Avenger's Endgame Reviews Round-up
May. 12th, 2019 08:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatSo, I've been hunting down and read all the posts and links to reviews on "Avengers: Endgame" now that I've finally seen it for myself. And outside of "yourlibrarian" and fresne's reviews/posts on it, I find myself not agreeing with things. This could change, haven't gotten that far yet. [ETA: adding londonkds to the list of people whose reviews I agree with. Discovering a discernible pattern emerging, fans of all the films and readers of the comic books have a decidedly different take than those who well, aren't.]
1. Skip the soda this time around, friends: “Avengers: Endgame” will run past the three-hour mark, making the final installment in this era of the Marvel Cinematic Universe longer than each of the 21 films that precede it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/entertainment/avengers-infinity-war-mcu-timeline/?utm_term=.4dfa81c03f27
This isn't true. How do I know? Well, I went to the 3PM showing and got out just a little past 6Pm. I left during the credits (there is no end credit sequence or tag). The movie itself did not start until 3:30. We had eight to ten trailers prior to it's start along with an ad or two about the theater and its concessions. Plus Peter Parker informing us that the Spiderman Far From Home trailer would be after the movie, due to fears of spoiling us. (I'd already seen the trailer -- it was prior to the Captain Marvel film, so was already spoiled in that regard.)
So it's not really a 3 hour movie, folks. It's a 2 and half hour film with a trailers and end credits. They lie!
How do I know this? Well, I left during the credits, stood in line for the bathroom, went down about five escalators, walked three blocks, stepped into a patisseri shop, waited and bought various items, walked another two blocks to the subway, went down the steps, and walked or ran down half the platform and jumped into the subway, the subway went two or three stops, glanced down at my watch and was shocked to discover it was just 6:38 pm.
So...3:30 -4:30 (1), 4:30-5:30 (2), 5:30 - 6:00(3)...is not 3 hours. It states it is 182 hours, but that's not factoring in thirty minutes of trailers and end credits.
Does it feel like 3 hours, well yes. But that's subjective. But if anyone tells you it is a three hour or three and a half hour movie -- they are counting the 35 minutes worth of movie trailers and the 20 minutes worth of end credits. All of which can to some degree be skipped.
However...if you want to know everything that happened, without seeing all the movies, in order to get Endgame - Go HERE. But honestly, while it is possible to enjoy Endgame without seeing the other films and each film (for the most part) stands on it's own -- I don't recommend it. It takes away the emotional impact.
2. In regards to the negative reviews on the film and franchise as a whole that people posted?
I remember ages ago...getting annoyed by a favorite writer, Paul Theoroux who condemned comic books as being pulpy and pedestrian aka beneath him. He critically judged the inhabitants of the Asian Pacific for loving them. Without trying to understand why they did or looking further. He didn't see how broad in scope they were, how artistic, or how they dealt with a world that had been decimated by not one but two atomic bombs.
People like different things. If you don't like something that I do, pray do me the courtesy of scrolling on by. I will try to give you the same courtesy. Trust me, on this, there's a lot of things you love that I find bewildering and you really don't want me to reciprocate.
Example?
In the early 00s
CW: How can you watch Buffy that's for tween girls!
ME: Well, let's see you watch Seventh Heaven, Hercules the Legendary Journeys...not exactly for adults. And sort of silly. Do we really want to have this conversation? CW: No.
In the 1990s:
Fellow student: How can you watch soaps?
Me: How can you watch football?
FS: There's a point to football. A strategy -
Me: Not really. Soaps deal with deep social issues, and explore new ways of looking at things from multiple angles. Football is just two teams trying to kill each other in order to make a goal.
Yesterday..
Amber (hairstylist): oh what movie are you going to see?
Me: Avengers Endgame
Amber: Oh, I really want to see that. We tried last weekend but it was sold out.
Me: I think it will be better this weekend.
Other Hairstylist: Oh, I saw that. It sucked.
Me: Don't care, I'm going to see it anyhow.
Other Hairstylist: It was -
Me: No spoilers! I've managed to stay spoiler free!
Other hairstylist: Not enough action, it drug.
ME: Well that will for me, I prefer not to watch a video game.
Other Hairstylist: I prefer lots of action.
[Honestly? After seeing the movie, I think he's insane. It had a lot of action.]
