The Avengers ::: 4 May 2012

Sharky wrote:

For all his flaws, Michael Bay's got a better understanding of kinetic motion, visual wit (in the tradition of Disney cartoons), and how to fill a frame than Joss Whedon. Whedon's just a writer who thinks he can direct. He has no natural flair for it.

So you're basically calling Whedon an amateur...why would this matter to 999 out of 1000 movie-goers if they actually enjoy the film? Which, by the way, is the general consensus of mostly everyone who has seen it.

What you failed to consider is Whedon is an actual comic book fan, he understands what he put into that film...

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

So you're basically calling Whedon an amateur...why would this matter to 999 out of 1000 movie-goers if they actually enjoy the film?

It doesn't. They don't care if a superhero blockbuster has got lame anonymous direction and plays like it was written by a committee of marketing execs and fanboys. All it matters to them is that it ticks all the right fanboy boxes, and they can switch their brains off to it, while the filmmakers are laughing their way to the bank. Audiences are dummed down for 2 and a half hours and the the movie makes a shitload of money. Everybody wins.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Which, by the way, is the general consensus of mostly everyone who has seen it.

Fuck the consensus.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

What you failed to consider is Whedon is an actual comic book fan, he understands what he put into that film...

Comic book geeks directing the most profitable movies in Hollywood is the the equivalent insane running the asylum. Entertaining for the moment, but a disaster in the long run.

I need to go for a long walk...

The Avengers added an estimated $103.2 million domestically this weekend, shattering Avatar's previous second-weekend record by more than $27 million.

This also puts it over $1 billion worldwide.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avengers11.htm

Jack Wade wrote:

The Avengers added an estimated $103.2 million domestically this weekend, shattering Avatar's previous second-weekend record by more than $27 million.

This also puts it over $1 billion worldwide.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avengers11.htm

And that's without Sharky's contribution to the box-office....although I heard Disney is really angry about losing that $10 and is probably having an emergency board meeting. Whedon must be really red-faced about his memo... :face:

Sharky wrote:

For all his flaws, Michael Bay's got a better understanding of kinetic motion, visual wit (in the tradition of Disney cartoons), and how to fill a frame than Joss Whedon. Whedon's just a writer who thinks he can direct. He has no natural flair for it.

I found Avengers visually better than any of the two Transformer movies I watched, Bay tends to go so far over the top that a movie like Avengers with all its visual spectacle that is inherent to its genre looks oscarmaterial. :cheers:

Like Serenity which is one of the best space opera movies in the recent years, including the SW prequels, mr Whedon has shown he can do big movies very good and he does add a great bonus namely he can do great dialogues that actually are funny and believable.

Sharky wrote:

For all his flaws, Michael Bay's got a better understanding of kinetic motion, visual wit (in the tradition of Disney cartoons), and how to fill a frame than Joss Whedon. Whedon's just a writer who thinks he can direct. He has no natural flair for it.

Not sure how that is true. Bay's action was framed horribly -- you couldn't even tell what was going on half the time because things were happening out of frame -- and that ridiculous orange and blue tint was well overdone. The Avengers was much easier to look at. The action was at least comprehensible.

Sharky wrote:

Audiences are dummed down for 2 and a half hours and the the movie makes a shitload of money. Everybody wins.

On a bit of a high horse here. People pay money to go to the movies to be entertained, since, you know, the movies are part of the entertainment industry.

That's what The Avengers does -- it entertains. It's got a nice balance of humor and action and is never stupid about it. Like I said, just because it's not some grandiose work of art doesn't mean you have to treat everyone who liked it as if they're a tasteless moron.

Sharky wrote:

Comic book geeks directing the most profitable movies in Hollywood is the the equivalent insane running the asylum. Entertaining for the moment, but a disaster in the long run.

So you're saying you shouldn't get someone who's best qualified for a job to do a job?

And calling The Avengers a disaster in the long run is extreme hyperbole and a bit ridiculous. If it were Battleship breaking these records, then maybe I'd be on board, but alas, I think you're just coming off as a bit pretentious.

Jack Wade wrote:

Sharky wrote:

For all his flaws, Michael Bay's got a better understanding of kinetic motion, visual wit (in the tradition of Disney cartoons), and how to fill a frame than Joss Whedon. Whedon's just a writer who thinks he can direct. He has no natural flair for it.

Not sure how that is true. Bay's action was framed horribly -- you couldn't even tell what was going on half the time because things were happening out of frame -- and that ridiculous orange and blue tint was well overdone. The Avengers was much easier to look at. The action was at least comprehensible.

I haven't seen TRANSFORMERS 3, but I found the action easy to follow in the second one. Sure, there's a lot going in a frame, but it's handled with an elegance and sense of gravity lacking in many of Bay's rivals. One of the few who does this stuff well is Brad Bird.

Jack Wade wrote:

People pay money to go to the movies to be entertained, since, you know, the movies are part of the entertainment industry.

I get that, but if this qualifies as great entertainment then the average moviegoer's standards have been lowered over the last decade or so. I'm not expecting great art, just imagination, personality, and some good direction.

Jack Wade wrote:

That's what The Avengers does -- it entertains.

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE IV entertained me. This is just a lousy excuse for a blockbuster. Just as as colourless and boring as IRON MAN, THE INCREDIBLE HULK and CAPTAIN AMERICA.

