^ The Avengers - Official Movie Thread: Out Now!! ^

[airthompson]

Originally Posted by solarius49

 Another point is, why would they use Thanos, who is probably the biggest most menacing villain in the Marvel Universe as the villain in the SECOND film in a trilogy?  That would be like Luke fighting Emperor Palpatine in Empire Strikes Back.  IF (and IMO its a big if) Thanos is an Avengers villain, i think he would appear in the 3rd film
  

Your preaching to the choir bro. But they dont cater completely to the Marvel fanbase, they cater to the majority unfimiliar audience. Did you see the looks on peoples faces when they saw the scene? They were like, "Who's that guy?". They dont know who Thanos is, so it's not like people know how powerful he is. They're primarily know he's bad, but  assume he will fall to the Avengers. Most likely he will too.

It's like in Spiderman3, why did they finally decide to use Gwen Stacy? We comic guys know if she was in she should've died in Spiderman1 when he fought the Goblin alsoX-Men3 why did Cyclopes die? Directors continue to do what they want at the end of the day.

 

[airthompson]

Honey I Blew Up the Kids was dope!

 

[solarius49]

Originally Posted by AirThompson

Originally Posted by solarius49

 Another point is, why would they use Thanos, who is probably the biggest most menacing villain in the Marvel Universe as the villain in the SECOND film in a trilogy?  That would be like Luke fighting Emperor Palpatine in Empire Strikes Back.  IF (and IMO its a big if) Thanos is an Avengers villain, i think he would appear in the 3rd film
  

Your preaching to the choir bro. But they dont cater completely to the Marvel fanbase, they cater to the majority unfimiliar audience. Did you see the looks on peoples faces when they saw the scene? They were like, "Who's that guy?". They dont know who Thanos is, so it's not like people know how powerful he is. They're primarily know he's bad, but  assume he will fall to the Avengers. Most likely he will too.

It's like in Spiderman3, why did they finally decide to use Gwen Stacy? We comic guys know if she was in she should've died in Spiderman1 when he fought the Goblin alsoX-Men3 why did Cyclopes die? Directors continue to do what they want at the end of the day.

completely agree...actually i forgot about the Gwen Stacy stuff.  But I believe that Whedon would stick closer to the source material.  But honestly, as much as i dont want to hear it, you're probably right....and I hate you for it
jk i love you doggy

 

[rfx45]

To be fair, XMen3 and SM3 are the worst of all the worst there is when it comes to sequels. Well I guess other than FF2. I mean SM3 managed to butcher Venom, probably the most popular villain after the Joker and maybe Magneto. XMen3 managed to mess up Phoenix and screw up Wolverine in the process (dude had omega level healing powers in the film, his skin regenerated within a split second).

Whedon actually knows his comic books but I don't think he is directing the GoG film though so we are not sure how badly they'll mess it up. Plus the GoG are mostly unknowns, at least now Thanos is more popular after this Avengers film, just like shawarma.

 

[ijumpman]

I saw it Saturday. Not really worth the IMAX 3D, but the movie was AMAZING. I'm gonna go see it again this Friday or Saturday in 2D.

 

[oidreez]

Originally Posted by RFX45

To be fair, XMen3 and SM3 are the worst of all the worst there is when it comes to sequels. Well I guess other than FF2. I mean SM3 managed to butcher Venom, probably the most popular villain after the Joker and maybe Magneto. XMen3 managed to mess up Phoenix and screw up Wolverine in the process (dude had omega level healing powers in the film, his skin regenerated within a split second).

Whedon actually knows his comic books but I don't think he is directing the GoG film though so we are not sure how badly they'll mess it up. Plus the GoG are mostly unknowns, at least now Thanos is more popular after this Avengers film, just like shawarma.

i dont think that's the biggest gripe in xmen 3and FF2 was decent

 

[mastamind033]

Ed Norton claimed he basically wrote The Incredible Hulk, so it's not really fair to ask how Ruffalo would have done in that film when Norton re-wrote the script to his personal vision and ideas of how Banner/Hulk should be portrayed.

 

[jiffyl00b]

Originally Posted by AirThompson

Originally Posted by solarius49

 Another point is, why would they use Thanos, who is probably the biggest most menacing villain in the Marvel Universe as the villain in the SECOND film in a trilogy?  That would be like Luke fighting Emperor Palpatine in Empire Strikes Back.  IF (and IMO its a big if) Thanos is an Avengers villain, i think he would appear in the 3rd film
 

Maybe there's something bigger planned, I mean, Kevin Feige did say he would love to see the Civil War be the back story of the 3rd Avengers film.

It may seem like a pipe dream now, since Fox has the rights to the mutants. But we won't even see Avengers 2 until 2015, so maybe when the time comes for Avengers 3, everything will be cleared up so we can see that epic story on the big screen. Regardless though, like someone earlier in the thread said, I don't care if its animated, I just want to see the Civil War go down

 

[Deleted member 38182]

Originally Posted by MastaMind033

Ed Norton claimed he basically wrote The Incredible Hulk, so it's not really fair to ask how Ruffalo would have done in that film when Norton re-wrote the script to his personal vision and ideas of how Banner/Hulk should be portrayed.