So let's not have this fight. It drives up my blood pressure and yours...and mine's already high as it is. No good can come from it. Over time, I've learned not to respond or engage with folks who feel the need to denigrate what I love and to persuade me not to love it. It's not that I mind differences of opinion, it's just I'm tired of the hate and rage that permeates everything around us. The constant incessant fighting over stupid things -- like whether or not people should love a movie. My tolerance for it is gone.
That said...I've learned to be curious. Find out why that person loves whatever they love, what it is about it that turns them on. What they see that I can't see. I've read a lot of reviews of things I don't like and over time, gained greater appreciation for them.
A notable example is football. I no longer agree with my statement that it is just two teams fighting each other to make a goal. It's about strategy, problem solving, conflict resolution, handling aggression. On that field, you see thousands of years of conflict playing out, in a non-violent manner, and in a way that both sides live to see another day. It's an achingly human sport, that requires a great deal of skill and physical strength. And I can appreciate it, without loving it.
I do not see that happening with Hercules the Legendary Journeys (I was a Xenia fan, Hercules annoyed me), and Seventh Heaven. But, I can appreciate why others may have loved them.
Note dislike is not the same as constructive critique. Constructive criticism I adore. Anything else will be summarily ignored.
3. John Scalzi's review of Endgame -- which is non-spoilery, is one of the better reviews. And I agree and disagree with him. But then he sort of says that must people will upfront.
Avengers: Endgame is a once-in-a-lifetime cinematic experience, and I mean that in two very specific ways. First, it’s a film that (generally) effectively, (mostly) competently and (sometimes) ingeniously serves as a capstone to a series of films spanning twenty-two installments, which is a species of cinematic beast that’s never really been managed before and seems unlikely ever to be pulled off again; Second, that having seen it, I don’t feel like I ever need to see it again in this lifetime.
Agree that it is a once-in-a-lifetime cinematic experience. It sent a chill down my spine on how brilliantly it wrapped up various arcs and set up new ones, along with how it managed to reference all the characters and all the films to date, yet still tell a good story. Not easy to do. Game of Thrones is screwing up at the moment, and it has a far easier job. The characters in Endgame were in character, it tracked.
With different directors and writers throughout that's hard to pull off -- but the show-runner/producer did a good job of making sure it did.
I've never seen anyone else pull it off that well. Jackson tried with the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, but I felt he fell down on the job halfway through.
Too much action, not enough character. Star Wars...oh god. It didn't pull it off at all, if anything it went off the rails. And for a bit filmmakers thought, okay we can't do serials well on film. DC Comics -- with Batman, Justice League and Superman -- again, oh god, no. That was a mess. The plots and characters don't track, some pretty moments though. DC has the problem of either getting too cheesy/campy or too dark, they've never found that happy medium.
So, yes, this was an achievement. YMMV. Really don't want to argue with you about it -- see #2 as to why.
I also agree that it is an exhausting film. There's a lot going on. And there were bits that confused me here and there.
I disagree that it is not a film I wouldn't want to re-see or couldn't find things to linger on. There's quite a bit, actually far more than there was in the first two Avenger films. But that's a subjective thing. Although the fact that most of the people I know who saw it, and then went back to see it again, state that they figured stuff out the second time around, and it made more sense. There were bits they could have done without, but overall seeing it a second time clarified things and made it a better film in their eyes.
Scalzi does admit this in his review. It's why I prefer his reviews over many others, he's humble.
Mind you, my opinion that Endgame merits only a single watch is being amply refuted by the large number of folks who have gone back to watch the film twice or three times or more. Good for them. I’m glad and not in the least surprised that they have been entertained; as I noted, moment to moment, the film is entertaining, and savvy enough as popular entertainment to give their characters, especially the ones whose actors are at the end of their contracts, moments you can cheer and cry for them. This is Disney, folks. They know popular entertainment.
True.
But, I think I was more entertained than he was? Also I don't require films to be rewatchable. 98% of them aren't from my perspective. I've seen a lot of movies on demand and otherwise that I have no interest in re-watching. 90% of the films nominated for the Oscar, and many that won, I've no interest in seeing again. I'm the same way with tv shows and books, actually. I rarely re-watch films or re-read books. What's the point? I think. There's so much else to read and watch out there.
