|
Timby posted:(he hated Hawkeye's arc in it).
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
cams posted:I hadn't heard about this but I'm on his side. I enjoyed the Avengers but when it started out with mind control I was immensely bummed out. The current theory is that's going to be important in the future and tie into the Infinity Gauntlet's mind gem, though.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:The current theory is that's going to be important in the future and tie into the Infinity Gauntlet's mind gem, though. You know, when I said that the blue thing in Loki's scepter was probably the mind gem the bulk of people here said I was probably wrong. Nice to know that theory is gaining some ground.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
jscolon2.0 posted:For purposes of import/export, dolls and non-doll toys are subject to different rates. I read an article in the Wall Street Journal about this when it happened, and whoever edited had to have been a fan because the headline was literally "THE MUTANT QUESTION" with a picture of a Wolverine figure in an action pose.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:You know, when I said that the blue thing in Loki's scepter was probably the mind gem the bulk of people here said I was probably wrong. Nice to know that theory is gaining some ground. I dunno if I like or don't like this theory. On the one hand, I hate the idea of a movie making more sense only after seeing a sequel, but on the other hand, the movie will make a lot more sense.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:I dunno if I like or don't like this theory. On the one hand, I hate the idea of a movie making more sense only after seeing a sequel, but on the other hand, the movie will make a lot more sense. It makes perfect sense without it, but when you go back and watch it again there will be another layer. Nothing wrong with that.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
I thought it was just straight up the mind gem as well. I mean you had the cosmic cube in the movie as well.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
I don't follow comics and I was perfectly fine with Loki having a mind control stick. He's the space god of tricking people anyway, its a pretty fitting thing for him to have.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
The Avenger's handling of Loki was all over the map. There's these beats where he's supposed to come off as sympathetic and it's implied that the whole thing was some kind of a scheme on his part to get the Avengers together, and then others where it's off handedly mentioned that he's killed over a hundred people in two days and he's directly compared to Hitler. His characterization in the Avengers was fairly inconsistent with the way he was presented in Thor, and not in a positive way.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
The Riddle of Feel posted:The Avenger's handling of Loki was all over the map. There's these beats where he's supposed to come off as sympathetic and it's implied that the whole thing was some kind of a scheme on his part to get the Avengers together, and then others where it's off handedly mentioned that he's killed over a hundred people in two days and he's directly compared to Hitler. When was it ever implied that Loki was trying to get the Avengers together? His whole gimmick was to pit them against each other and pull them apart.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
jivjov posted:When was it ever implied that Loki was trying to get the Avengers together? His whole gimmick was to pit them against each other and pull them apart. I took the comments he made to Thor and his relationship with Thanos' goons as a whole to suggest he had an alterior motive in the whole thing, but that depends on his characterization in the Thor movie and the kinda meta knowledge that he's the god of mischief and has been depicted doing stuff like that before.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
I always got the sense Loki was in way over his head from the word "Go" in Thor. He plays a little trick to ruin his brother's big day out of jealousy, and it quickly escalates beyond anything he imagined - he didn't plan on Thor getting exiled entirely and he sure as hell didn't expect to find out he's actually a Jotun AND Laufey's son. At this point he's an emotional wreck and playing every side against one another in an attempt to prove himself a more worthy king than Thor. He lies to Thor to keep him on Earth (and out of the way), he betrays Laufey to look good to Odin/The Asgardians, and then tries to destroy Jotunheim outright. I never got the impression he was coolly in control of the entire situation, I felt he was flying by the seat of his pants the whole way through. Hell, it seems the only reason he went out of his way to erase Jotunheim from existence was sheer hatred of his newfound heritage - he resents it so much he's willing to get rid of them entirely. He took particular glee in killing his birth father himself - he engineered a situation that would make him a bigger hero than Thor and prove to both Odin and Asgard that HE was the better choice for king after all. The Riddle of Feel posted:I took the comments he made to Thor and his relationship with Thanos' goons as a whole to suggest he had an alterior motive in the whole thing, but that depends on his characterization in the Thor movie and the kinda meta knowledge that he's the god of mischief and has been depicted doing stuff like that before. We have no clue what happened to him in-between Thor and The Avengers, but he seems to be scared shitless of Thanos. It's entirely possible he was acting under duress the whole time and was doing his best to look like he was following Thanos' orders while looking for a way out of the whole thing. He looked so relieved when Thor was taking him home that it wouldn't surprise me if Loki felt safer in an Asgardian jail cell than anywhere Thanos could find him.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
