Entry 12: RE: "Avengers" - Round 12

Posted by: Bradley Redder

This is likely to be the last word on The Avengers, and there is still so much to address, and quite a bit in your last entry to respond to as well, so this will be all over the place.

First I'd like to wrap up a few things that our lone commenter thus far and you seem to be taking away from my last few entries. I chose Spider-Man 2 as a point of comparison simply because it was another Marvel superhero movie, and the one that you mentioned specifically in that text to me. The comparison could have been made to Terminator, or The Matrix, or Die Hard, or any other great action film. And the comparison isn't meant to be a direct criticism of The Avengers, but merely a way to point out how a great action film is constructed. You, our commenter, and the majority of people I've spoken with or whose comments I've read on the Internet all basically argue that this movie is all about fun. Nobody has offered anything more than that. Just fun. And that's fine. I like fun movies as much as the next guy. But I know when a movie is just fun, and I know that just doesn't make a movie great. There has to be something more, whether it's meaning or character or social relevance or simply great plot construction. Whatever it may be, The Avengers doesn't have it.

Suspension of disbelief is also a great thing to bring up, because I think it's essentially what I've been talking about all along with these Spider-Man comparisons. You seem to be accusing me of not being willing to suspend my disbelief, like I'm some cranky old bastard that doesn't like to have fun, but suspension of disbelief isn't the sole responsibility of the audience; it starts with the film. The film has to build up some credit in order for me to want to suspend my disbelief. It's not a switch that I have sticking out of my head that I flick when I feel like enjoying a movie. No. The movie has to already be doing something for me in order for me to let the little things, or sometimes even the big things, slide by without much criticism, and The Avengers just doesn't grab me from the opening, with that cheap car chase in which Hawkeye, the master marksman, can't hit the somehow indestructible Cobie Smulders character from some twelve feet away. It just wasn't fun, nor was the second action spectacle, in which Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America fight each other in the moonlit woods, throwing each other through trees like Jacob and the other one from Twilight. Not only is it not fun, but it's boring, and when I get bored my mind starts to wander off and inspect the cracks in the surface of the film, like the Galaga bit.

The last point that I've been patiently waiting all week to argue is Agent Phil Coulson's death. Given that this is already much longer than I intended, I'll try to do it in broad strokes. I loathed this sequence. The build-up to it was good, very good actually: Loki tricks Thor into the jail cell and is about to hit the button to drop him from the ship, when Coulson steps in with a strange gun and tells Loki to back away. He mentions the gun was developed with Tesseract technology and says, "I don't even know what it does," a great line. Loki ends up stabbing him somehow but Coulson still shoots him after dropping to the floor. A Whedon comedian to the end, his almost dying words are, "Oh, so that's what it does." Coulson is a pretty minor character, and you could maybe get away with making a joke of his death, but then Whedon uses this as the rallying point for all of the heroes. A minor character's death, a guy that at least Captain America, had just met the day before. And somehow him dying is enough for the whole crew of the ship to stop and look sad and for the heroes, who have been bickering and fighting each other during a world crisis, to band together. This is annoying for the aforementioned reason that he is so minor, and is cynical because how many other S.H.I.E.L.D. agents died in that attack! That ship was almost destroyed. It was huge. So many must have died, but due to laziness Whedon makes the characters give a shit about someone they barely know simply because the audience is familiar with him, after seeing him in what are essentially cameos in the films leading to this one.

It ties into the Galaga point of what is a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent? It should be a very important person with a very specific skill set to be let into such a top-secret military operation, yet all of these agents are treated as dumb and expendable. They play Galaga and Nick Fury could care less if they die. It also ties into my point about these heroes not standing for anything and not being defined by anything more than their respective superpower. Should it really take the death of a new acquaintance to make a hero wake up and realize he should save the world, if only because he himself is living on it?

Other scattered complaints:

I wish they had cast Scarlett Johansson for more than her chest and, given that there was no other reason, I wish they had actually shown more of it by dressing her in something other than a one-piece thick spandex suit.

Hawkeye got a raw deal. The least developed character leading into the film has forty-four seconds of screen time before getting hypnotized into one of Loki's lackeys, leaving a great actor with nothing to contribute to the film.

The whole plot kicks off because Nick Fury is using the Tesseract to develop weapons to defend against an extra-terrestrial attack: "We're severely, hilariously outgunned," he says at one point. But in the end we see Black Widow picking off the alien invasion with a pair of small pistols and Iron Man blows up the entire mother ship with a single missile, which for some reason decommissions the living, breathing, non-robot aliens on Earth in the same instant. Lazy.

Loki, the master of deception, is deceived so easily by Black Widow's non-traditional interrogation. Great scene until it gives way to a silly plot contrivance. Whedon actually allows some tension, even fear and awe, to build as Loki threatens her... "I'll make [Hawkeye] kill you in every way he knows you fear and wake him up just in time to recognize his good work!" I think there was something about her being a "mewling quim," a cool phrase in a great moment, even if I felt like Whedon wrote it with a Thesaurus. This is that tension that I was craving, the moment where I might think the heroes don't have a complete handle on everything, but then it is ruined when she reveals she was tricking the master trickster. Whatever.

To answer your question about whether the nuke heading for NYC being of equal gravity with Ock capturing MJ: No. It does not hold the same weight. Again, we care about MJ, and even if we don't, we care about what she means to Peter. She has been a major influence on the entire film, being a contributing factor in Peter's decision to give up being Spider-Man, a hugely dramatic moment. NYC gets no such treatment in The Avengers. Whedon seems to assume we'll automatically care about, but NYC just gets no play. We never see a dead body (When the body count for this film had to have been in the hundreds (Thousands?)). We never see New Yorkers just living life either. We don't even get the obligatory but enjoyable scene where a construction worker is talking to somebody, saying it's his kid's ninth birthday and he's got tickets to the game tonight, right behind the dugout. If that were the case, I might have some emotional stake in the action, if only because I want that kid to have a nice time at the ball game. Whedon wrote a scene around establishing Coulson's first name being Phil to make his death seem more dramatic... Why not do the same for NYC? Was it even NYC? If so, it's missing shots of the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building. New York Action Movie 101. He just doesn't give the city any personality, and the destruction radius in the end is like three blocks.