I thought Norton wrote it but then the studio rewrote and edited what he had to write so that pissed him off?

 

[mastamind033]

^^From what I've read, Ed Norton was doing re-writes everyday. He was pissed about not getting credit for writing the film and for how they edited the film, he wanted the film to be longer with more origin back-story.

 

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by oidreez

Originally Posted by RFX45

To be fair, XMen3 and SM3 are the worst of all the worst there is when it comes to sequels. Well I guess other than FF2. I mean SM3 managed to butcher Venom, probably the most popular villain after the Joker and maybe Magneto. XMen3 managed to mess up Phoenix and screw up Wolverine in the process (dude had omega level healing powers in the film, his skin regenerated within a split second).

Whedon actually knows his comic books but I don't think he is directing the GoG film though so we are not sure how badly they'll mess it up. Plus the GoG are mostly unknowns, at least now Thanos is more popular after this Avengers film, just like shawarma.

i dont think that's the biggest gripe in xmen 3and FF2 was decent

Oh yeah that was not the biggest gripe but the discussion was about doing Thanos justice and those films definitely did not do those very anticipated characters any justice. 

 

[solarius49]

and FF2 was nowhere near decent

 

[CJMcfly26]

Originally Posted by solarius49

and FF2 was nowhere near decent

FF2> Daredevil> Electra> Hulk (1st one)> X-Men 3> Spiderman 3
feel free to make your edits

 

[oidreez]

Originally Posted by solarius49

and FF2 was nowhere near decent

i would watch again if i can get my hands on the dvd

 

[solarius49]

I dont get people's gripe with the 1st Hulk, it did an excellent job of portraying Banner's backstory, creative cinematography and a little action mixed in. I thought Eric Bana did a great job

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by amel223

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Also if you have no idea how Ruffalo would be as Banner in his own solo movie until he does it (your words) how can you support the opinion that Ruffalo's Banner was better than Norton's Banner in his solo movie? Right there you're saying Ruffalo's Banner in the Avengers was better than Norton's in the solo movie but I don't have any idea how Ruffalo would be as Banner in his own solo movie? C'mon son.   

I think you're taking a part of my statement out of context and putting words in my mouth.  Go back and read it again.  It's not about who's right and wrong.  I was trying to make the point that it's very hard to qualify hypotheticals until it happens.  It's just a matter of different opinions, that's all.  The difference is I'm willing to agree to disagree but it seems like anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. 

For the record, it's not that I think Ruffalo's Banner was better than Norton's Banner in his own movie.  I believe Ruffalo's Banner was done so well that I don't think Norton could've come in and have done the same job.  There's a difference between the two beliefs.  I hope you can see that. 

If this is your point I don't know why you were telling me. I never argued against any of that. I already restated several times in that last post what I was talking about. I'm not arguing who is right and wrong. I think I made my last post pretty clear. If that's not what you were saying I gotta say even after rereading it still seems like that's what you're saying while arguing something else.

Of course Norton would not have done the same job as Ruffalo in the Avengers. Anybody who wanted Norton in it doesn't want the job Ruffalo did. The main thing here being I don't agree with Ruffalo doing Banner "so well" that it'd prevent anyone else not doing the same job. Not looking for someone to do the same job. It's my opinion that Norton's Banner has been the best. So having the best guy to portray Banner would've resulted in the best Banner being in the movie. Keep in mind I say best not perfect.

But again I'll point out all you told me was Ruffalo did Banner so well norton couldn't do the same job. I've yet to see someone explain what was so good about Ruffalo's portrayal of Banner. To me it was good enough but nothing real stood out about him compared to Stark, Loki, and Cap.

MrONegative wrote:

---

Personally. I think you put Ruffalo in The Incredible Hulk and that's not as effective of a movie. You put Norton into Avengers and he doesn't fit in nearly as well. Ruffalo's affect and just pure ability to play that lowkey, mellow, slacker indie loser, slacker and underdog help to work his character into the group and make him a foil that the rest of the characters can both relate to compared to all the alpha males and be intrigued by, because they know what he can become. Norton's an alpha male. He can play the under, but dude naturally feels like he's either pandering when he tries to get out of the way or he's pushing to take over the scene. Now that's perfect for a solo movie, because at the end of the day, you're THE hero. But in this....

That's just my opinion, though.

If the pro-Ruffalo ppl agree with this it sounds like they liked him cuz he's a glue guy

Nothing wrong with that but again I just had it in mind to keep the guy that did the best job so far.

As far as the Norton stuff, goes can you give me some other movies that point out what you said when it comes to him pandering to get out of the way and the like?

I still don't find the whole swapping actors to be sound logic. Nobody has any idea how the movie would be if Norton was in it and as already said never will.

Originally Posted by solarius49

I dont get people's gripe with the 1st Hulk, it did an excellent job of portraying Banner's backstory, creative cinematography and a little action mixed in. I thought Eric Bana did a great job

Honestly it did the best job to expand on his back story. The main problems was how dry the plot for it and action was. Not really a knock on Bana. Marvel was hesitant to even back the film until they saw how much money it made and then went all in with The Incredible Hulk.