Jack Wade wrote:

Comic book geeks directing the most profitable movies in Hollywood is the the equivalent insane running the asylum. Entertaining for the moment, but a disaster in the long run.

So you're saying you shouldn't get someone who's best qualified for a job to do a job?[/quote]

They should. They should hire the best action director they can find. Not some goddamn, smug, third-rate television writer.

Jack Wade wrote:

And calling The Avengers a disaster in the long run is extreme hyperbole and a bit ridiculous.

Far from it. I'll let Harms elaborate on this one.

Jack Wade wrote:

I think you're just coming off as a bit pretentious.

If being the one of the only lemmings who doesn't jump off the cliff means I'm pretentious, then yeah, I'm pretentious.

Always outnumbered, never outgunned.

Sharky wrote:

Always outnumbered, never outgunned.

You've had your six....

*bang*

Whedon wins. :lol!:

I'll rent it. I'll see the films leading up to it, and then rent it. Whedon I'm shaky on. Enjoyed FIREFLY/SERENITY, didn't like what I saw of BUFFY at all. But I don't think he's someone to go on the warpath against.

SERENITY was probably my favorite space opera flick of the last decade.

Sharky wrote:

If being the one of the only lemmings who doesn't jump off the cliff means I'm pretentious, then yeah, I'm pretentious.

I would hardly consider it being a lemming. Spending $10+ in this economy on a movie hardly makes you a lemming.

Jack Wade wrote:

Spending $10+ in this economy on a movie hardly makes you a lemming.

I'm talking about word of mouth. Seeing because everybody and their dog is.

Sharky wrote:

I'm talking about word of mouth. Seeing because everybody and their dog is.

Er...that's what EON and SONY are hoping for as well...and they'll be delighted if Skyfall makes US$207m in its entire run in the USA...compared to Avengers earning it within 72 hours.

Trying to paint THE AVENGERS as the death of Hollywood or whatever is pretty absurd. I'm sorry you can't enjoy it Shark.

Sharky wrote:

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

So you're basically calling Whedon an amateur...why would this matter to 999 out of 1000 movie-goers if they actually enjoy the film?

It doesn't. They don't care if a superhero blockbuster has got lame anonymous direction and plays like it was written by a committee of marketing execs and fanboys. All it matters to them is that it ticks all the right fanboy boxes, and they can switch their brains off to it, while the filmmakers are laughing their way to the bank. Audiences are dummed down for 2 and a half hours and the the movie makes a shitload of money. Everybody wins.

999 out of 1000 moviegoers aren't comic book fanboys. I'm also not certain what exactly there is to dumb down, either - in fact the film is just about as intelligent as you'd expect. It's comics, they're big pop culture (or they were in the 60s).

Sharky wrote:

Comic book geeks directing the most profitable movies in Hollywood is the the equivalent insane running the asylum. Entertaining for the moment, but a disaster in the long run.

They got somebody like Whedon because he understands the characters, not because he's a geek (although the former likely follows the latter in his case). He wasn't hired to please fanboys - a movie doesn't make a billion dollars by catering specifically to fanboys - but to present the characters in their most entertaining form. Which pleases both fanboys (the characters are done right) and entertains the general public (done right, they're entertaining characters). Everybody wins indeed. :)

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Everybody wins indeed. :)

Except Sharky. ;)

Louis Armstrong wrote:

999 out of 1000 moviegoers aren't comic book fanboys. I'm also not certain what exactly there is to dumb down, either - in fact the film is just about as intelligent as you'd expect.

As far as comic book movies go, I thought BATMAN BEGINS, HULK, and SUPERMAN RETURNS set pretty high standards (*waits for Sykes to burst a blood vessel*), and GHOST PROTOCOL was pretty much a comic book movie in all but name. I just think AVENGERS falls utterly short of those, which is probably why it's so successful. It's not challenging the superhero genre. The opposite in fact. Just mind-numbing junk cinema.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

They got somebody like Whedon because he understands the characters

Sure, but he doesn't make them any more interesting.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

(done right, they're entertaining characters)

How is Captain America entertaining here? He's just as bland and anachronistic as he was in the film last summer. Iron Man/Tony Stark's fun because a) it's RDJ, and b) he's already established as a wisecracking smartass.

HULK? SUPERMAN RETURNS? High standards?

Superhero flicks shouldn't be boring people like those two examples.

They entertained me. That's enough.

I'd like to read your thoughts on those. How are they more entertaining and better examples than THE AVENGERS as far as comic book films go?

Not going to open that can of worms. I know how this thread goes.

Sharky wrote:

Not going to open that can of worms. I know how this thread goes.

How can you actually compare when you have seen only the movies you consider better but have not yet seen Avengers?

saint mark wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Not going to open that can of worms. I know how this thread goes.

How can you actually compare when you have seen only the movies you consider better but have not yet seen Avengers?

I have seen THE AVENGERS. I wouldn't talk about it otherwise.

Sharky wrote:

saint mark wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Not going to open that can of worms. I know how this thread goes.

How can you actually compare when you have seen only the movies you consider better but have not yet seen Avengers?

I have seen THE AVENGERS. I wouldn't talk about it otherwise.

My condolences on spending your money so badly in your case. ;)

Sharky wrote:

They entertained me. That's enough.

As The Avengers entertained just about everyone else. And besides, Iron Man is hardly less "mind-numbing junk cinema" than The Avengers.

Whedon vs Sharky.