Scattered praise:

Tom Hiddleston. I mentioned him in my review and you agreed in your first entry, but it's worth mentioning again. He was fabulous. "Does an ant have a quarrel with a boot?" Great line, perfectly delivered. Whedon did a nice job writing this character, though I'll also mention again that he gets a little short-changed in the end.

The effects are pretty fantastic, for the most part. I show mild hesitation there only for the shot which lasts maybe two seconds of Loki riding one of the alien speeder bike thingies while chasing Black Widow. For a brief moment there is a shot that resembles the water skiing shot from Die Another Day.

The shot that you mentioned which connects all of the heroes in action. It's great, even though it is digital. That's okay. It showed the imagination and creativity that weren't present in the other action sequences. My other favorite was the shot of an explosive hitting a taxi, flipping it over, with the camera inside the cab. That was fun.

Rapid fire now:

"I'm always angry."

-"How does Fury look at all of these screens?"
-"He turns his body."
-"That's exhausting." I love how Downey delivers this line almost condescendingly, as though extremely high-tech isn't good enough.

-"Loki is an Asgardian and he is my brother."
-"He killed eighty people in the last two days."
-"...He's adopted."

-"(Something something) like flying monkeys!"
-"I don't understand this refere--"
-"I do! ...I understand that reference."

Realizing that the aircraft carrier is an invisible flying machine, and Cap wordlessly handing Fury a tenspot after take-off.

The Avengers "A" being the last remaining letter on Stark Tower and the last triumphant shot of the movie. Made me wish I had loved the movie as much as "This might be my masterpiece" made me wish I'd loved Inglorious Basturds, or however the fuck that was "cleverly" misspelled.

Black Widow's intro. Lots of fun. Lots of cleavage. Correlation?

And I'm spent. This was a pretty exhausting argument, and I get the feeling it got us nowhere, but it was a lot of fun all the same. It has been a great week. It made the mediocrity of The Avengers worth sitting through twice. Even if I haven't talked you down from your insane opinion that this is a great film, at least we can agree that Spider-Man 2 is the (far) superior Marvel film. Now, unless things have changed since I saw it twice in 2007, I'm off to face the disappointment that awaits me in Spider-Man 3.

Apologies to mobile device users.

Entry 11: RE: "Avengers" - Apples and Oranges

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Before I begin, I must confess that I spaced out during your Galaga post. I'm sorry that one line -- one single line -- in the film made you that upset. It's almost as if your taking very tiny things and attempting to make them into something much larger.

I'm going to put this criticism next to your Power Rangers comparison. For shame! However, your "GalaGag" pun was excellent. I will give you props for that.

I'd like to clarify that my original message about The Avengers being the best Marvel movie was only meant to include the films that were part of its series. I'm not necessarily willing to compare The Avengers to Spider-Man 2 because, like I said, they're very different films. At the time I was just curious if you enjoyed it as much as Spider-Man 2, since I know you're very fond of the film.

I also meant no offense to Mr. Obama -- I just think that's the dumbest Spider-Man cover ever, and the image fit in with my argument of the Spider-Man films being all about cheese. The character exploration in Spider-Man is quite superficial, and done in slight tongue-in-cheek, as tends to be Sam Raimi's style.  Again, this is not a complaint -- it's an excellent style choice for a film series about a high school superhero.

The scene you mention with Spider-Man losing his mask on the train is an brilliant scene, and it's made even better by the steady hand of Sam Raimi. The Avengers contains no scenes like this because, again, it lacks a single protagonist.

Comparing the Spider-Man films to The Avengers, pointing out what Whedon's film lacks by making comparisons to the plot of the Spider-Man films, is disingenuous for a couple of reasons. First, because The Avengers has a completely different tone, and lacks that single focus. Spider-Man 2 is a character study about a single person; The Avengers is about putting already developed characters together.

Whedon makes a choice not to focus on drama, growth, or in-depth character development. Where you may see this as somehow lazy, I don't agree at all. I don't have a problem with Whedon going straight for pure entertainment. It was a damn good choice.

Also, thank you for making me aware of Underdog. I spent hours watching the cartoons, and hope to receive the DVD movie in the mail soon. It looks like quite the adventure. He's a very cute puppy.

Look, everyone already knows that the heroes will win in every superhero movie they see. James Bond never dies, and neither do superheroes. So, your "underdog" point is moot. However, I will address it for the sake of fairness -- what the hell are you talking about!?

Did you miss the part of the film where Iron Man lost power in space and began falling to the earth like a rock? How about the scene where a nuke was about to land on New York? I was really enjoying the suspense from these moments. I even had a small sigh of relief when Iron Man ended up being alive.

I have a question for you: are the scenes I mentioned somehow less significant than Magneto's mutant-creating ball of-energy device that is about to hit the United Nations building (as seen in X-Men (2000))? Did the scene in Spider-Man 2 where Doctor Octopus captures Mary Jane really affect you more than scenes from The Avengers?

Crazy. They are all on the same scale -- we know how it will turn out, but audiences enjoy suspending their disbelief in order to enjoy the experience. You need to learn do the same -- consistently.

With such a well-crafted film like The Avengers, you should be able to watch it with the same suspension of disbelief you had when you saw Iron Man; unless you were really more convinced that Iron Monger was going to crush Tony Stark into dust.

I just want to drive this home once more -- The Avengers is superbly well directed and photographed. This is a gorgeous film to look at. It's fun; it's funny; it evokes emotions from the part of me that always loved the larger-than-life grandness of superheroes. That's exactly what it was going for, and it sold that package perfectly. If Avengers was trying to be something that it's not, I would share a lot of your distaste for the film.  