But I do re-read certain stories that grab me. And more often than not they aren't literary achievements.
And the whole this is Disney bit? Eh. I've watched a lot of Disney films in my lifetime, not all of them are entertaining. So I disagree with him there.
The point I’m trying to make is that stringing individually entertaining moments together does not in itself a substantive cinematic experience make. Endgame isn’t a sumptuous meal; it’s a bunch of tasty canapes fed to you on a conveyor belt, with no time to savor one before the next one comes along.
Odd. I didn't see it that way. I thought it held together as well as the others. Granted I re-watched many of the others recently. Also I've been watching Game of Thrones and a daytime soap opera. And reading comic books in that verse for decades.
Not to mention the fact that I've seen all the DC superhero films, and all of the television series (not a fan). So...I have a slightly different take? It felt like a full course meal to me, and I knew going in that it would focus on the core members of the Avengers -- the founding members. That was the set-up from the previous film.
And every moment in End Game perfectly follows what was previously set up from both a character and a plot perspective. I wasn't that invested in who lived or died, mainly because I sort of figured out who would either before the film or mid-way through it.
But I think differently than Scalzi. I like the isolated character moments. So, I agree and disagree with his review.
4. Adding Smart Bitches Review on Avengers Endgame to the reviews I agree with.
1.) As everyone is so fond of pointing out, the movie is three hours long. However, it doesn’t feel long. I’ve sat through many shorter movies that felt longer. If you really have to pee, you can pee as soon as the movie goes to Japan, but don’t stay in the bathroom for long. [No, it's not three hours long. You just think it is because you have to watch 30 minutes of trailers prior to it rolling and the end credits take about twenty minutes. But the movie itself? Is only two and a half hours. I checked the time - I know.]
2) There’s no filler. The movie is carefully constructed and edited. There’s also very little exposition. The filmmakers assume that you’ve seen other Avengers movies and that you are caught up. [True. Don't see the movie if you haven't watched the others. Seriously. You'd think this would go without saying.]
3.) One of the post-movie joys is discussing whether or not the events of this movie make sense. In fact, in the middle of the movie, a group of the Avengers discuss whether the events make sense. They can’t come to an agreement and neither will you. Just roll with it. [Also true. It made logical sense to me, but I've also read the comics, and been watching Game of Thrones and daytime soaps.]
4. The movie is a love letter to fans. As a standalone movie, I can only assume that it would be incomprehensible. If you are going to watch this, you should, at the very least, have seen Avengers, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Avengers: Infinity War. [That's what I thought too, but I know of at least three stubborn souls who saw it, without having watched most of the others...and enjoyed it. Although they did see Infinity War.]
5However, this is really a movie for those of us who saw EVERYTHING. We saw the Agent Carter TV show and Agents of S.H.I.E.LD. We forked out good money for Iron Man 2 and Thor: The Dark World. Since 2008, these people have been our families. This movie is for us. Yep. If you've watched pretty much most of AoS (three seasons), most of Agent Carter...it will work more for you than those who didn't. Although I don't think the television shows are all that necessary. Coulson isn't in this one, and you'll get Cap's relationship with Peggy just from the previous films in the franchise.
What I mean is that this movie is not intended as a standalone. Seen alone, the events won’t make sense, and the character beats won’t matter. For fans, this movie has some flaws but is INTENSELY emotionally cathartic and satisfying. It’s geared as a end of one phase, a goodbye of sorts, and so the more devoted you are to the franchise, the more you will get out of it.
It’s like a graduation. Off to the next phase.
Yep. My thoughts exactly.
1. Skip the soda this time around, friends: “Avengers: Endgame” will run past the three-hour mark, making the final installment in this era of the Marvel Cinematic Universe longer than each of the 21 films that precede it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/entertainment/avengers-infinity-war-mcu-timeline/?utm_term=.4dfa81c03f27
This isn't true. How do I know? Well, I went to the 3PM showing and got out just a little past 6Pm. I left during the credits (there is no end credit sequence or tag). The movie itself did not start until 3:30. We had eight to ten trailers prior to it's start along with an ad or two about the theater and its concessions. Plus Peter Parker informing us that the Spiderman Far From Home trailer would be after the movie, due to fears of spoiling us. (I'd already seen the trailer -- it was prior to the Captain Marvel film, so was already spoiled in that regard.)
