Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 06/15/2006
Offline
41020 posts
 

Re: Seen The Avengers Yet? (Spoilers)

Jun 12, 2012

I guess I had different expectations for the Green Lantern movie.  It was interesting at some parts and I know they needed to get a lot of the Earth stuff out of the way but in the end, it just kind of fell flat for me.  The recent cartoon though has been pretty great and I've been enjoying that.

I'd like to see Marvel tackle Namor if they ever got the chance but I'm not sure where he stands since he's labeled as a 'mutant' as well.  FOX may or may not have him under their licensing.  He's the aquatic hero I'd hope get the movie first or get one done properly.

I'm actually wondering if Marvel would split some heroes between live-action and maybe animated shows/movies.  Maybe the animated route would be an easier way to introduce the character(s) into the MCU, get who they want to actually play them to voice them and when the next Avengers movie comes around, have them ready to go with their origins out of the way already.  My only problem with this is I think Marvel's animation studios (probably a common consensus) is outmatched by DC's own, at the very least in the animation department.  Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes' style took some getting used to but the story and characters made up for it after it grew on you (Guardians of the Galaxy, Beta Ray Bill, Vision, Red Hulk, Skrulls, etc all being introduced) but now they're cancelling that to do another Avengers show that'll be more matched up with the MCU and possibly in the vain of that horrible Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon (I can't take the cut aways and the humor in this show; entirely breaks it for me and it sucks cause it has Luke Cage, Iron Fist and Nova of all people in it).  So yeah, I wish Marvel would overhaul their animation studios to something like DC (when you look at it, Marvel does better with the live-action, DC with the animated).

And yes, I've seen Green Hornet once I think...or part of it.  Didn't care much for it either.



Now Playing: Final Fantasy X HD

Please use plain text.
Message 11 of 17 (590 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 11/29/2007
Offline
5815 posts
 

Re: Seen The Avengers Yet? (Spoilers)

Jun 13, 2012

I did like Avengers: Earths mightiest hereos, although I keep forgetting to watch it, and although I do like the cartoon ones. (Batman: Under the Red Hood was good, and the Batman and superman team up movies are good as well.) but, I do think it would be better to keep the cartoon and live action seperate. If they were going to make a cartoon origin story and then continue it in live action, It may make some people miss out, since not everyone watches the cartoons. They may feel like they lost out on part of the story. but either way, I would find it strange watching a cartoon and then continuing it in live action.

Although the X-men did do something similar, which actually had the effect of many people getting confused. The thing they did was make a comic that takes place after Wolverine but before X-men 1, and in this comic, they explain why wolverines brother did not know him in X-men 1. (Which is actually a very similar reason as to why wolverine did not know him.) But many people who watched the live action never read that comic. (I don`t even know where you would get that comic.)

but ya, I like the cartoons and I like the live actions, but I think they should keep them seperate. I don`t know what ones they plan to have in part 2, well we can guess Ant-man and if ant-man is in it, it`s safe to assume Wasp will be in it to, since I belive they are married. (at least that was said in one of the cartoon avengers movies. not overly familiar of her character.) So if that`s the case then the ant-man movie could also have wasp and get 2 origins out of the way. (not sure if that will happen or not, but it`s just a guess.)

Please use plain text.
Message 12 of 17 (590 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 01/19/2004
Online
32653 posts
 

Re: Seen The Avengers Yet? (Spoilers)

Jul 17, 2012

I had a few minor problems with the movie, so I gave it a 9.6/10.

 

a. Iron man may be inside amazing armor, but the guy inside the armor would still be bouncing off the armor when he hit something.  This was a problem in the Iron Man movies as well.  You can't just jump 200 feet and land on concrete.  It would kill you.  The armor might survive, but the guy in the armor would be dead.  The same applies for that guy at the end of Avatar who jumped out of the bomber wearing a mech suit.  You're dead.  Also when he got caught in the turbofan for the helicarrier, he got bounced around all over the place, and even bent the wrong way.  I'm sorry but you're just dead Tony.  Even without getting bounced around, he was pulling far too many g-forces trying to jumpstart it.  It would kill him.  Not just black out, but kill him.

 

b. Basically anything and everything about the helicarrier was wrong and improbable.  You can't look over the side of the helicarrier and see the engines spinning.  To generate that much lift, it would suck you in if you were anywhere near the sides.  Jets too.  It would cause so much turbulence that it would no longer be useful having a helicarrier.  You couldn't use it.  I'm deducting fairly heavily for the whole helicarrier thing.  If it had anti-gravity engines, that would have been far more believable.