 

[spacerace]

saw it in IMAX 3D. film was entertaining, though, not entertaining enough to make me want to see it ever again.

7/10

 

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by solarius49

I dont get people's gripe with the 1st Hulk, it did an excellent job of portraying Banner's backstory, creative cinematography and a little action mixed in. I thought Eric Bana did a great job

It's a fine line between being creative and just boring and sadly it is the only film I saw in the theater where I fell asleep, ever. Movie moved to slow, action were scarce and the ending was very, very anti-climactic. It also suffered just like Superman Returns in the action department, no one he could go toe to toe with int he film, someone he can slug it out. The Hulk worked in the Avengers film because he had Thor to go toe to toe with and in the end he had a plethora of aliens to destroy and squash, in the end you really just want to see the Hulk smash (pun intended) everything in his path. You didn't see that in the first film. The Incredible Hulk at least had Abomination but again the ending was a bit anti-climactic, I didn't like beating Abomination by choking him out. 

 

[deleted]

Originally Posted by solarius49

I dont get people's gripe with the 1st Hulk, it did an excellent job of portraying Banner's backstory, creative cinematography and a little action mixed in. I thought Eric Bana did a great job

The comic book panel transitions were TERRIBLE.

 

[mronegative]

Originally Posted by Cfranchise26

Daredevil > Hulk (1st one) > Spider-man 3 > FF > FF2 > X-Men 3 > Elektra

feel free to make your edits

It's been forever since I've seen them, but I think...

ATGD7154xBBxMZ wrote:

---

As far as the Norton stuff, goes can you give me some other movies that point out what you said when it comes to him pandering to get out of the way and the like?

I can't think of an Ed Norton movie where he wasn't the center of attention or a cameo/living in his own bubble/the scumbag. I don't think he's generous enough to be a glue guy?

edit2: just swapped Hulk and DD for that reason

 

[jaypesoz]

Originally Posted by MrONegative

Originally Posted by Cfranchise26

Hulk (1st one) > Daredevil > Spider-man 3 > FF > FF2 > X-Men 3 > Elektra

feel free to make your edits

It's been forever since I've seen them, but I think...

Have you guys taken the time to watch the Director's cut of DD?  I hated it when I saw it in theaters but copped the blu-ray and it really fleshes out the story even more.  That version makes the DD film a whole lot better.

 

[shuges]

- I agree that an Ant-Man film doesn't seem as if it will translate well to live action. Not to mention that he just isn't a character I'm interested in watching in a solo flick. I think the Wasp would be an easier translation.

- Tobey McGuire taking pics of the battle in NYC (not dressed as Spidey) would have been one of the illest geek moments in comic book movie history. Especially since he is no longer the main star in the upcoming flicks. It would have been his unofficial yet official end to being Peter Parker. Even if he was in a scene where Cap is ushering him and other civilians to safety and Tobey says "I can help" and Cap says something like "I'm sure you would if you could. But we just need you to stay here and be safe. Leave the bad guys to he superheroes". Then cut to Tobey with a small smirk....

I hope we can still see something like that in the next film. Props to whoever suggested that earlier in the head.

- i agree that Ultron and an army of bots over Thanos as the main villain would probably work better due to being able to mostly keep the battle Earth based. Not sure how a cosmic based Avengers movie would work....

 

[|A-Man|]

I'd be a bit tired of another super villain + evil invading army scenario unless it was Hydra. That's why I suggested the Masters of Evil, multiple bad guys for multiple heroes.

When you get down to it the Avengers are usually facing foes that are either too big for them (Kree/Skrull war, Kree/Shi'ar war) or it's the scenario like this movie. The villains worthy to go to film are kinda in that realm where they're the big bad and they're controlling some force (Kang, Immortus, Ultron, etc.). I don't think they should just do that over again.

 

[livemyreality]

Originally Posted by SHUGES

- I agree that an Ant-Man film doesn't seem as if it will translate well to live action. Not to mention that he just isn't a character I'm interested in watching in a solo flick. I think the Wasp would be an easier translation.

- Tobey McGuire taking pics of the battle in NYC (not dressed as Spidey) would have been one of the illest geek moments in comic book movie history. Especially since he is no longer the main star in the upcoming flicks. It would have been his unofficial yet official end to being Peter Parker. Even if he was in a scene where Cap is ushering him and other civilians to safety and Tobey says "I can help" and Cap says something like "I'm sure you would if you could. But we just need you to stay here and be safe. Leave the bad guys to he superheroes". Then cut to Tobey with a small smirk....

I hope we can still see something like that in the next film. Props to whoever suggested that earlier in the head.

- i agree that Ultron and an army of bots over Thanos as the main villain would probably work better due to being able to mostly keep the battle Earth based. Not sure how a cosmic based Avengers movie would work....

That would have been a good cameo by Pater Parker, if he were in the Avengers movie. 

 

[andoneflip]

Watched it last night it was alright looking forward to dark knight rises