So it's not really a 3 hour movie, folks. It's a 2 and half hour film with a trailers and end credits. They lie!
How do I know this? Well, I left during the credits, stood in line for the bathroom, went down about five escalators, walked three blocks, stepped into a patisseri shop, waited and bought various items, walked another two blocks to the subway, went down the steps, and walked or ran down half the platform and jumped into the subway, the subway went two or three stops, glanced down at my watch and was shocked to discover it was just 6:38 pm.
So...3:30 -4:30 (1), 4:30-5:30 (2), 5:30 - 6:00(3)...is not 3 hours. It states it is 182 hours, but that's not factoring in thirty minutes of trailers and end credits.
Does it feel like 3 hours, well yes. But that's subjective. But if anyone tells you it is a three hour or three and a half hour movie -- they are counting the 35 minutes worth of movie trailers and the 20 minutes worth of end credits. All of which can to some degree be skipped.
However...if you want to know everything that happened, without seeing all the movies, in order to get Endgame - Go HERE. But honestly, while it is possible to enjoy Endgame without seeing the other films and each film (for the most part) stands on it's own -- I don't recommend it. It takes away the emotional impact.
2. In regards to the negative reviews on the film and franchise as a whole that people posted?
I remember ages ago...getting annoyed by a favorite writer, Paul Theoroux who condemned comic books as being pulpy and pedestrian aka beneath him. He critically judged the inhabitants of the Asian Pacific for loving them. Without trying to understand why they did or looking further. He didn't see how broad in scope they were, how artistic, or how they dealt with a world that had been decimated by not one but two atomic bombs.
People like different things. If you don't like something that I do, pray do me the courtesy of scrolling on by. I will try to give you the same courtesy. Trust me, on this, there's a lot of things you love that I find bewildering and you really don't want me to reciprocate.
Example?
In the early 00s
CW: How can you watch Buffy that's for tween girls!
ME: Well, let's see you watch Seventh Heaven, Hercules the Legendary Journeys...not exactly for adults. And sort of silly. Do we really want to have this conversation? CW: No.
In the 1990s:
Fellow student: How can you watch soaps?
Me: How can you watch football?
FS: There's a point to football. A strategy -
Me: Not really. Soaps deal with deep social issues, and explore new ways of looking at things from multiple angles. Football is just two teams trying to kill each other in order to make a goal.
Yesterday..
Amber (hairstylist): oh what movie are you going to see?
Me: Avengers Endgame
Amber: Oh, I really want to see that. We tried last weekend but it was sold out.
Me: I think it will be better this weekend.
Other Hairstylist: Oh, I saw that. It sucked.
Me: Don't care, I'm going to see it anyhow.
Other Hairstylist: It was -
Me: No spoilers! I've managed to stay spoiler free!
Other hairstylist: Not enough action, it drug.
ME: Well that will for me, I prefer not to watch a video game.
Other Hairstylist: I prefer lots of action.
[Honestly? After seeing the movie, I think he's insane. It had a lot of action.]
So let's not have this fight. It drives up my blood pressure and yours...and mine's already high as it is. No good can come from it. Over time, I've learned not to respond or engage with folks who feel the need to denigrate what I love and to persuade me not to love it. It's not that I mind differences of opinion, it's just I'm tired of the hate and rage that permeates everything around us. The constant incessant fighting over stupid things -- like whether or not people should love a movie. My tolerance for it is gone.
That said...I've learned to be curious. Find out why that person loves whatever they love, what it is about it that turns them on. What they see that I can't see. I've read a lot of reviews of things I don't like and over time, gained greater appreciation for them.
A notable example is football. I no longer agree with my statement that it is just two teams fighting each other to make a goal. It's about strategy, problem solving, conflict resolution, handling aggression. On that field, you see thousands of years of conflict playing out, in a non-violent manner, and in a way that both sides live to see another day. It's an achingly human sport, that requires a great deal of skill and physical strength. And I can appreciate it, without loving it.
I do not see that happening with Hercules the Legendary Journeys (I was a Xenia fan, Hercules annoyed me), and Seventh Heaven. But, I can appreciate why others may have loved them.