The Riddle of Feel posted:His characterization in the Avengers was fairly inconsistent with the way he was presented in Thor, and not in a positive way. I think he is consistent with what he's become by the end of Thor. He's effectively gone mad. He started as a witty rear end in a top hat diva, and has become a somewhat insane rear end in a top hat diva. The thing is, he still has moments of clarity, where there is still that little genuine shred of "can't we go back to the way it was?", but he is too full of spite to ever actually stick with that feeling for longer than a few seconds. He is obsessed with the fact that he's been wronged, and there probably isn't much that would change his mind about that.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
More the reason I'm hoping Thor 2 will develop Thor and Loki's relationship the way Iron Man 3 developed Tony Stark's personality.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:It makes perfect sense without it, but when you go back and watch it again there will be another layer. Nothing wrong with that. Well, no, I think Loki having a magic staff that mind controls people in a way that perfectly befits the plot given to him by aliens with no backstory or identity or anything is a little convenient. That staff embodying the mind gem is the only justification for its existence I've heard so far. Plus, there's that scene where Banner picks it up unconsciously, which was previously just a weird moment. Now it's subtle foreshadowing!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 10:21
|
|
|
How was that a weird moment? It was obvious Loki was influencing their moods through the staff even though he was locked up and pitting them against each other. I don't think you need to justify that scene, but it would be cool to see it turn out to be the mind gem anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 13:28
|
|
|
Marvel's approach to film production has led to a mind-set where things need to be references to other things to be justified. That's really depressing. The 'wierd moment' you're talking about is pretty clear in terms of film-making and the implications of the scene, as is the reason why Loki has the staff. It doesn't need to be anything more and there's no flaws, however imagined, that exist in how it's presented currently. Maybe it's another thing, but it works perfectly fine as a mind-bending weapon given to Loki, the trickster god, by his super-powerful new boss. It doesn't need any justification or 'backstory' beyond that. It's pretty clearly explained through blatant inference during the course of The Avengers. It really, really doesn't need to be patched after the fact. Shirkelton fucked around with this message at 13:50 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 13:46
|
|
|
I like that after willing to go ahead with a Guardians of The Galaxy movie, Marvel is getting even more adventurous for Phase 3. I am not hearing one thing about Iron Man, Thor or Captain America. They have instead confirmed Ant-Man and Kevin Feige has been talking about Dr. Strange and I'm hoping that will go through. Maybe they should forget about more Avengers and just keep making movies out of 'lower tier' characters.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
The Riddle of Feel posted:His characterization in the Avengers was fairly inconsistent with the way he was presented in Thor, and not in a positive way. No one in Avengers acted anything like they did in their own movies except perhaps Tony Stark.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:I like that after willing to go ahead with a Guardians of The Galaxy movie, Marvel is getting even more adventurous for Phase 3. I am not hearing one thing about Iron Man, Thor or Captain America. They have instead confirmed Ant-Man and Kevin Feige has been talking about Dr. Strange and I'm hoping that will go through. Maybe they should forget about more Avengers and just keep making movies out of 'lower tier' characters. Yes, let's forget about one of the highest grossing movies of all time and focus on Dr. Strange, who isn't even popular enough to carry his own comic right now. What?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Yes, let's forget about one of the highest grossing movies of all time and focus on Dr. Strange, who isn't even popular enough to carry his own comic right now. What? Doesn't surprise me all that much...they've already solidified the brand, and people will go to any Marvel Universe movie. Get some unknowns in the roles for cheap, focus on a good story, and put some depth in the universe.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Yes, let's forget about one of the highest grossing movies of all time and focus on Dr. Strange, who isn't even popular enough to carry his own comic right now. What? I'd watch a super surrealist Dr. Strange movie. David Lynch directs. All the other dimension magic stuff is 2D animated like a trippy disney scene, and when he does magic in the real world its drawn over the cels, Roger Rabbit style.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Del Toro is an ideal counterpart to Dr. Strange. Otherwise Peter Jackson's crew has some vision as might the Wachowski's. There's Gore Vebinski's crew but he'd probably want them to genetically engineer and find a host to give birth to a giant octopus monster with one eye to use in the climactic fight. Like how he wants to make literal sets, like for Bioshock.