Entry 10: RE: "Avengers" - GalaGag

Posted by: Bradley Redder

I know you said this was unnecessary. I know you said that you didn't think much of the Galaga joke, but both times I saw The Avengers, this moment received resounding laughter and even applause. I'm not bringing it up simply because I didn't find it funny; I can actually see why people laughed. I bring it up because it exemplifies a few different issues I have with this film. First up... Joss Whedon: Ball Hog.

I have made it clear several times over that I thought this film was far too jokey, and in my review I mention that sometimes jokes stumble other other jokes. There is no better example than the Galaga bit. I know you've seen it twice, Chad, but for those who don't remember, the scene begins with Tony Stark arriving on the flying aircraft carrier. He charges into the command center and makes himself the center of attention, cracks a few jokes about how inefficient the operation is, then points at a guy off screen and says, "This guy's playing Galaga. He thought we wouldn't notice... But we did!" And it's great. Very funny. A perfect Tony Stark moment. Of course, the scene ends, and Whedon cuts to the guy Stark pointed at, who turns back to his screen and brings up a paused game of Galaga. Hahah-awful. It's funny for a second, until you realize how superficial it is. Whedon turns a perfectly funny and character specific quality joke, and steals it for himself and turns it into a cheap gag, for now we realize Stark wasn't making a joke, but literally pointing out something that was happening in the room. The line could just as easily been, "That guy's tying his shoe. He thought we wouldn't notice... But we did." Very selfish. Very lazy.

But this goes a little deeper as well. I have made the case that the over-abundance of humor prevents me from taking anything seriously. This is the crowning example. This guy is part of S.H.I.E.L.D., a super secret intelligence organization; he is in an invisible flying aircraft carrier trying to track down a god from another world who is bent on ruling the planet... And he's playing Galaga? To modify a Jerry Seinfeld joke: "What does it take to get a job with S.H.I.E.L.D.? I think all you need is a face. That seems to be their big qualification." But seriously, what does it take? And how am I supposed to take any of this seriously if even the extras in the background don't? Leave the jokes to the characters with names. I know it's all just supposed to be fun, but at least keep up the pretense that these people actually have a role in the situation.

It also kind of annoys me, as a Galaga fan, that was not an official version of Galaga. It was played on a wide screen, and the fighters were moving far too quickly to be Galaga.

Also, did you notice my clever title? GalaGag! It's the name of the game, or at least some online Shockwave version of it, being referenced, but also the word "gag," because it's also referring to a joke! On yet another level, the "-Gag" portion of the title refers to the moment initiating my gag reflex... That's what happens when something gets shoved down your throat. I'm so clever, right? Is this annoying? Did I beat the joke into the ground? Good, because I was doing my prose impression of Joss Whedon.

Entry 9: RE: "Avengers" - Craving Struggle... And Dipping Sauces

Posted by: Bradley Redder

Again with the putting words in my mouth! I thought I was fairly polite when I asked for a dipping sauce if you were going to insist on doing that. I never said The Avengers needs everything that Spider-Man 2 has. I was using it to illustrate what I find fun in a comic book movie, and because after seeing The Avengers you sent me this text...

And later sent one asking "Spider-Man 2 or The Avengers?" That was still before you knew that was unimpressed with it and would therefore see no grounds for comparison. If you haven't figured out the answer yet, it's Spider-Man 2, pal, by hulking leaps and bounds.

And I hope you were just trying to take control of the argument or rile me up with that conclusion you got from my post, because if that's all you took away from it, then either I need to work on expressing my thoughts in writing, or you need to work on your reading comp... There are some great elementary schools in the area, Chad. We'll get through this. I'm here for you if you need me, and I've got like sixty Berenstain Bears books that we can read together. Just remember to sound out those words with mul, multi, multiple syllables and you'll be just fine.

Your argument for The Avengers seems to revolve around it being fun and cool. What I was saying about Spider-Man 2 is that it is more fun, and this is achieved through letting the audience see behind the curtain of its character, making us care about him. It also treats danger as something we feel along with this character as opposed to simply being a word that is thrown around or an obligatory plot device. Take the scene in which Doc Ock removes the brakes from a train and sends it speeding toward unfinished track. Spider-Man loses his mask and has to use all of his strength to stop the train. We're essentially watching Peter Parker here, and after he barely stops it in time and saves all of its passengers, he is completely spent, and he starts to fall forward when the passengers reach out and catch him and pass him back into the train car. They all marvel at the fact that their hero, the super-powered wonder that has been saving them and the rest of the city for two years is just a kid. And he is. And in this moment we see that he can be beaten. The passengers all agree not to tell anyone about his true identity and stand by him, something he needs in that moment, after we've watched him beaten down by Jameson and the Bugle, by Mary Jane, by Mr. Aziz at the pizza place, and by every other sacrifice Peter has had to make in order to be Spider-Man and go unappreciated.

You say Spider-Man is campy. I say it transcends camp. That sequence ends with Doc Ock coming back to claim Spidey, only the passengers, emboldened with the courage that their hero gives them, stand up in solidarity: "You want him, you have to go through all of us!" What's Ock's response? "Very well!" and he lunges his robotic arms forward and throws them all to the side and runs off with Spider-Man in his grips. Playing on campy cliches and being campy are two different things.

I know you're not a big sports guy, but perhaps you're familiar with underdogs, the team that is expected to lose. When spectators have no stake in the game, they tend to root for the underdog. It's only natural... It makes watching that much more exciting, thinking that what seems like an inevitable outcome will be thwarted and the little guy will win. We think that if these scrawny, little guys can pull out a win over a far more capable team, if something so unlikely can happen, then maybe the same thing can happen for us in our own lives. Maybe we can find the courage to ask a dickhead boss for a raise or maybe that girl actually likes us back. Great Hollywood heroes do the same thing.