Note dislike is not the same as constructive critique. Constructive criticism I adore. Anything else will be summarily ignored.
3. John Scalzi's review of Endgame -- which is non-spoilery, is one of the better reviews. And I agree and disagree with him. But then he sort of says that must people will upfront.
Avengers: Endgame is a once-in-a-lifetime cinematic experience, and I mean that in two very specific ways. First, it’s a film that (generally) effectively, (mostly) competently and (sometimes) ingeniously serves as a capstone to a series of films spanning twenty-two installments, which is a species of cinematic beast that’s never really been managed before and seems unlikely ever to be pulled off again; Second, that having seen it, I don’t feel like I ever need to see it again in this lifetime.
Agree that it is a once-in-a-lifetime cinematic experience. It sent a chill down my spine on how brilliantly it wrapped up various arcs and set up new ones, along with how it managed to reference all the characters and all the films to date, yet still tell a good story. Not easy to do. Game of Thrones is screwing up at the moment, and it has a far easier job. The characters in Endgame were in character, it tracked.
With different directors and writers throughout that's hard to pull off -- but the show-runner/producer did a good job of making sure it did.
I've never seen anyone else pull it off that well. Jackson tried with the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, but I felt he fell down on the job halfway through.
Too much action, not enough character. Star Wars...oh god. It didn't pull it off at all, if anything it went off the rails. And for a bit filmmakers thought, okay we can't do serials well on film. DC Comics -- with Batman, Justice League and Superman -- again, oh god, no. That was a mess. The plots and characters don't track, some pretty moments though. DC has the problem of either getting too cheesy/campy or too dark, they've never found that happy medium.
So, yes, this was an achievement. YMMV. Really don't want to argue with you about it -- see #2 as to why.
I also agree that it is an exhausting film. There's a lot going on. And there were bits that confused me here and there.
I disagree that it is not a film I wouldn't want to re-see or couldn't find things to linger on. There's quite a bit, actually far more than there was in the first two Avenger films. But that's a subjective thing. Although the fact that most of the people I know who saw it, and then went back to see it again, state that they figured stuff out the second time around, and it made more sense. There were bits they could have done without, but overall seeing it a second time clarified things and made it a better film in their eyes.
Scalzi does admit this in his review. It's why I prefer his reviews over many others, he's humble.
Mind you, my opinion that Endgame merits only a single watch is being amply refuted by the large number of folks who have gone back to watch the film twice or three times or more. Good for them. I’m glad and not in the least surprised that they have been entertained; as I noted, moment to moment, the film is entertaining, and savvy enough as popular entertainment to give their characters, especially the ones whose actors are at the end of their contracts, moments you can cheer and cry for them. This is Disney, folks. They know popular entertainment.
True.
But, I think I was more entertained than he was? Also I don't require films to be rewatchable. 98% of them aren't from my perspective. I've seen a lot of movies on demand and otherwise that I have no interest in re-watching. 90% of the films nominated for the Oscar, and many that won, I've no interest in seeing again. I'm the same way with tv shows and books, actually. I rarely re-watch films or re-read books. What's the point? I think. There's so much else to read and watch out there.
But I do re-read certain stories that grab me. And more often than not they aren't literary achievements.
And the whole this is Disney bit? Eh. I've watched a lot of Disney films in my lifetime, not all of them are entertaining. So I disagree with him there.
The point I’m trying to make is that stringing individually entertaining moments together does not in itself a substantive cinematic experience make. Endgame isn’t a sumptuous meal; it’s a bunch of tasty canapes fed to you on a conveyor belt, with no time to savor one before the next one comes along.
Odd. I didn't see it that way. I thought it held together as well as the others. Granted I re-watched many of the others recently. Also I've been watching Game of Thrones and a daytime soap opera. And reading comic books in that verse for decades.
Not to mention the fact that I've seen all the DC superhero films, and all of the television series (not a fan). So...I have a slightly different take? It felt like a full course meal to me, and I knew going in that it would focus on the core members of the Avengers -- the founding members. That was the set-up from the previous film.
And every moment in End Game perfectly follows what was previously set up from both a character and a plot perspective. I wasn't that invested in who lived or died, mainly because I sort of figured out who would either before the film or mid-way through it.
But I think differently than Scalzi. I like the isolated character moments. So, I agree and disagree with his review.