 

c. The 3-D wasn't that remarkable.  I paid extra for the 3-D glasses and it was really no more enjoyable than when I saw it again in 2-D.  Not worth it.  Not every movie has to be Avatar, but give me something here if I'm paying for 3-D effects.

Please use plain text.
Message 13 of 17 (585 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 11/29/2007
Offline
5815 posts
 

Re: Seen The Avengers Yet? (Spoilers)

[ Edited ]
Jul 18, 2012

DrGadget wrote:

I had a few minor problems with the movie, so I gave it a 9.6/10.

 

a. Iron man may be inside amazing armor, but the guy inside the armor would still be bouncing off the armor when he hit something.  This was a problem in the Iron Man movies as well.  You can't just jump 200 feet and land on concrete.  It would kill you.  The armor might survive, but the guy in the armor would be dead.  The same applies for that guy at the end of Avatar who jumped out of the bomber wearing a mech suit.  You're dead.  Also when he got caught in the turbofan for the helicarrier, he got bounced around all over the place, and even bent the wrong way.  I'm sorry but you're just dead Tony.  Even without getting bounced around, he was pulling far too many g-forces trying to jumpstart it.  It would kill him.  Not just black out, but kill him.

 

b. Basically anything and everything about the helicarrier was wrong and improbable.  You can't look over the side of the helicarrier and see the engines spinning.  To generate that much lift, it would suck you in if you were anywhere near the sides.  Jets too.  It would cause so much turbulence that it would no longer be useful having a helicarrier.  You couldn't use it.  I'm deducting fairly heavily for the whole helicarrier thing.  If it had anti-gravity engines, that would have been far more believable.

 

c. The 3-D wasn't that remarkable.  I paid extra for the 3-D glasses and it was really no more enjoyable than when I saw it again in 2-D.  Not worth it.  Not every movie has to be Avatar, but give me something here if I'm paying for 3-D effects.


You have to Suspensed of disbelief, that's how it is in the comics and stuff as well. You also can't really say it would of killed him. the suit is a ficitional object, and you don't know maybe he added some sort of shock absorber in it. If your going to say that then you would have to include that Tony would not of survived thor's hammer, it created much more of an impact then the engines did. Remember Tony created the suit, he would of known all of that and added counter measures.

 

About the helicarrier you still need to suspend your disbelief, remember it was upgraded by shield. (as it had in invisability cloak), but either way, like you said it was only a minor thing.

 

I don't like 3D so I saw it in 2D.

 

I know you said they are minor problems, and you still gave it a good rating, but the problems you said were still based on an unknown factor, so it can't really be said that it's impossible in the marvel world. I am sure Tony would of thought of the things you mentioned for his suit and fixed them to counter act that. Also remember there are many versions of his suit before he came to the final product. It was never shown what changes he made to them.

 

Please use plain text.
Message 14 of 17 (579 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 01/19/2004
Online
32653 posts
 

Re: Seen The Avengers Yet? (Spoilers)

Jul 18, 2012

chaos_789 wrote:

DrGadget wrote:

I had a few minor problems with the movie, so I gave it a 9.6/10.

 

a. Iron man may be inside amazing armor, but the guy inside the armor would still be bouncing off the armor when he hit something.  This was a problem in the Iron Man movies as well.  You can't just jump 200 feet and land on concrete.  It would kill you.  The armor might survive, but the guy in the armor would be dead.  The same applies for that guy at the end of Avatar who jumped out of the bomber wearing a mech suit.  You're dead.  Also when he got caught in the turbofan for the helicarrier, he got bounced around all over the place, and even bent the wrong way.  I'm sorry but you're just dead Tony.  Even without getting bounced around, he was pulling far too many g-forces trying to jumpstart it.  It would kill him.  Not just black out, but kill him.

 

b. Basically anything and everything about the helicarrier was wrong and improbable.  You can't look over the side of the helicarrier and see the engines spinning.  To generate that much lift, it would suck you in if you were anywhere near the sides.  Jets too.  It would cause so much turbulence that it would no longer be useful having a helicarrier.  You couldn't use it.  I'm deducting fairly heavily for the whole helicarrier thing.  If it had anti-gravity engines, that would have been far more believable.

 

c. The 3-D wasn't that remarkable.  I paid extra for the 3-D glasses and it was really no more enjoyable than when I saw it again in 2-D.  Not worth it.  Not every movie has to be Avatar, but give me something here if I'm paying for 3-D effects.