Any great hero movie, be it Die Hard or Spider-Man has a moment when we think the bad guys might win... They're stronger, they outnumber the hero, or have him outgunned... Something. Something that makes us think that the hero succeeding isn't quite as inevitable as a century of cinema has shown it to be, which makes it that much more exciting when the hero does outsmart the villain, or has better aim with the one bullet he has left. The Avengers is missing that moment. We never see a weakness, or think for a second that Loki or the aliens might defeat the heroes, or even wreak enough havoc to create a real problem. The heroes always have it under control. It gives us nothing to latch onto... They're never underdogs, and we don't have any interest in them as characters, as people. Spider-Man 2 makes us care about what happens to these characters (even Doc Ock!), so we're taken along on the ride when the action starts, rather than waiting in line and watching everyone else have all the fun.

And Bruce Banner coming to terms with being Hulk is weak. This is not character development as much as it is the product of the Joss Whedon Plot Convenience Machine, patent pending. Out of nowhere he is able to control the Hulk and take orders from Captain America? Lame. It's also a condensed version of Banner's arc in 2008's The Incredible Hulk, minus Captain America, of course. Wouldn't it have been more exciting, interesting, suspenseful, and fun had he not been able to harness and direct his anger? If he were just let loose on New York, destroying everything, forcing the heroes to figure out a way to corral the aliens into his path? That way the aliens don't need to feel threatening, because the Hulk is there, and Whedon could get away with making them look like Power Rangers villains.

What I'm saying is that an action movie needs to have a struggle. Whether its physical or emotional or something else doesn't matter, but The Avengers doesn't have it. For all the great effects and destruction in action movies, it's the struggle that makes a good show. It's like this little textual boxing match we have going... How boring would it have been if I had said "It sucked," and then you immediately conceded? We both know this ends with you admitting that The Avengers is nothing more than glorified, grand-scale mediocrity, but it's much more fun if we go twelve rounds before you do.

And I don't know how I feel about you using this as a platform to take cheap shots at our nation's leader. "He's a menace!" Should I refer to you as J. Jonah from now on?

Entry 8: RE: "Avengers" - He's a menace!

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

While I am a huge fan of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies, they are quite different from The Avengers. I'll also agree that Spider-Man 2 is an incredible film, and definitely one of the greatest comic book movies ever made.

The Spider-Man films are fun, especially if you enjoy all the campy humor. Before you freak out -- I don't think this is a bad thing. The approach Raimi took was to play into the expectation of the audience. He gave the audience exactly what they think of when Spider-Man comes to mind.

All those sequences of people looking up and shouting Spider-Man's name, or those times Spider-Man stops for a second in front of an American flag -- It's camp! It's all fairly cheesy, but that's what those films were about. The Spider-Man films embrace super hero cliches, and they aren't ashamed to admit it.

The Avengers takes a completely different approach. While The Avengers is also very entertaining, the tone it goes for is much different. The Avengers wants re-design superheroes into the Hollywood action movie formula. Whedon wants these heroes to be cool, slick, and absolutely badass.

While both approaches are perfectly acceptable and work for their respected films, comparing the two is rather difficult. It's true that Whedon doesn't put in all the family death, quotes about heroism, and puberty that we get in the Spider-Man films. Again, just because it doesn't contain those elements doesn't mean the film is lacking them. You need to explain why Avengers needs these elements -- it seems to work fine without them.

If The Avengers focused too much on one character, one person's growth, then it wouldn't be about The Avengers. This movie is about all the heroes -- all the team members -- and how they came to work together. It doesn't need all the campy drama -- tug at you heart -- moments of Spider-Man 2. In fact, the result of that may have been disastrous.

And the Galaga joke...Yeah, that seemed to bother you a whole lot. My issue with the scene was that it didn't cut together correctly. My initial reaction was to think that Captain America was the one playing Galaga. This would have been much funnier, since he was frozen in ice and didn't get to experience video games. The scene was rather confusing, and it still didn't make sense to me the second time I saw the movie.

So, I agree that it isn't the funniest joke. Since you already admitted that most of the humor worked for you -- let's try and move past it. Together, if necessary. I'm here for you if you need me. I'm really sorry you have to experience it. To be fair, it was just one mediocre joke.

One more thing I have to point out, as evidenced for just how well-crafted this movie is on a technical level, is the continual shot that covers all the heroes as they battle in New York City. Granted, it's not a "real" camera shot -- definitely a digitally created shot. However, it's still quite an amazing sequence.

In one continuous shot the camera is able to move through New York and capture each of the Avengers doing battle. It's moments like this that solidify the purpose of this film -- to give the Avengers an origin story. To bring the team together, and to sell them to an audience as a single package that audiences will love. The Avengers moves the inherent "nerdyness" of a super hero team-up into the realm of something cool that  movie fans won't be ashamed to embrace. 

Entry 7: RE: "Avengers" - Marvel 'Comics'

Posted by: Bradley Redder

Just a quick post before bed. It's too late to start Spider-Man 3, so I figured I'd throw one more thing out there. Our Avengers week is wrapping up much faster than I had hoped, and there are till several things I'd like to address. Among them: the plot hole that unravels the entire reason for this film's being; the Galaga joke, the cynicism of Agent Phil Coulson's death, and, of course, your claim that not only might this be the greatest superhero film ever, but maybe even the most entertaining cinematic experience of all time! An exaggeration if there ever was one.

But now, onto the flyer I saw stapled to a telephone pole earlier this evening, with the headline: "Hear ye! Hear ye! The Marvel Comics Comedy Cavalcade is coming to a town near you!" It advertised the Hulk and Iron Man and Captain America... All those guys. All together. All telling jokes. Sounds awesome. I also saw an article online that said Joss Whedon plans to make The Avengers 2: Tough Crowd what he calls "a 4 1/2-D cinematic experience." Apparently in addition to glasses, audience members will be given a scratch-and-sniff card with smells ranging from "lightning-scorched Earth" to the surely disgusting "Hulk fart." Also, at every screening viewers in the first five rows will be given complementary ponchos by two theater employees who will stand below the screen and throw various objects at the audience during the scene in which Thor starts smashing watermelon and tubs of cottage cheese with his hammer.