4. Adding Smart Bitches Review on Avengers Endgame to the reviews I agree with.
1.) As everyone is so fond of pointing out, the movie is three hours long. However, it doesn’t feel long. I’ve sat through many shorter movies that felt longer. If you really have to pee, you can pee as soon as the movie goes to Japan, but don’t stay in the bathroom for long. [No, it's not three hours long. You just think it is because you have to watch 30 minutes of trailers prior to it rolling and the end credits take about twenty minutes. But the movie itself? Is only two and a half hours. I checked the time - I know.]
2) There’s no filler. The movie is carefully constructed and edited. There’s also very little exposition. The filmmakers assume that you’ve seen other Avengers movies and that you are caught up. [True. Don't see the movie if you haven't watched the others. Seriously. You'd think this would go without saying.]
3.) One of the post-movie joys is discussing whether or not the events of this movie make sense. In fact, in the middle of the movie, a group of the Avengers discuss whether the events make sense. They can’t come to an agreement and neither will you. Just roll with it. [Also true. It made logical sense to me, but I've also read the comics, and been watching Game of Thrones and daytime soaps.]
4. The movie is a love letter to fans. As a standalone movie, I can only assume that it would be incomprehensible. If you are going to watch this, you should, at the very least, have seen Avengers, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Avengers: Infinity War. [That's what I thought too, but I know of at least three stubborn souls who saw it, without having watched most of the others...and enjoyed it. Although they did see Infinity War.]
5However, this is really a movie for those of us who saw EVERYTHING. We saw the Agent Carter TV show and Agents of S.H.I.E.LD. We forked out good money for Iron Man 2 and Thor: The Dark World. Since 2008, these people have been our families. This movie is for us. Yep. If you've watched pretty much most of AoS (three seasons), most of Agent Carter...it will work more for you than those who didn't. Although I don't think the television shows are all that necessary. Coulson isn't in this one, and you'll get Cap's relationship with Peggy just from the previous films in the franchise.
What I mean is that this movie is not intended as a standalone. Seen alone, the events won’t make sense, and the character beats won’t matter. For fans, this movie has some flaws but is INTENSELY emotionally cathartic and satisfying. It’s geared as a end of one phase, a goodbye of sorts, and so the more devoted you are to the franchise, the more you will get out of it.
It’s like a graduation. Off to the next phase.
Yep. My thoughts exactly.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-12 08:29 pm (UTC)That's interesting, although I suspect is true for a number of the films, if not all. I definitely see that as a "books fans/movie fans" divide. It's even more difficult to adapt comics with their long convoluted histories than novels. And given that the MCU is an interconnected evolving thing, there are even more reasons to use the comics as a touchstone rather than a strict guide.
After seeing the movie, I think he's insane. It had a lot of action.
This made me laugh because I actually said in the first part of my review "It also struck me that people going to see the movie for battles and special effects (and there are a lot of them) were likely to be disappointed in it. The movie had these things, obviously, but I think few would argue that they were front and center. "
A lot of people don't go to superhero movies for plot or care about character development, which is probably why they can be happy with the DC films, Transformers, etc. Or for that matter why Bond films did so well for so long.
I agree with you that Endgame felt like a coherent story. I get his canape analogy because it does dole out both a lot of little moments and a lot of callbacks. But I think there is an overarching coherency to both the plot and the movie's themes.
I also thought the Smart Bitches review, which I did read, was pretty close on the mark. And on my second viewing I took the advice about Tokyo :D
no subject
Date: 2019-05-12 10:16 pm (UTC)Comics fans generally speaking tend to be more accepting of film adaptations that veer from the original, unlike novel fans. Mainly because the comics themselves often retcon and change the stories depending on the editors and writers and artists. It's like the Doctor Who verse or Daytime Soaps, you sort of know as a comic fan that there are going to be continuity issues.
Also, the people who saw the film because of the marketing blitz, and not because they had been following the story or loved the characters -- were bound to dislike it. As were the ones who came in with a pre-existing agenda or plot in their heads that they expected to play out. I've seen this happen with long-running television series that come to an end. The fans prefer the fanfic they wrote on it than the story arc playing out on screen. They've come in with pre-existing expectations -- and well, it's inevitable they'll dislike it.