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Darko posted:No one in Avengers acted anything like they did in their own movies except perhaps Tony Stark. It's weird you say that because on the one hand you have a bit of a point, and on the other, this is post all the other movies. Thor's not reckless and mystified by the human world because he's been there before and he's been tasked by Odin to get Loki, which is probably the first job he's been given since Odin cast him out. Cap's had decades pass since he was last conscious. And, well, "I can't control becoming the Hulk!", aside from being reigned in at the end of his last movie, isn't always that interesting of a beat. Especially if that was really the entirety of the previous movie. The Hulk I feel might be a bit of a stretch, but I'd like to think I'm not reaching with the other two. On a different note, I sort of just realized Cap doesn't always seem to be brimming with confidence, while his comic counterpart seems to be overflowing with it. I'm sort of hoping it's something they address in Cap 2, so that when Avengers 2 comes around he'll solidly be that commanding voice like he was at the tail-end of Avengers. It clicked really well with me, especially after his character seemed to intentionally be riding back seat to everyone throughout.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Yes, let's forget about one of the highest grossing movies of all time and focus on Dr. Strange, who isn't even popular enough to carry his own comic right now. What? Medullah posted:Doesn't surprise me all that much...they've already solidified the brand, and people will go to any Marvel Universe movie. Get some unknowns in the roles for cheap, focus on a good story, and put some depth in the universe. They're in the midst of contract disputes with most of the main cast. It'll be interesting to see what happens since I doubt they'd even think about recasting Tony Stark, but the rest of the Avengers? Who knows, people were full of praise for Terrance Howard in Iron Man 1, and they've had three different Hulks.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
Fishylungs posted:On a different note, I sort of just realized Cap doesn't always seem to be brimming with confidence, while his comic counterpart seems to be overflowing with it. I'm sort of hoping it's something they address in Cap 2, so that when Avengers 2 comes around he'll solidly be that commanding voice like he was at the tail-end of Avengers. It clicked really well with me, especially after his character seemed to intentionally be riding back seat to everyone throughout. Cap's characterization made sense in Avengers, and he was the only one. He'd been cooped up in this weird new world with everyone he knew and cared about gone, and the first mission they gave him was that. Tony was pretty inconsistent, too. His being a dick to Cap came off pretty forced to me, as did Steve's weird insistence on taking him down a peg. Skwirl posted:They're in the midst of contract disputes with most of the main cast. It'll be interesting to see what happens since I doubt they'd even think about recasting Tony Stark, but the rest of the Avengers? Who knows, people were full of praise for Terrance Howard in Iron Man 1, and they've had three different Hulks. People go to Hulk movies to see the Hulk, not the guy who turns into Hulk. They should do an all-Hulk movie, like Planet Hulk or something like that. I imagine John Carter killed the chances of that, though.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
The Riddle of Feel posted:People go to Hulk movies to see the Hulk, not the guy who turns into Hulk. They should do an all-Hulk movie, like Planet Hulk or something like that. I imagine John Carter killed the chances of that, though.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
The Riddle of Feel posted:Tony was pretty inconsistent, too. His being a dick to Cap came off pretty forced to me, as did Steve's weird insistence on taking him down a peg. If you're referring to the scene on the Helicarrier where they're all arguing, isn't it implied that the staff is loving with all of their heads?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
I really wish Thor hadn't been an original member of the Avengers so that they didn't have to include him in the Marvel movies. I never cared for the character and he just doesn't fit. Army soldier given an experimental super serum gives him heightened powers? OK. Super scientist and arms manufacturer invents a high tech suit of armor. I'm with you. Some doctor gets over-exposed to super gamma radiation and turns into a monster. A bit of a stretch but I'm OK with it. Now...a God who can control the weather who comes from an inter-demensional plane/outer space by way of a bridge made of rainbows, wielding a magic hammer and sporting a costume he can summon on command? For whatever reason, that's where my eyes roll and my suspension of disbelief gets shattered. I enjoyed Avengers but hated Thor, the actor who played him and his role in the franchise. Even though I know Thor provided the entire set up, I would have preferred Giant Man/Ant Man/Hank Pym in his place (or even the Vision) and Ultron/Yellow Jacket as the villain(s), just to keep it slightly more grounded. There's just a point where it goes of the rails and becomes ridiculous. I imagine everyone has a different threshold for this type of thing and I get it. I just bought Iron Man, Captain America and the Hulk films but couldn't wedge Thor into the mix. Maybe I just don't like outer space stuff as much as some people but I still don't think Thor works, in the comics or in the movies. I don't mind stand alone alien and outer space stories like District 9, Aliens, Predator, Star Wars, Star Trek or E.T. and stuff like that, but the Thor/Loki/Skrulls thing seemed like having Robocop defending Detroit from alien invaders, sending Batman to Mars or having Daredevil investigate Area 51 or go through a time portal. Then again I get that all of those things probably sound awesome to a lot of people. It's not that I need my superhero movies (or movies in general) to be believable, necessarily, just contained and consistent in their context and their narrative. I didn't mind The Magic Negro with healing powers in The Green Mile, for example, or mashing up the Alien and Predator franchises into lovely movies. And I'm very much looking forward to Man of Steel; I just don't think that Batman should be in it. TL/DL: Christ, that's a lot of words just to say "I don't like Thor".