Yes, I stayed through the credits, as conditioned to do by every Marvel movie in the last four years. And surprisingly, for the first time it actually paid off! What a great after-the-credits joke! My only note is that it should have gone on for twenty minutes, long enough to stop being funny, and then get exponentially more funny the longer it went on, but oh well. Still great. Perfect cap for such a ridiculous film and, unlike some of the other admittedly funny jokes, well placed. Whedon had to have suspected that those tacked-on scenes were getting old, and used them as retrospective set-ups for a  punch-line. Well done! I just wish he had realized that not every character had to be a continuous source of wit. If only a similar level of thought could have been put into the rest of the jokes in the film, some of which ultimately serve to ruin tension, prevent me from taking anything seriously (characters or situation), and make me question things going on off-screen and before the events of the film. The Galaga joke is the most egregious offender, but more on that tomorrow. For now, bed, where I hope to dream about you making a convincing argument for this being a great superhero film, or even a good one.

Entry 6: RE: "Avengers" - Fun v. Character

Posted by: Bradley Redder

He knows a hero when he sees one. Too few characters out there, flying around like that, saving old girls like me. And Lord knows, kids like Henry need a hero. Courageous, self-sacrificing people. Setting examples for all of us. Everybody loves a hero. People line up for them, cheer them, scream their names. And years later, they'll tell how they stood in the rain for hours just to get a glimpse of the one who taught them how to hold on a second longer. I believe there's a hero in all of us, that keeps us honest, gives us strength, makes us noble, and finally allows us to die with pride, even though sometimes we have to be steady, and give up the thing we want the most. Even our dreams. 

You might recognize this, Chad. It's a quote from the best Marvel movie to date. That's right: Spider-Man 2. Since I saw The Avengers last week, I've been craving a quality Marvel movie. It's been eight years since this came out and Marvel still has not been able to top it, despite its many efforts. I'd love to remain the cynical voice in this argument and say nothing has come close, that they've gotten away from the purity that makes it great, but that's just not true, not until The Avengers, anyway.

You seem to have this idea that fun and character are mutually exclusive, that individual hero movies should carry the burden of character building and this ultimate team-up movie gets to have all of the fun. That's insane. Spider-Man 2 isn't the best just because it appeals to pretentious filmgoers who seek out a perfectly constructed piece of art; it is the best because it is the most fun. It has everything: romance, mystery, drama, action, special effects, humor, characters, emotion, style, spectacle, spectacle, spectacle, etc. It has more action sequences than The Avengers, but I'm sure if you asked a fan of the film to describe the experience for you that they would be able to describe it with other rhetorical devices than onomatopoeia. It's about something. It forms a connection with its audience beyond assaulting them with loud noises and things that go boom. It stands for something. And it has one of the many things that The Avengers is sorely lacking: Peter Parker.

It may seem unfair to criticize a movie for not featuring a character that isn't part of its universe, but I'm not talking about Peter Parker as a specific character that needed to be featured, but rather the idea of the altar ego, that which makes the superhero interesting or sympathetic, relatable, vulnerable. It's what makes Spider-Man 2 great. Yeah, the action is cool. Yeah, watching Spider-Man swing around New York is exciting and all. But what really makes it fun is knowing what's underneath it all, what happens if he fails. You know what's more interesting than Spider-Man swinging between the cab and trailer of an 18-wheeler? Seeing him three minutes later and finding out he can't pay his rent. We're constantly divided between wanting the best for Peter Parker, and wanting Spider-Man to fight Doc Ock. But we can't have both, and the fun lies in the reconciliation of the two; seeing how Spider-Man's heroics prevent Peter's happiness, and in turn how Peter's unhappiness prevents Spider-Man's heroics.

It almost sounds depressing when stated like that, but goddamn does Sam Raimi make it entertaining, and he doesn't have to rely on a series of awkwardly inserted jokes to do it, but rather the personalities of the characters and the situations in which they're put: Jameson makes Peter come to a celebration for his astronaut son and take pictures for the paper. Peter accepts because he needs the money. Turns out Jameson's son is dating Mary Jane and, after she scolds Peter for not being able to admit his feelings, accepts a marriage proposal from Jameson's son. Peter stands there looking on, stunned. We feel his pain along with him and savor the moment until Jameson pops into the frame and barks at Peter to snap a photograph of the happy couple. It's a perfect moment, capturing the essence of these two characters at the same time. We can't help but feel for Peter and sympathize with the position he is in, yet Jameson's relentless crassness pierces the emotion with humor. The Avengers features nothing near this good, and the worst part is that it never even tries for it.

And it's not as though it doesn't have the potential. As you point out, this is a team-up movie. It has six characters. Okay, to be fair, it only has four. To call Black Widow a character is a stretch, and to call Hawkeye a character is a bald-faced lie. But still, that's four characters with which you could actually do something fun. Four characters with whom something fun has been done. But we never see their altar egos; we never see a vulnerable side. I say this movie lacks a formidable opponent, and that's a problem. The Avengers are never challenged physically, and Whedon never challenges them mentally or emotionally, either. There are no stakes in this film. These characters don't sacrifice anything; they don't give up their dreams. They don't stand for anything like they do in their respective individual films. They're not defined by anything but what their superpowers are. Tony Stark is interesting in Iron Man because he is a cocky arms manufacturer who has gotten obscenely rich off of selling deadly weapons and comes to realize he wants to be a force for good, and eventually fights the very men who bought his weapons. Thor is interesting in his film because he is a demigod who has almost infinite power and due to his arrogance and vanity is banished to Earth, where he has little power without his hammer. The interest we have with superheroes is not in their strengths, but in their weaknesses, their vulnerability. Throwing them all together and removing that which makes them relatable, creating an ultimate force and pitting them against a silly, ill-equipped, and underdeveloped villain is about as far away from interesting as it gets. Take away the jokes, and what have you got here? Costumes and noise... Two and a half hours of it.