Comics fans tend to be more flexible about it, mainly because we're used to being disappointed. And we know it can change on a dime. In the comics? Captain America was agent of Hydra for a while.LOL! Hence the reason that line is so funny to the comics fans.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-12 10:20 pm (UTC)Yeah, I'm the opposite. The more battle sequences, the more my attention wanders. It feels like watching a video game.
I don't mind individual fight scenes -- those are fun to watch and this one did a good job of focusing more on those. But big battle sequences...are hard to follow and I get lost after a bit. It's why I haven't enjoyed Game of Thrones or the Lord of the Rings movies as much as some.
I also thought the Smart Bitches review, which I did read, was pretty close on the mark. And on my second viewing I took the advice about Tokyo :D
Why that section? I actually was looking for it -- because I like the scene between Clint and Natasha there -- has a nice symmetry to the first scene between them in Avengers.
I'd have taken off to go to the toilet around the time we did Five years later, and Rogers was doing group therapy sessions.
Weirdly I didn't have to go to the bathroom at all during this film, just after. Titantic -- now that was a painful film to sit through -- I had to go to bathroom badly during the scene in which they are freezing in the water and it was interminable.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-12 10:28 pm (UTC)I remember during IW I made the poor decision to drink some water and finally had to duck out 10 minutes before the end of the film!
I agree about big CGI battle scenes. I love the hand to hand ones (as long as they're not using close up shaky cam and you can actually see what the stunt people are doing). I remember a friend recently watched ST: Discovery and commented about Michelle Yeoh's amazing kick and I knew exactly which moment and episode she meant, because I'd paused and rewound just to see it again.
But when they're basically big light shows like the final battle in Wonder Woman it also makes me restless. At least in this one there were a lot of characters and also moments away from actual battle that kept it from dragging on.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-12 10:41 pm (UTC)LOL! Makes sense. I noticed people entering the theater just after the Tokyo scene. It was odd. I decided it was a second showing for them? One woman and her two small children did that. That was another odd thing about it -- there were quite a few people with VERY young children at the showing. By young, I mean pre-teen, around 6-10 years of age. Blew me away. I don't know seems like a really dark and violent film for a small children.
Then again, my cousin let's her kids watch Game of Thrones, so what do I know?
I'm amazed I was fine, since I drank water intermittently throughout. Did go twice before it aired. Had a lot of nervous energy -- because I sort of raced to the theater from my hair appointment. Don't know why, there was plenty of seating and more than enough time prior to airing. I counted ten trailers.
I love the hand to hand ones (as long as they're not using close up shaky cam and you can actually see what the stunt people are doing). I remember a friend recently watched ST: Discovery and commented about Michelle Yeoh's amazing kick and I knew exactly which moment and episode she meant, because I'd paused and rewound just to see it again.
But when they're basically big light shows like the final battle in Wonder Woman it also makes me restless. At least in this one there were a lot of characters and also moments away from actual battle that kept it from dragging on.
Yep I get restless as well. Although I did find the battle sequences in Thor: Raganarok beautifully done. That's an exception. Most of the time, they feel fake to me and my attention wanders. I found most of the action sequences in the first two Avengers films very fake and difficult to watch. Ultron is not a bad film, it actually is really good in places -- but the action sequences suck, they are too busy and look fake. Making me think Whedon is not that good at action -- or to be fair to Whedon, there was too much emphasis to CGI action -- making it look like a video game.
The films after Ultron did a much better job with the action sequences. I honestly think it is hard to do well, without looking fake or too busy.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-12 11:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-05-13 12:26 pm (UTC)Exactly - why are people bringing young children to incredibly violent films or having them watch violent television shows? I was sitting next to a little girl who couldn't have been older than 10. Although my parents accidentally did that with my brother and I -- they took us to Excaliber at the ages of 14 and 11. But it was also a mistake -- they hadn't thought it through. And were incredibly embarrassed by it. We turned out okay. So...
Spoke to co-worker about Endgame just now...and yep, shares the same consensus as everyone else -- "Natasha's death" annoyed him -- because he also wanted the Black Widow movie. It's a bit hard to do a movie about a character after you kill her off -- even if it is a prequel. OTOH -- her death works very well within the plot and character arcs of the story and film verse.