You have to Suspensed of disbelief, that's how it is in the comics and stuff as well. You also can't really say it would of killed him. the suit is a ficitional object, and you don't know maybe he added some sort of shock absorber in it. If your going to say that then you would have to include that Tony would not of survived thor's hammer, it created much more of an impact then the engines did. Remember Tony created the suit, he would of known all of that and added counter measures.

 

About the helicarrier you still need to suspend your disbelief, remember it was upgraded by shield. (as it had in invisability cloak), but either way, like you said it was only a minor thing.

 

I don't like 3D so I saw it in 2D.

 

I know you said they are minor problems, and you still gave it a good rating, but the problems you said were still based on an unknown factor, so it can't really be said that it's impossible in the marvel world. I am sure Tony would of thought of the things you mentioned for his suit and fixed them to counter act that. Also remember there are many versions of his suit before he came to the final product. It was never shown what changes he made to them.

 


There's a difference between suspension of disbelief and insulting my intelligence. I've been reading comic books for years.  I am quite familiar with the SHIELD helicarrier.  The one in the movie just wouldn't work.  Why not just use Tony Stark repulsor technology to keep it afloat?  That would work.  4 giant tubofans would not work.  You can look at it and see it wouldn't work.  It's just a dumb idea.  It's not my fault for "not suspending disbelief".  It's their job to give me a semi-plausible reason to suspend disbelief.

 

That would be like if I could see the ropes making Iron Man fly around the ciity and I say, "That looks fake!"  It's not my fault for lacking imagination, it's their fault for lacking the ability to CGI out the ropes.

 

As for Tony Stark, he simply could NOT have survived this movie, even wearing the armor.

 

The sad thing is in this world there is a perfect out.  One of the Avengers is Black Panther, the king of Wakanda.  His country is the one place where they mine vibranium - an incredible metal that can absorb any impact, and a vital component of Captain America's shield.  All they had to do was say that there was some vibranium in the Iron Man armor.  Case closed.  Tony survives.  But they never brought it up, never mentioned Wakanda, never discussed Black Panther.

 

Using any other metal, even adamantium, would mean a dead Tony Stark inside the perfectly intact armor.

 

I still give The Avengers a very high rating, just because it was so much fun and they did such a great job of mixing these very different heroes, under extreme circumstances, and without wasting my time with endless back-story (The Hulk had over an hour of boring "character development" back story before Banner turned green).

 

Character development is great if done right.  For instance, the look on Agent Colson's face when he was listening to the Black Widow over the phone, as she was beating up on the Russians.  That right there told you everything.  He was 0.00000% concerned for her safety.  He knew from countless missions with her just how expert she is at hand-to-hand combat.  If you missed Iron Man 2, where she took out a building full of martial arts experts, it wouldn't matter when watching The Avengers.  You could see the look on Colson's face and that said it all in two seconds.

 

Or they could have wasted an hour of film showing her growing up, taking courses in marital arts, killing various targets, narrowly avoiding certain death, etc.  It might even have been interesting, but it would have nothing at all to do with the current situation.

 

Avengers character development = superb

The Hulk character development = someone just shoot me already

 

In The Avengers, there were simply too many main characters to spend all day developing each one of their characters.  We found out more about them in the heat of battle than we could during tooth-pulling back story.

 

Like I said, I enjoyed this movie immensely.  It had everything.  It was an adrenaline ride straight through.  Expertly done.  Even the lesser characters had important moments.  Normally I wouldn't care much for Hawkeye, but he was pretty cool in this movie.

Please use plain text.
Message 15 of 17 (573 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 11/29/2007
Offline
5815 posts
 

Re: Seen The Avengers Yet? (Spoilers)

Jul 19, 2012
Well, that`s one reason why we get the other superhero movies, so that we get all the character development done in them. I think Ruffalo did a good job as the hulk.

The movie was done good as you say, hawkeye did good in the movie as well, he had some cool scenes. I would of course still recommend seeing the other movies to get the full background though. You are also introduced to hawkeye in thor, however he doesn`t do anything in thor and only get a short cameo.

I do wonder about Agent Colson, is he really died, or did Fury just use that to get the avengers ready to fight. (he claimed colson had his captain america cards on him when he died covered in blood, but that was a lie, so maybe he lied about colsons death as we never actually see him die, Fury states the fact after.)
Please use plain text.
Message 16 of 17 (567 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 07/22/2008
Offline
1776 posts
 

Re: Seen The Avengers Yet? (Spoilers)

Jul 22, 2012

Dude...its a movie...

 

...you rate it based on how it plays out, not on realism......otherwise we wouldnt have any sci-fi movie at all

Please use plain text.
Message 17 of 17 (562 Views)
Reply
0 Likes