Entry 5: RE: "Avengers" - It's all in the shawarma.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Let's go back to this being a really fun movie, Brad. Did you stay until after the credits finished rolling? If you did, you would have seen our heroes eating delicious Middle Eastern sandwich pockets called shawarma.

In my opinion, it's a very clever scene. There is no dialogue whatsoever; our heroes just eat their mediocre food in silence. I read that the scene was filmed after the premiere, and was added just before distribution. It really made me laugh; it's an excellent way to close out the good time I had with The Avengers.

I really had no point to make here; I just now have an urge to try shawarma. 

Anyway, I think that's exactly what The Avengers was about -- entertainment. Where you're able to go see a James Bond movie and not be angered by the lack of an intricate plot, the same applies here. Where comic book heroes are a thing for nerds, this movie morphs them into something the general public will love to enjoy. 

May I add that I also disagree completely on the film lacking character development. What about Bruce Banner's acceptance of his green alter ego? Oh, and Iron Man's self sacrifice to save all of mankind. I'd consider that some significant character development. If the laughter didn't make me love the characters, these moments certainly did.

Is it an entire movie's worth of character growth? No. Again, that's what the individual films are for.

I want to point out that I don't feel the film has a central protagonist, and there doesn't seem to be a traditional flow to the plot and story. Again, that's really ok with me. The Avengers is all about the ride, and it's a damn fun one.

Still, I agree that we need some point of reference to latch our brains onto when we talk about the story in The Avengers. If you ask me what it's all about, I'd say the Avengers themselves. This film is about the creation of the team. It's an origin story, and should largely be viewed as such.

I stated in my review that I felt this film was a conclusion to the first chapter of the Marvel film saga. I stand by that statement. The origin of the team is the grand finale -- at least for now. If that isn't enough for you, I hope you at least had a good time. The Avengers sends good vibes from beginning to end. 

Entry 4: RE: "Avengers" - That Pesky F-Word

Posted by: Bradley Redder

Ack! Pthu! Ptui! (cough) (cough)... Aw, Chad, your words taste awful! Could you take them out of my mouth, please? If you're going to insist on inserting them in the future, at least have the courtesy to dip them in barbecue first. I never said that the Chitauri look exactly like a Power Rangers villain; what I said was they look like scrapped Power Rangers concept art. Much different. Much more belittling. And to be perfectly honest, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic with those pictures and claims or not, because it looks to me that if you take Goldar's chest armor off, you've got at least an Uncle of the Chitauri. And take a look at this guy...

If you animate this guy with CGI, he's a Chitauri. In all seriousness, this image is a Richard Linklater rotoscoping away from being that shot of a Chitauri that you posted. The leader on the mind-meld Transformers 2 planet even wore a goofy headdress like this one, so even if he and the Chitauri aren't exactly the same, they at least run in the same circles and buy from the same eBay seller. If you like them so much, I suggest you check out "gOoFyLoOkInGbUlLsHiT069's" eBay store immediately for some more cool stuff before Ivan and his Chitauri poker buddies snag it all up.

As for this fun you're so obsessed with, I wasn't having much of it. Yes, the characters are funny, but didn't it get tiresome? Didn't it start to get in the way? And is that all it takes for you to love someone, a laugh? I'm sure Saddam Hussein used to have some pithy one-liners; does that mean you love him too?

Okay. Invoking Saddam is maybe a little bit extreme, but I do so to add at least one formidable opponent to this discussion of a good-vs.-evil superhero film. The Avengers lacks a legitimate sense of danger, partially because its designated threat resembles baddies from a silly 90s after school toy advertisement. But what also holds it back is the fact that Whedon is afraid to go five lines of dialogue without a gut-buster. Yes, a lot of the jokes are actually funny, and the comedic timing of his actors is pretty remarkable, but unfortunately Whedon's own timing is off, inserting witty comments where they don't belong and ruining any tension he accidentally builds up when a few consecutive jokes miss the mark.

I'm all for fun, especially in a $220 million superhero team-up movie, but not at the expense of my taking any moment of it seriously. Fun here, as in Whedon's writing project, The Cabin in the Woods, only cheapens the experience as a whole, like when S.H.I.E.L.D. agents are playing fucking Galaga in the middle of a world-threatening crisis... Ugh. To relegate the responsibility of character development to the individual films leading up to this one, as you say Whedon does, only strengthens my case for its emptiness. Due simply to enthusiasm, your argument comes off as an endorsement for the film, but is essentially as condescending as my Power Rangers remark. Are you sure you don't agree with me that The Avengers is simply bloated and shallow? It sounds an awful lot like you do, especially now that I have you on my side about the goofy Chitauri.

Entry 3: RE: "Avengers" - The resemblance is uncanny.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Separated at birth?

    

I now officially concede that the Chitauri look exactly like Goldar from Power Rangers. I guess I will have to try my very best to argue against your other equally well thought out positions.

At first I assumed you were just writing crazy, baseless, statements in order to make your review more entertaining to read. After doing my Mighty Morphin Power Rangers research, I now understand your position completely.

I will also agree with your point that Whedon uses humor to re-aquaint the audience with the characters. Yes, a lot of this is quite funny and entertaining. I can see how being entertained and laughing at this re-introduction would deserve your criticism.

Another tally for you, good sir!

Whedon spends a lot of time getting the audience acquainted with the characters -- helping them to love each character -- for a number of reasons, including to benefit those brand new to the series. While Avengers is connected to previous Marvel films, it's still a stand-alone experience.

I'll agree that most people who see The Avengers have probably seen all the preceding films. However, what if someone didn't like a particular film? What if someone really hated Thor, or thought Captain America was a terrible movie?

Some audience members could have a jaded view of the characters walking in; in which case it's Whedon's job to sell those characters to the audience. There's really no better way to do that than with laughter. The bickering between the heroes is quite entertaining, and it makes you love them all over again.

