What Did You Think Of "The Avengers?"

[thenerdal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9PhfUsFvj0
that

Love that. Makes doing things even better. Like working on a paper.

[carabas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9PhfUsFvj0
that

Well, that sounds just incredibly generic to me, and also dated.

[maczero]

Watched it the other day, it was pretty good. At it's best I don't really think it's better than some of the best bits from the individual characters movies...but it stays consistently good, which pretty much none of the Marvel movies have done besides Iron Man & maybe Thor. There where little things that could have been cut to keep the movie going better. I don't think we really need to see the camera go around the deck of the Helicarrier in a boring shot while characters that don't matter say things that don't mean anything inbetween it's take off and turning invisible. Not really sure why Maria Hill is a character when she almost did nothing, and everything she did could have been done by Coulson.

So they wouldn't have to waste time introducing her in future movies when her role is expanded. I'm thinking at some point they are going to have Fury lose his position as director of SHIELD and Hill is going to be promoted and she'll butt heads with the Avengers.

That's incredibly stupid, so instead of "wasting" time introducing her in a movie where she would do something, they're wasting time by introducing her in a movie where she doesn't do anything.

Why is that incredibly stupid? Coulson's part in the first Iron Man film was pretty small. In fact, the most memorable thing he did in that film was introduce us to SHIELD. That could've been anybody and why bother to keep bringing the character back after that.

Besides, Hill is a recognized name so why not have her in the film. She also serves in a different capacity than Coulson. Coulson was more of a recruiter/handler for super heroes. Hill is Fury's right hand woman.

[jesse_custer]

I noticed the inane comparisons began shortly after I posted it in another thread. Listen, I personally didn't find Expendables fun, OK? I saw it once on DVD, don't remember it in any detail, and would never watch it again because I have absolutley zero interest in doing so. I would also argue that for me, The Avengers was about bringing together several iconic Marvel characters in a respectful way that honored the source material - for what it is. Whereas I would say the Expendables was about bringing together a bunch of has-been, mostly B-rate former action stars[refuse to use the term actors] as caricatures for pure nostalgia's stake, in an attempt to regain some perceived faded glory. I have no grand delusions on the seriousness of superheroes, my friend. I do know what they mean to me personally, which yes, is something significant to be sure. I'm sure that elevates my assessments of these films to a degree, but not to the point where I'm throwing logic and reason out the window.

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't know you said anything about The Expendables in another thread, and I really don't care if you did.

So getting back to the actual debate, one could flip your statements easily. I could argue that The Expendables is a movie that honors the action star by giving them all a chance to crack silly one-liners and blow things up. And I could argue that The Avengers is a nostalgia trip, both for the comic book fan and the general audience that has developed a fetish for superhero movies over the last decade.

But you know what? I wouldn't say that because it misses the larger point I'm making: both The Expendables and Avengers are fun movies whose strengths are funny dialogue and lots of action.

I got no prob with Statham, or Bruce Willis, both are talented, versatile, and rise far above the rest when compared to Sly and other Co. But Stallone relevent these days? What? WHAT? In a much more diminished capacity perhaps, but frankly, even that's being generous. Balboa was fairly succesful, all things considered, I'll give you that. Rambo did a little over 40 mil domestically, and under 115 total WW, which was OK I guess. But I'd hardly call 2006 and 2008 "these days", especially considering the times we live in, when what's hot in pop culture changes more rapidly then ever. I am morbidly curious though, what other big projects is ole Sly currently concocting, besides the inevitable and undeserving Expendables 3: Geriatric War?! Thanks for playing.

You can scoff all you want to at what Stallone does, but his films are making money, and they're getting sequels. You might not think 2008 is "relevant," but then again, haven't movie audiences been anticipating the Avengers movie for years? Your analysis is way too post-modern. People still love Casino Royale from way back in 2006 - that's why they're going to keep watching new Craig Bond movies.

[Simbob4000]

Why is that incredibly stupid? Coulson's part in the first Iron Man film was pretty small. In fact, the most memorable thing he did in that film was introduce us to SHIELD. That could've been anybody and why bother to keep bringing the character back after that.

Besides, Hill is a recognized name so why not have her in the film. She also serves in a different capacity than Coulson. Coulson was more of a recruiter/handler for super heroes. Hill is Fury's right hand woman.

