The Avengers (SPOILERS BEWARE0

The main reason it was Hank Pym who built Ultron and not Stark is that the latter wasn't on the team when Roy Thomas came up with the villain.

Is that from Roy Thomas? I ask because Iron Man was in the issue in which a flashback reveals that Pym created Ultron. I can see using someone who wasn't headlining his own comic if they don't want to try to jam too much into the continuity, but it seems a bit of odd work to shift to Pym under the explanation that Stark was on leave from the Avengers at the time of creation when he's there for the story that explains it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Saw the movie tonight, in 3D.

Enjoyed myself, but while the 3D was effective, it didn't move me enough to justify the added cost.

We made our second attempt to go see it last saturday in 2d. It was good.

Given that most movies after Avatar had 3d tacked on, I assume Avatar is the only good 3d movie on the planet. I'll wait until people are raving about a film's use of 3d and they mention how the director planned and shot the whole file for 3d.

Which is a segue into the question of why did that one guy in this thread think this movie wasn't that good when buttloads of people in here liked it and apparently sales for it are really high. Much like the hopefulness that this movie tops Avatar, as if that position wasn't deserved.

I think there's a simple test before declaring a movie wasn't good vs. you personally didn't like the movie. If the movie has poor sales and you though the movie was crap, then it probably was a crappy movie. If the movie has awesome sales and you didn't like the movie, that's clearly a matter of preference, given that while the mass of humanity is dumber than you, they are still not so dumb that they will eat dog turds off the sidewalk.

Lastly, I'd like to close with an Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit comparison. Having just learned of AS/BB, it's just wrong NOT to reference it.
 
Last edited:

I think there's a simple test before declaring a movie wasn't good vs. you personally didn't like the movie. If the movie has poor sales and you though the movie was crap, then it probably was a crappy movie. If the movie has awesome sales and you didn't like the movie, that's clearly a matter of preference, given that while the mass of humanity is dumber than you, they are still not so dumb that they will eat dog turds off the sidewalk.

Given that the mass of humanity has given careers to people like the Wayans Brothers, and supports movies like "Bridesmaids", I think your test needs recalibration. :erm:
 

Saw the movie tonight, in 3D.

Enjoyed myself, but while the 3D was effective, it didn't move me enough to justify the added cost.

I wanted to see it in IMAX and the only way to do that was to see it 3d. I'd much prefer 2d in the IMAX format (I think Batman will be like this IIRC), I hate wearing the glasses.

Luckily I had passes so it was "only" $6/ticket and one thing that was really cool, they had reserved seating, so your seat number was printed on the ticket after you chose your seat....that was certainly enjoyable.
 

Is that from Roy Thomas? I ask because Iron Man was in the issue in which a flashback reveals that Pym created Ultron. I can see using someone who wasn't headlining his own comic if they don't want to try to jam too much into the continuity, but it seems a bit of odd work to shift to Pym under the explanation that Stark was on leave from the Avengers at the time of creation when he's there for the story that explains it.
True, Iron Man, Cap, and Thor showed up for the induction, but they were basically just guest stars in the Avengers at that time. Not really "on leave" as much as "on loan". Usually, they'd rotate them around a bit, Cap in one adventure and a few issues later Iron Man would pop in. There's always been this weird territoriality with characters that have their own books that are also supposed to be part of a team.

It was one of those wonderfully puerile comic book moments where Cap's brilliant tactical mind tells him the best way to test the Vision's capabilities is to pick a fight right there at the meeting table, and when Vision shows him up, Iron Man and Thor gang up on the poor android just because Cap's their chum.
 
Last edited:

The main reason it was Hank Pym who built Ultron and not Stark is that the latter wasn't on the team when Roy Thomas came up with the villain.

I hadn't heard that. But, either way, we are talking about changing a basic truth of the characters established in 1968. Tony Stark has developed as a character for several decades *without* having that particular burden. You can't just add it in willy-nilly and have it be acceptable to fans.

Tony Stark is the engineer with a specialization in computers, robotics, and weapon systems. Up until the day he built Ultron, Hank Pym was a scientist specialized in biochemistry and entomology. In the good ol' days of comics, with a target audience comprised of kids, this "Gilligan's Island" notion that "science is science" passed muster, but now...?

Well, I don't think that description of Pym is accurate - the formula he creates for size change isn't really biochemical, but physics (Pym particles!), and his insect-control stuff is as much "cybernetic" as anything else in the Marvel Universe.

For the movies, we don't have Pym established - they could simply slant him so it makes sense. But, since I don't think we're going to see Ultron at all, I think it is irrelevant.
 

I hadn't heard that. But, either way, we are talking about changing a basic truth of the characters established in 1968. Tony Stark has developed as a character for several decades *without* having that particular burden. You can't just add it in willy-nilly and have it be acceptable to fans.
I think yuo'd be surprised how little traction Hank Pym has these days. Series like the Ulimates line show that fans are okay with rewriting history. It's no less sever than, say, making Hawkeye a SHIELD assassin. If it makes sense, it works.

Moreover, I don't think you'd be surprised at how popular Iron Man is. In terms of pleasing both fans and casual moviegoers, keeping him in center stage makes all the sense in the world. They'd have to have one really great debut for Hank Pym to change that.

Well, I don't think that description of Pym is accurate - the formula he creates for size change isn't really biochemical, but physics (Pym particles!), and his insect-control stuff is as much "cybernetic" as anything else in the Marvel Universe.
It's accurate as it can be given the loose notions about science in comics. Don't know where you got your intel about pym particles, but they are certainly derived from a chemical formula--little gas capsules that originally he'd inhale, and then later just spray on. As for the helmet, that was an application of his skills as a chemist and entomologist, sometimes described as transmitting his vocie commands into pheromones, and at other times translating his language into the ant argot (psuedo-sceince is kind of hard to classify under a particular field). I believe the interpretation of it as some cybernetic telepathy is the latter-day work of Elliot Brown, who often fell back on explaining most super-powers as either psionics (even when the powers ostensibly were not mental in nature) and the shunting of mass from an extradimensional source.

Of course, for most of comics history, writers had only a limited awareness or concern for such consistent distinctions. They didn't have a Wikipedia or Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe to consult back then. But Hank Pym wasn't constantly cranking out new inventions or feats of engineering, and certainly nothing on the order of Ultron. He was kind of a two-trick pony, really.
 
Last edited:

Given that most movies after Avatar had 3d tacked on, I assume Avatar is the only good 3d movie on the planet. I'll wait until people are raving about a film's use of 3d and they mention how the director planned and shot the whole file for 3d.

As a sidenote, the best use of 3D I've seen since Avatar was Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides. Pretty much the entire movie has well-done 3D elements to it. As for this tacked-on, afterthought 3D approach, I wish studios would drop it all together.
 

As a sidenote, the best use of 3D I've seen since Avatar was Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides. Pretty much the entire movie has well-done 3D elements to it. As for this tacked-on, afterthought 3D approach, I wish studios would drop it all together.

If people stopped going to crappy 3d-renditions then they'd stop making them, but it's gravy money a lot of times... I blame people more than the studios.
 

If people stopped going to crappy 3d-renditions then they'd stop making them, but it's gravy money a lot of times... I blame people more than the studios.
A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. Now, however, there were only 3 non-3D showings on opening weekend at my local theatre, and they were either too early (my wife works until 6:30) or too late (start times after 10pm don't work when you've got two kids who are ridiculous early birds that never stay in bed past 6am).
 

Remove ads

Top