I understand your position that there is no real full story arc present here. There's also not a whole lot of growth for each hero emotionally. Again, I don't think that's a problem. The character study is for the individual films to take on. The purpose of The Avengers is to appeal to audience's sense of fun by making a really entertaining movie. The Avengers is not a place for all the drama of comic books; this is a place for the fun in comic books.

That sense of adventure I had as a kid -- loving superheroes because they seem so epic -- was brought back to me. I think that's Whedon's goal entirely; he wanted to create a film that focused the fun factor of superheroes. I think he accomplished his mission.

Entry 2: RE: "Avengers" - No Assembly Required

Posted by: Bradley Redder

Well to start, I too find no basis for saying that Whedon "claims the characters as his own," because I never said that, nor did I think it. And that is exactly the problem... He does nothing with them that we haven't seen before, aside from giving Tony Stark a new way to put on and take off his Iron Man suit. You say that each actor brings to the screen the character they developed in previous films, and Whedon's film simply brings them together; is that all you wanted from this film? Is that the "brainy" superhero film that everybody seems to be trumping this up to be? Snooze. I'd rather just buy the action figures from the separate films and put together the toy playsets to create my own world-saving scenarios.

I say these characters need an arc. If not individually, then at least as a group. The first act serves as a refresher into who that characters are, a very long time to spend on something you assume the audience is already familiar with, which is why I say this is an awkward experience. The Avengers is the first of its kind... How much can you assume people will know about these characters? And at the same time, given how much the film isn't actually about them individually, is using the first act to re-establish them one by one really an efficient way to open a two and a half hour film? I don't necessarily blame Whedon for not being able to handle it gracefully, but I can't just give him a pass on it, either, simply because there is no precedent informing how such a venture should be approached.

I'll also stand by my claim that Whedon uses humor as his instant character developer. Luckily a lot of the jokes are actually funny, or else this would go from bothersome to downright infuriating, but in lieu of giving these characters anything to actually do or figure out about themselves, he simply turns them into the Brat Pack and gives them a bunch of funny dialogue to gloss over how shallow they actually appear in this film. With the exception of Tony Stark, who is the perfect combination of wit and energy that Whedon seems to wish all of his characters could be, do you think you could come up with an adjective to describe any of these characters as portrayed in this film? I know they've been developed in other films, but do they actually embody what was conveyed in those films? (And if you say Bruce Banner is always angry I'm going to dropkick you in the face the next time I see you.) It looked to me like he was just trying to write six Tony Starks, giving all of the superheroes impeccable comedic timing, rather than something to really say, or even stand for. But more on the humor in another post.

So if this was really just bringing everyone together as you say, I still need something more. Though they do come together in the end, the group doesn't really grow in any way... They're pretty much the same going out as they were coming in. They bicker and fight each other along the way, which was very dull, and then are brought together by what was probably the cheapest, most cynical moment I've seen in a film this year (more on this, also, in another post), but it doesn't reflect any actual shift in perspective.

As for the Chitauri... Yes, I found them to be that silly. I wish I could find a picture from the sequence in which Loki does a mind-meld transportation to the Chitauri kingdom, so that I could put a picture of the remarkably similar sequences of The Fallen from Transformers 2, and to show how closely the character design and outfits resemble Power Rangers villains. I Googled them, and yes, they do look very similar. In the end, the army of Chitauri is a little bit different, but after that ridiculous introduction to them, there was no way I was ever going to take them seriously. Also, the very concept of this film, bringing together six distinct heroes into one ultimate fighting machine... Is it not another parallel to Power Rangers? Is the shot in which we finally see the Avengers assembled not essentially the same thing as the Rangers forming into the Megazord? Perhaps Joss Whedon is more firmly rooted in television than I thought. And perhaps you could elaborate on that "distinct visual style" you were talking about too, because all I saw was blah, meh, and so what.

Entry 1: RE: "Avengers" - You have got to be kidding me.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Well, I don't know where to begin. I guess I'm not surprised by your rating; however, I am a little surprised by the way you tear the movie apart. It's actually a little bit difficult to take you seriously when you compare the villains in The Avengers to Power Rangers concept art -- really? Do you really believe they are that silly looking?

The Power Rangers featured terrible actors in terrible rubber suits. Even for its era it looked like total crap. While I may agree that the Chitauri are not the coolest looking alien race, it's hard for me to take your hyperbolic statement seriously. It's ridiculous.

I'm also baffled by your following comment: "Whedon wants these characters to be his, to belong to his film, yet he doesn't develop them in any way, instead relying on what five other films have done, and using funny dialogue as an instant character developer"

What does that mean? Whedon definitely wanted The Avengers film to have its own unique look -- his look -- but I don't find any basis for saying he wants to 'claim the characters as his own.' Each actor brings to the screen the character they played in the previous films. That's completely fine with me. Where the other films served to help develop the characters, this movie serves to bring them all together. 

I actually really respect that. The director of each individual film got to keep the character they wanted -- Whedon just brings it all together into a perfect package that he designed. Like it or not The Avengers is a product of a lot of other movies, it's not just Whedon's baby. Yet, he's able to give this film a distinct visual style and tone -- that's incredible! It's an incredible achievement. 

One area we can agree upon is that Tom Hiddleston does an excellent job playing Loki. It's his creditably as a villain that really helps sell the story for me. I'm glad we can find common ground there.

Chad's Take: "The Avengers" (2012) - 4 Stars

When Iron Man came to theatres in 2008, audiences were given a surprise. Those who were patient enough to wait until the credits finished rolling were treated to an additional scene, which served to hype a film featuring a Marvel superhero team-up. Five films and four years later, The Avengers (2012) has final arrived. While it may seem impossible to live up to such an extraordinary level of hype, Marvel's The Avengers completely exceeds all expectations, and may very well be the greatest superhero film ever made.