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
The biggest issue I have with Thor's characterization is that, in his own movie, on a personal level, you did not end on the point in which he would see a regular guy with a shield and hit him with the absolute peak of his godly strength with his hammer. He "understood" humanity and wasn't an ultra-violent psychopath at the end of his arc, as he was when he showed up in Avengers.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:"I don't like Thor". I get what you mean, they did try to push the Thor world as super advanced science but in my opinion they didn't really go far enough and its a very odd setting that doesn't mesh that well with the real science dialed up to eleven that the rest of the films rely on. My feeling about it in the film was that after my line of disbelief has been passed I just shrug and let the film entertain me by its own dumb rules. I was fine with the weird plotholes in The Dark Knight Rises because it passed from gritty semi-realism to silly comic book world somewhere around the time where Catwoman and Batman teamed up to fight some baddies with well-choreographed acrobatic fight moves. I'm fine with a film being dumb and unrealistic as long as its consistent about it, and it uses that to take me somewhere entertaining.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Well, Whedon wrote it, so there's your problem. He didn't give a poo poo about Tony growing as a person, Cap being mournful for his lost life, or Thor learning the patience and humility of a wise warrior-king. He wanted the superheroes to fight because everybody knows the superheroes have to fight before they team up. Whedon writes to appeal to Tropers, the guys sitting in the back row mouthing "Let's You and Him Fight" reverently when Tony picks a fight with Thor. I say this as one who doesn't unconditionally hate anything Whedon, but his weaknesses are shockingly clear here. Darko posted:The biggest issue I have with Thor's characterization is that, in his own movie, on a personal level, you did not end on the point in which he would see a regular guy with a shield and hit him with the absolute peak of his godly strength with his hammer. He "understood" humanity and wasn't an ultra-violent psychopath at the end of his arc, as he was when he showed up in Avengers. In keeping with Thor's character arc in his own movie, he should have been the one trying to talk the others down and stop the fight. What's weird is that there's flashes of understanding of the plot arcs in the individual movies (like the part where Thor does try to talk down the Hulk) but they're shoved out of the way by ticking off a list of tropes.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
In Thor's defense, Tony Stark is a really smug, punchable bastard and was making fun of him. I agree about not hitting Cap but it isn't alien for Thor to have a Wolverine-like berserk rage and go a little over the top.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:real science dialed up to eleven that the rest of the films rely on. Thanks for summarizing what I was trying to say. I could have saved myself a half hour. Thor dialed it up to 20, which would be OK of the rest of it weren't merely 11. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 19:47 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
I loved Thor and Hemsworth playing him There are so many demigods, gods and pantheons in Marvel anyway... it'll be good to have a god on their side if they ever want to explore that stuff in the movies. And if they're introducing guys like Thanos in the next movie they'll need heavyhitters like Thor as well
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Wasn't TvTropes originally made for Buffy and other Wheadon shows? His way of writing with that kind of trope over-reliance is a big part of why I don't like the guy. I could see it in that Agents of Shield trailer and it really put me off the show, like Coulson is now "Badass senior leader/he's got quirks oh don't touch my sports car I call it Lola" and there is a kung-fu lady in it because that's a Wheadon staple, and the main secret agent character just seems like the lead from Firefly but in a suit instead of a trenchcoat this time.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Maybe try not to look so much for "tropes" and just try to judge if it works on its own merits (I have not seen whatever that Agents of Shield thing is)
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
The Riddle of Feel posted:Well, Whedon wrote it, so there's your problem. He didn't give a poo poo about Tony growing as a person, Cap being mournful for his lost life, or Thor learning the patience and humility of a wise warrior-king. He wanted the superheroes to fight because everybody knows the superheroes have to fight before they team up. Whedon writes to appeal to Tropers, the guys sitting in the back row mouthing "Let's You and Him Fight" reverently when Tony picks a fight with Thor. I say this as one who doesn't unconditionally hate anything Whedon, but his weaknesses are shockingly clear here. I think they were specifically focused on pleasing the fans. The Avengers movie was exactly what you would expect if you went to comic fans and got them to vote on how things should go. Avengers Assemble was like the film equivalent of big crossover events in comics where they just set up a scenario and then smash their toys together. It might not make for a great movie but it hit the pleasure centres of comic fans the world over, myself included. They obviously worked to appeal to a demographic that has wanted to see this sort of event happen on the big screen since forever. There are valid criticisms for that approach but I don't think they should be about failing creatively. It might not be especially challenging or interesting but don't mistake that with loving it up. I have the notion that Whedon's best stuff is usually riffing on tropes and not ticking boxes. Am I remembering Firefly and Buffy that wrong?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
Red Bones posted:Wasn't TvTropes originally made for Buffy and other Wheadon shows? His way of writing with that kind of trope over-reliance is a big part of why I don't like the guy. I could see it in that Agents of Shield trailer and it really put me off the show, like Coulson is now "Badass senior leader/he's got quirks oh don't touch my sports car I call it Lola" and there is a kung-fu lady in it because that's a Wheadon staple, and the main secret agent character just seems like the lead from Firefly but in a suit instead of a trenchcoat this time. TVTropes was made because some spergs discovered a book of "babby's first archetypes".
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 20:36
|
|
