The Avengers (SPOILERS BEWARE0

[Felon]

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.

This is populism, a most appalling way of determining the quality of works of art or fiction (albeit a popular one).

There seems to be a misconception, often touted in this very forum, that because personal preferences are simply a matter of opinion, they are thus completely arbitrary and beyond the reach of logical examination. Furthermore, any attempt to do so is simply a sign of pugnacious and argumentative behavior (i.e. a clear indicator of violating the moderators' "jerk test"). Civility dictates that when someone tells you you're wrong, you should just respect that as a disagreement. A disagreement being, after all, the most indisputable thing under the sun.

Not so. Not every opinion is as utterly subjective as "I like the color green" or "I hate cashews". Most opinions are more elaborate than that. They are based on reasons, not whim, and most preferences are derived from personal standards. They may be weak reasons and lousy standards, and that can be a topic of discussion.

Given all of that, I do not see the need for simple tests. Rather, people who state their opinions should be willing to discuss them. Somebody posted their reaons for not being by the Avengers earlier in this thread, and I appreciate them taking the time to back up their assessment even if I don't agree with it.

All those others who only have to offer "I loved it and my kids loved it and everybody loves it, and since all of these people disagree with just li'l ol' you, that implicitly indicates your assessment is wrong" ....well, not so much appreciation there.

 

[renau1g]

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).

That sucks. My kiddos are the same (well, more like 6:30 but still too early for my liking). 7:50 may be doable, but if you wanted to see Avengers you'd be SOL.

Here's a sample of the opening weekend at the two theaters here for Battleship

May 18, 2012 - (RW®C/DVS®) - No Passes
4:10 PM | 7:20 PM | 10:25 PM

May 18, 2012 - No Passes
4:50 PM | 7:50 PM | 10:55 PM

Battleship
May 18, 2012 - No Passes
3:40 PM | 4:20 PM | 6:50 PM | 7:20 PM | 9:55 PM | 10:25 PM

Here's the Avengers this weekend:

Marvel's The Avengers
May 18, 2012 - (3D)
3:50 PM | 4:20 PM | 7:10 PM | 7:40 PM | 10:30 PM | 11:00 PM

May 18, 2012
3:20 PM | 6:40 PM | 10:00 PM

Marvel's The Avengers
May 18, 2012 - (3D)
3:30 PM | 3:50 PM | 6:40 PM | 7:10 PM | 10:00 PM | 10:30 PM

May 18, 2012
6:20 PM | 9:40 PM

 

[Mercutio01]

[MENTION=54810]renau1g[/MENTION] - Yeah, that's about what the schedule was opening week where I live, too. So we saw it in 3D. Great movie. Still don't think it was worth the extra $3 per ticket for the 3D.

 

[billd91]

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.

It certainly doesn't help that Hank Pym is probably one of the most dumped on characters in the Marvel Universe. Confidence and multiple personality problems set in fairly early, but writers have alternately trashed him or tried to rehabilitate him since he gave Wasp the black eye back in the early 1980s. Given the influence the Ultimates have had on the current movies and how the books ramped up the domestic violence to a new extreme, I think think integrating Pym would be a challenge. The main continuity's Civil War and Camp Hammond probably didn't help much. I think there's a reason Ant Man has been stuck in relatively early stages of production while the other movies have charged forward. They have to go carefully with a character who's relatively obscure outside of the Avengers fanboy/girl culture. That must hardly seem worth it.

That said, the whole Ultron/Yellowjacket/Wasp/Jocasta storyline is core Avengers meat and potatoes. It would be a classic, albeit hard to really capture in 2 hours on screen.

 

[fanboy2000]

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.

IIRC, Whedon was going to film it in 3d, but dealing with 3d and everything else was too much, so he filmed it 2d with an eye to doing the 3d in post.

Coraline's good in 3d. Stop motion animation looks really good in 3d. Of course, I believe Coraline (and Avatar) were filmed in 3d, while Avangers was not.