Tying many of the Marvel film franchises together is quite an ambitious project; one that I admit I had my doubts about. I wasn't originally a fan of the hidden "Easter egg" scenes that served as promotional ploys for The Avengers film -- which at the time seemed only like a fantasy. I felt as though connecting all the film franchises together cheapened each movie's unique experience, and in the event that The Avengers was terrible, it would taint those films completely.

While each Marvel film leading up to The Avengers had its own stand-alone value, I still can't help but feel as though each was made with future installments in mind. Through end credit scenes and some crossover characters, each film is linked together -- often in ways that came off as a little silly. 

Brad's Take: The Avengers - **

Well after waiting four years and watching five feature-length trailers, The Avengers lands with a thud not unlike Thor's hammer hitting the ground. Okay, it's not quite that bad, but it's not all that good, either. And like Thor without his hammer, it just doesn't hit with the power it has the potential to. At two and a half hours, half-cocked just doesn't cut it, especially when much of the most impressive set-piece looks as though it was cobbled together with unused footage from Transformers 3, with an extra-terrestrial menace flying in through a sky-portal opening from another world and attacking a metropolitan area.

The Avengers was directed by Joss Whedon, who is most known for his television work as creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly, and at times it feels like he never left TV behind. It almost feels small, though it's smallness on a very grand scale. That's not a thought I initially had walking out of the theater, given that it ends with a forty minute action sequence that is for the most part well-done, despite the comparisons to Transformers 3. But thinking back on it, there really isn't much there. The bulk of it takes place on a flying aircraft carrier which, aside from the awesome ridiculousness it provides at first sight, is actually pretty bland on the inside. Every room on the ship is either incredibly bright or incredibly dark, and not in a stylistic, moody way. It even comes complete with a command center stocked with faceless young people in one-piece uniforms who monitor a bunch of graphs and stuff on fancy touch-screens... What I wouldn't give to never have to see another one of these in a movie again.

And the writing reflects this feeling of smallness. It's plot is about as loose as it gets... S.H.I.E.L.D., the agency controlled by Nick Fury, who will assemble the Avengers, possesses an energy cube that can open a portal to another world. The film opens as Loki, the brother of and villain from Thor comes through it to Earth, steals it, and intends to use it to transport an alien race that will destroy the planet for some reason that, like the alien race itself, is never explored in any way. That's it. The rest is the heroes on the ship trying to track Loki and the cube down. A loose plot is acceptable, but it also fails to give any of the characters a story arc, barely even giving one to the group as a whole. They spend the middle of the movie not getting along; two of the four action set-pieces involve the heroes fighting each other. It feels as though these pieces were tacked on because Whedon and co. had a lot of extra money lying around and had to quickly come up with a way to spend it, as do some other unnecessarily show-offy moments. And if we've learned anything from previous Marvel films, it's that good guys fighting good guys is not at all interesting. There are no stakes involved; we know nothing will come of it. Watching these sequences is like sifting through all of the Bit-O-Honeys and Mary Janes in your Halloween haul while looking for the Snickers and Kit-Kats. The team doesn't actually assemble until the end of the film, and only after an almost offensively cynical turn of plot that I won't reveal.

It's a strange experience to watch The Avengers. It's sort of the first of its kind, being at once the first film in its series and also a pseudo-sequel to several others, and I wasn't sure exactly how to take it, nor am I sure Whedon knew exactly how to navigate it. After a cheap opening action sequence, Whedon spends the first act refreshing us on all of the characters, even though we've seen half of them as recently as nine months ago. Though it's a mostly solid forty minutes, it doesn't really tell us much that we don't know already, and that's my biggest issue with this film... Either through an inherent limitation in its concept or lack of imagination, it builds nothing of its own. Whedon wants these characters to be his, to belong to his film, yet he doesn't develop them in any way, instead relying on what five other films have done, and using funny dialogue as an instant character developer. Worst of all: he misses the opportunity to show us anything at all about Hawkeye and Black Widow, the two non-super heroes belonging to the Avengers who have what I am estimating to be a combined eleven minutes of screen time in the films leading to this one. Beyond the assumption I made based on his name and the bow-and-arrows he carries, I knew nothing of Hawkeye going into this film, and coming out of it I still know nothing. I can offer no adjective, no description of his character outside of saying he is a good shot (and even that is not always accurate).

As much of it as I found disagreeable, The Avengers is far from unbearable. Tom Hiddleston as Loki is nothing short of brilliant. In the few scenes in which he really gets to come out and play, he is fantastic, a perfect villainous turn... menacing enough to hate the character, but entertaining enough to love that he is in the film. Unfortunately he gets a little lost in the shuffle throughout the third act's nonstop action and his philosophical reasoning for his actions, that he is trying to free people of the burden of freedom, is left undeveloped. And Whedon is able to inject humor into almost any scene, and his writing style is perfectly suited to Robert Downey Jr.'s cocky, fast-talking Tony Stark. In the stretches when it does take off, The Avengers can be very fun, if you just let the action and humor wash over you without really thinking about it too closely. It is pretty entertaining to watch six characters show off their respective unique powers and talents in a large scale battle with aliens... If only the whole movie could have delivered this.

Whedon's humor keeps the film's tone light, though a little too light for my taste. I find myself surprised to say that most of the jokes land, but some of them in very awkward places. Whedon co-wrote The Cabin in the Woods, which I felt suffered from its abundance of wit, and The Avengers is no different, with the humor sometimes stumbling over itself in an attempt to build on a joke, and always blocking any kind of tension or legitimate sense of danger from developing. It certainly doesn't help that the villainous alien race looks like it was inspired by discarded Power Rangers concept art, but even if I could take them seriously, Whedon never lets me think for a second that they are a worthy opponent to his Avengers, and two and a half hours is a long time to spend stomping on ants.

"The Avengers" Reviews are Being Assembled!

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Get it?  "Avengers Assemble!"

Reviews for Marvel's The Avengers will go LIVE tomorrow evening. Expect a very entertaining discussion for this one.

Stay tuned. PLEASE Subscribe!