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 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. 

"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!