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.

No 3d for Dark Knight Rises. Also, several scenes (including an awesome opening sequence) are actually filmed in the old IMAX ratio. Whoooo!

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.

BMX Bandit needs to work at a hippie co-op.

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.

Hey, Bridesmaids was cute. I liked it.

 

[Felon]

It certainly doesn't help that Hank Pym is probably one of the most dumped on characters in the Marvel Universe. Confidence and multiple personality problems set in fairly early, but writers have alternately trashed him or tried to rehabilitate him since he gave Wasp the black eye back in the early 1980s. Given the influence the Ultimates have had on the current movies and how the books ramped up the domestic violence to a new extreme, I think think integrating Pym would be a challenge.

Well, in The Ulimates, Mark Millar made pretty much all of the Avengers pretty vulgar. Captain America is a hyper-violent bone-breaker, the Wasp is this disgusting egg-laying bug-woman, and the Hulk eats people. That's Millar for ya. And fans can't get enough of'im.

Funny thing about Pym is that his one Ike Turner moment was more unforgivable in the eyes of fans than blatant acts of murder by other Marvel heroes. I mean, Namor once flew to the top of the Statue of Liberty and tossed tourists to their deaths.

So you have that ugliness to his character, mixed with a set of silly powers that don't really contribute much to the team (either as Ant-Man or Giant-Man). I always thought Yellowjacket back when I had no idea of his previous identities (how many heroes can do much with "yellow" as part of their name?), but that whole character seems to have been abandoned for good while Ant-Man and Giant-Man (and Goliath) keep seeing returns.

That said, the whole Ultron/Yellowjacket/Wasp/Jocasta storyline is core Avengers meat and potatoes. It would be a classic, albeit hard to really capture in 2 hours on screen.

Moreover, it would involve benching characters that fans want to see center stage.

 

[renau1g]

No 3d for Dark Knight Rises. Also, several scenes (including an awesome opening sequence) are actually filmed in the old IMAX ratio. Whoooo!


Hey, Bridesmaids was cute. I liked it.

re: IMAX ratio... something changed?

I couldn't stand Bridesmaids, I didn't laugh once the whole time. I had heard everyone compare it to The Hangover..... nope, not even close IMO.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Marvel once did a TV series called Mutant X that was essentially X-Men with the serial numbers filed off. They could do much the same with The Avengers and capture that Pym/Ultron/ etc. storyline with some success.

 

[fanboy2000]

re: IMAX ratio... something changed?

Yes. There are two IMAX formats. One is a large format (i.e., the film is larger than the standard 35mm format) film, the other is not. (Really, it's just a projection system.)

Originally, you filmed IMAX films with a special camera that and exhibited on a screen that literally occupies your field of vision. They were specially built and constructed.

In the past few years, there have been IMAX branded screens that, while larger than normal, aren't as large as the screens from before. For the most part, the show movies that weren't shot on IMAX cameras. The Avengers wasn't shot on IMAX cameras, nor was John Carter. The latest Mission Impossible was. Or, at least several scenes were. The cameras are very loud and not all that suitable for dialog scenes.

If you watch The Dark Knight at home and see the picture ratio change, that's the transition from IMAX to non-IMAX or vise versa.

 

[Nellisir]

It is unlikely that Stark builds Ultron - the third Iron Man movie is expected to be based on the Extremis story line, and that may well be the last for him for now. And, I don't think Marvel fans would put up with that departure from canon.

If it makes a good story, I think fans will live with it. Iron Man fans are only a subset of Marvel fans, and Marvel fans are only a subset of moviegoers. I barely know anything about Ultron's origin. I don't know anything at all about Extremis, and I've been reading Marvel comics weekly for twenty+ years. Just not Iron Man. Or Avengers, for that matter.

I'd call it a significantly lesser deviation from canon than the entirity of the last X-Men movie, which rewrote the entire beginning of the X-Men, but still made a very good movie.