It's incredibly stupid because they were actually trying to do something with Coulson in the movie, if they wanted his dead the feel the least bit surprising, and feel like it's meant to, they better be showing him a lot. Hills role fell into two categories from what I could tell, crap that should have been cut from the movie, and stuff that Coulson should have been doing so he was on screen a tiny bit more before he was gone.


Hill isn't a recognized name at all.

[Toonimator]

Hill isn't a recognized name at all.

Hill is a recognized name to comic fans who've read just about any Avengers comics in the last decade. Once Nick Fury vanished, Hill was put in charge of SHIELD and she clashed with the Avengers on a number of occasions, including during the Civil War event (she was on the pro-reg side with Iron Man).

As far as the soundtrack themes... I just listened to the "Assemble" track on Youtube, and there's a great theme at the end, begins around 3:40 into it and as soon as it started I began humming along, the memory of it from watching the film resurfacing. It may not be as catchy as one of John Williams' tunes, but it's still a great superhero theme.

[Simbob4000]

Hill is a recognized name to comic fans who've read just about any Avengers comics in the last decade. Once Nick Fury vanished, Hill was put in charge of SHIELD and she clashed with the Avengers on a number of occasions, including during the Civil War event (she was on the pro-reg side with Iron Man).

As far as the soundtrack themes... I just listened to the "Assemble" track on Youtube, and there's a great theme at the end, begins around 3:40 into it and as soon as it started I began humming along, the memory of it from watching the film resurfacing. It may not be as catchy as one of John Williams' tunes, but it's still a great superhero theme.

I know who she is, being recognizable to comic fans doesn't make her recognizable.

[Toonimator]

You said "isn't a recognized name at all". Being recognizable to comic fans proves that false.

[maczero]

It's incredibly stupid because they were actually trying to do something with Coulson in the movie, if they wanted his dead the feel the least bit surprising, and feel like it's meant to, they better be showing him a lot. Hills role fell into two categories from what I could tell, crap that should have been cut from the movie, and stuff that Coulson should have been doing so he was on screen a tiny bit more before he was gone.

Think back to the first Iron Man film. Coulson was a nobody. He did nothing in that film that warranted bringing him back. However they did and he turned into a fan favorite. Introducing Hill now could serve the same purpose.

Hill isn't a recognized name at all.

Obviously, she's recognized. She's there for the comic fans. Just like Jasper Sitwell who pretty much had "blink and you'll miss him" appearances in both Thor and Avengers.

[Alex]

You said "isn't a recognized name at all". Being recognizable to comic fans proves that false.

Statistically unrecognized.

[Toonimator]

Statistically unrecognized.

The same could be said for Thanos.

[The Once And Forever]

The same could be said for Thanos.

Thanos had a major role in the movie's plot. Maria Hill did not.

[Simbob4000]

Think back to the first Iron Man film. Coulson was a nobody. He did nothing in that film that warranted bringing him back. However they did and he turned into a fan favorite. Introducing Hill now could serve the same purpose.

Obviously, she's recognized. She's there for the comic fans. Just like Jasper Sitwell who pretty much had "blink and you'll miss him" appearances in both Thor and Avengers.

He served more of a purpose, and feels more important in the first Iron Man movie than Hill does in Avengers. He was actully kind of a character in that movie, a small character, but he was a character. The one thing she does that Coulson couldn't have is say the cards were in the locker, and you could literally have no name Shield agent do that, Galaga guy could have done that.

I'm trying to think of what Hill does in Avengers. We see her shoot a gun at the start of the movie, and punctuate a joke by saying Fury turns his head, Coulson could have done that. We also see her tell them to turn the Helicarrier invisible, that scene doesn't even need to be in the movie, it just needless slows down what should be a quick scene of the Helicarrier taking off and turning invisible. As I was watching the movie I was very surprised at just how pointless her character was.

[listenuscrewheads]

Thanos had a major role in the movie's plot. Maria Hill did not.

Yet you could have had the exact same movie without his appearance in the credits, so his appearance was not needed until a further installment. Just as Maria Hill's appearance in a further installment will undoubtabley be more high profile, so it's better to show her in this first installment. It will make more sense when she has more to do with the plot later on, so that folk won't be asking, 'where was she during the first movie'?

hell, it was more important to show her than Thanos, as he could have just shown up out of nowhere as being behind the plan in a sequel, and no-one would have blinked, as we were not privy to much of the outer space goings on, whereas we were to the Shield politics.

and y'know, like forums such as this, superhero movies could use more females.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

like forums such as this, superhero movies could use more females.

A LOT more females.