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Death by Mime View Post
    Tarnishing your image. Okay. That's an interesting choice of phrase.

    So, you believe this shadowy anonymous Council is entirely legitimate, that nuking New York City would have been entirely legal, and that the Council's decision to do so would be considered a valid decision by the various governments that back them, that everything they did would have been validated by the system.

    You know what, okay. I can't argue with that. I will go along with your beliefs. Questions:

    Why do the Avengers not do anything about nearly getting nuked? They don't need to stage a coup! I mentioned Nick Fury as an authority figure who supports the Avengers and opposes the Council, they can ask him to do something on that level. They can speak out against the Council, like you said. They don't. Why not?

    How do you feel about the Avengers' opposition to Phase 2, and Thor's unilateral decision to take back the tesseract at the end of the movie?
    They don't know that the council was behind SHIELD. They don't know who tried to nuke the city. All they knew was that a nuke was authorized to deal with the aliens. Nick Fury tipped them off, and for all intent and purposes the avengers and shield were still on the same side.

    By letting thor take the tesseract, they thought that they had dealt with Phase 2. No tesseract, no weapons.

    Look, i'm with you. It would have been a much better movie if all the movie was about was the avengers taking out those arrogant little council members.

    Or immediately, after a terrible and exhausting war to defend new york, they immediately set off and beat them up.

  10. #3970
    Senior Member Death by Mime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spursevere View Post
    They don't know that the council was behind SHIELD. They don't know who tried to nuke the city. All they knew was that a nuke was authorized to deal with the aliens. Nick Fury tipped them off, and for all intent and purposes the avengers and shield were still on the same side.

    By letting thor take the tesseract, they thought that they had dealt with Phase 2. No tesseract, no weapons.

    Look, i'm with you. It would have been a much better movie if all the movie was about was the avengers taking out those arrogant little council members.

    Or immediately, after a terrible and exhausting war to defend new york, they immediately set off and beat them up.
    Yes they don't know, but they can find out. They can go back to Nick Fury and say 'hey you're the spymaster general around here, one of your jets launched a nuke at us what the heck was up with that??' It doesn't matter if the Council authorized it or the US president authorized it or the collective United Nations authorized it, the point is someone in power launched a nuke at the city when they were just about to win and you would think they would be sort of mad about this.

    What I am asking about the tesseract is, if you (you in general, not you personally) believe that the Council and SHIELD are legitimate authorities and their actions are all justifiable, how do you feel about the Avengers unilaterally taking the tesseract away from them and shutting down Phase 2 research?

  11. #3971
    Marquis de carabas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Belgium.
    Posts
    31,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Death by Mime View Post
    Yes they don't know, but they can find out. They can go back to Nick Fury and say 'hey you're the spymaster general around here, one of your jets launched a nuke at us what the heck was up with that??'
    That brings us back to the point of: "It's a 2 hour movie, that was rather tightly plotted. With little to no cuttable scenes. Good luck trying to fit in a whole cloak & daggery political subplot into that.
    'The marquis. Well, you know, to be honest, he seems a little bit dodgy to me.'
    'Mm,' she agreed. 'He's a little bit dodgy in the same way that rats are a little bit covered in fur."

  12. #3972
    Hail Hydra Nefarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    In the shadows
    Posts
    3,628

    Default

    I think that the Council is the Security Council of UN.Let's not forget that SHIELD is(was?) a UN sponsored organisation.
    "I am Loki Scar-Lip, Loki Skywalker, Loki Giant's Child, Loki Lie-Smith. I am Loki, who is fire and wit and hate. I am Loki. And I will be under an obligation to no one."

  13. #3973
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Death by Mime View Post
    Yes they don't know, but they can find out. They can go back to Nick Fury and say 'hey you're the spymaster general around here, one of your jets launched a nuke at us what the heck was up with that??' It doesn't matter if the Council authorized it or the US president authorized it or the collective United Nations authorized it, the point is someone in power launched a nuke at the city when they were just about to win and you would think they would be sort of mad about this.

    What I am asking about the tesseract is, if you (you in general, not you personally) believe that the Council and SHIELD are legitimate authorities and their actions are all justifiable, how do you feel about the Avengers unilaterally taking the tesseract away from them and shutting down Phase 2 research?
    What with Loki having displayed the power of turning SHIELD agents into his minions, wouldn't it be plausible for them to think it was another act of sabotage by someone under the thrall of Loki? They were fighting alongside someone who was under Loki's spell for two-thirds of the movie.. who blew up the heli carrier on his own.

    They weren't about to win. It all happened in real time ( didn't feel like it, because it was...a ... movie) but the nuke was launched before BW was in a position to close the portal.

    the tesseract wasn't just an unlimited source of power, it was also a portal which could be opened anytime from the other side as explained in the movie. Clearly they didn't have the manpower or weapons to deal with another invasion.. Why not remove it from earth altogether?

  14. #3974
    Senior Member Death by Mime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carabas View Post
    That brings us back to the point of: "It's a 2 hour movie, that was rather tightly plotted. With little to no cuttable scenes. Good luck trying to fit in a whole cloak & daggery political subplot into that.
    Eh? My complaint is that the subplot of the Avengers distrusting SHIELD over WMD's was dropped, and your response is that the movie was too tightly plotted? C'mon, the final act was an extended fight scene where the Avengers punch Chitauri until it's time to close the portal. Loki gets beaten up, what, three, four times, and does nothing of value in-between. There's nothing wrong with luxuriating in the villain's ignominious defeat, but if you're short on time, yes, there are a bunch of scenes you can cut there.

    And like I've said, you could fit it in the ending, where Nick Fury tells the Council, 'the Avengers were pretty mad about the nuke, I let them know who was behind it.' If the intention is to set this up for a sequel (like you suggested earlier) you'd only need about as much time as the Thanos scene.

  15. #3975
    Senior Member Death by Mime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spursevere View Post
    What with Loki having displayed the power of turning SHIELD agents into his minions, wouldn't it be plausible for them to think it was another act of sabotage by someone under the thrall of Loki? They were fighting alongside someone who was under Loki's spell for two-thirds of the movie.. who blew up the heli carrier on his own.

    They weren't about to win. It all happened in real time ( didn't feel like it, because it was...a ... movie) but the nuke was launched before BW was in a position to close the portal.

    the tesseract wasn't just an unlimited source of power, it was also a portal which could be opened anytime from the other side as explained in the movie. Clearly they didn't have the manpower or weapons to deal with another invasion.. Why not remove it from earth altogether?
    What on earth? Why would they think Loki was behind it, he's not even at the Hellicarrier anymore. Even if it was someone mind-controlled, surely they would want to go and find out who it is regardless.

    The exact moment the nuke was launched is not something the Avengers would know, Black Widow is about to close the portal when Tony Stark calls her up and says, 'wait, wait, not yet I've got this nuke!'

    And if you think that the Council is a legitimate ruling body, isn't it their own decision to take that risk? The Council wants to use the tesseract to make weapons to defend itself in case of another invasion, and the tesseract is not the only way that invaders can attack Earth. Why should the Avengers (Thor, really) be able to overrule the decision of the world's governments?

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •