![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatLovely day. Quite relaxing. Beautiful Spring day - crisp, baby blue skies, no clouds, sparkling sunshine, and quiet. Also accomplished a bit - got laundry done, made up bed, signed lease, picked up envelope to send long-over-due gift to friend, and saw the Avengers' movie finally.
So sue me, I enjoyed The Avenger's movie. It wasn't deep but it was a lot of fun. I like pulp. It's fun! And ...It's a lot of fun to see that movie in a packed movie theater with a NYC urban audience. Specifically an audience filled with comic book buffs and fans of the genre. They get the jokes. There were a lot of NYC insider jokes in that film. Even though it's more expensive, I'm glad I saw it in a theater - you sort of need to. Like Hairspray, it's a better film in the theater than it is outside of it. The audience went crazy during the fight scenes, laughed, applauded...was weirdly interactive and very warm and fun. You are in the dark with like-minded souls. I felt safe and warm and included. Happy. Which is why I think The Avengers is making millions of dollars.
Is the film great? No. It has problems. And yes, Whedon is clearly obsessed with the whole free will vs. subjucation or loss of free will bit. I've noticed this as a recurring theme in all of his stories and it does to a degree echo George Lucas' Star Wars, The Matrix, and Cameron's Terminator films...a somewhat cut and dried view of power.
The Avengers' was in some respects a repeat of the same themes addressed in Buffy S8, Cabin in the Woods, and Dollhouse...except with better execution.
And the movie is quite good in places. It's a lot of fun. And to date the best "ensemble" superhero movie that I've seen. Not the best superhero movie. It does owe a lot to Sam Rami's Xenia and Spiderman Flicks in how the action sequences and build up is accomplished. If you've seen Rami's Spiderman flicks - you'll see the similarities. I'm more of a Chris Nolan fan myself, preferring the dark noir opera, but I admit, Rami is more fun as is Whedon.
That said it does have its flaws.
Whedon still struggles with plot. The most glaring examples?
* The Hulk goes from being unable to communicate in his "hulk form", unable to control his anger issues, and his reactions, and hurting anything and everything in his path...an uncontrollable monster to...someone who easily takes orders, saves his friends, and is controllable. With no explanation and no build-up. It took me out of the story and I was jarred by the sudden 180 degree turn.
* Too much time was wasted on explaining the McGuffin - which is a problem George Lucas has in his later films. Whedon's always had this problem - he can't do exposition well. We get long boring monologues and speeches, during which my seat companion felt the need to browse his messages on his iphone - I had to nudge him and say, please don't do that. He stopped. Thank god. Other than that he was a good seat companion - laughed in the right places, and loved the story.
Exposition is admittedly hard to do well. Few directors and writers can pull it off. Chris Nolan is a master. So is Ridley Scott and David Fincher. Whedon unfortunately is not there yet. It was the problem I had with Buffy as well - we had these long boring speeches filled with exposition. The audience went to sleep. Note to Whedon if you have to spend a lot of time explaining your plot - there's a problem with your plot. Action films require simple plots. This one actually had a fairly simple plot, Whedon made it complicated.
Other than that? The story was just plain fun.
* Whedon is great at interpersonal relationships, snarky/snappy dialogue (master at the snappy dialogue filled with pop culture references - no one does snappy dialogue better than Whedon), he also knows how to do dialogue during fight scenes and how to do fight scenes with an ensemble. Michael Bay should take notes. Michael Bay is horrific at this - if you've seen the Tranformers films, you know whereof I speak. Rami is actually fairly decent.
My favorite bits were between Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark and Mark Ruffaulu's self-loathing Hulk. I fell in love with both actors. Although, admittedly, my favorite bits in the comics were Banner and Stark. The two scientists whose experiments turn them into reluctant heroes and potential governmental weapons. Whedon seems to understand both characters on a level many don't, being a pop culture fanatic...he's watched the Bill Bixby TV series The Incredible Hulk and imbued Banner with the self-loathing redemptive compassion that Bixby portrayed so well. The tv series actually worked because of Bixby.
Who you couldn't help but fall in love with. His successors, Ed Norton and Eric Bana lacked that humility, empathy, and compassion...they are almost too cold in their roles.
Mark Ruffaulu on the other hand got it across. Also he has the build that morphs well into the Hulk. Robert Downey Jr, likewise, seems to have been born to play Tony Stark. He understands Stark's demons, much as Ruffaulu appears to understand the Hulk's. There's something to be said for having a qualified, A list actor, play these roles.
And the relationship along with the easy comraderi between these two scientists who speak the same language works.
* Whedon also writes women well. Not everyone does. Chris Nolan struggles with this - its the one weakness that I see in his films. Whedon borrows heavily from his fave's Sam Rami,
Cameron and Scott who all write great women warriors. Black Widow is complex. She's not just a lady in a catsuit. And Cobie Smulders is given a smart role. As is Pepper Potts.
But Natasha...is interesting, smart, tough, and complicated. Who else wants to see a Black Widow film? I'd love to see Black Widow and Hawkman film. (Renner is an odd actor - he's not really physically attractive, yet I'm always compelled by him and fall in love with him on-screen - he pulls you in.) Their relationship was also well drafted, subtle, hinted at. We don't quite know what their feelings are for each other, but we can guess. She hints that she wants to kill Loki for what he did to him.
* The other bit that worked rather well in the Avengers - is Whedon's understanding of what worked in the comic books. In the comics - the heroes don't get along. They don't in the DC verse either, by the way. Not in the more interesting comic books. Stark and Steven Rogers are oil and vinegar. They annoy each other, made worse by the fact that Rodgers knew Stark's father and Stark's father...talked endlessly about him. Thor doesn't get along with either Stark or Rodgers...because he likes to be boss. While Rodgers, Stark quickly realizes, is a natural born leader. The Hulk doesn't get along well with anyone.
And you can't trust the spies - Hawkman and Black Widow - who may or may not be romantically involved.
A super-hero team that doesn't get along...is more interesting and realistic than one that does. Because people in the workplace often don't get along. We fight. Relationships in pulp novels, comic books, genre stories are often exaggerations of real life - operatic
takes. It's safer to see our own personal battles, dilemmas and fears blown up and changed into a superhero battle for the earth. Also humor helps.
* The snappy dialogue makes the action scenes fun and not ponderous. Also, unlike a lot of these types of films, Whedon pauses to worry about the people in jeopardy. We have to save these guys over here. And worry about getting the people out of the bus. Films that do not take the time to worry about this tend to lose the audience. (Transformers? I'm looking at you. Along with half-a-dozen bad Arnie and Sly Stallone action films).
The film is admittedly slow in places in the beginning, due to all the explanation on the device that opens portals in space - which reminded a great deal of Star-Gate, except they did a better job with the exposition on Star-Gate. I did however like the interrogation sequence with Black Widow and Loki...where Loki believes he played her, but she flipped it on him. Loki's lines to Thor, however, brought back memories of Buffy.
That's not a bad thing, necessarily. I clearly love Whedon's dialogue or I wouldn't bother with his movies.
Avenger's benefits a great deal from having a comic book's geek writing it. Someone who loves the genre, and loves the Avengers. Whedon doesn't poke fun at it. Instead he laughs with it...in this film, he throws what he loved most about the comics on screen. So when you see the film, you see the comic book in all its crazy glory. The snappy one-liners during battle, the sentimental patriotism, the outsiders who come together to save the day, all of these tropes are in the comics. Nothing that appeared on screen diverges from the original comics in any way. A truer depiction of the original comics and the authorial intent of their creators...you will be hard-pressed to find.
Why is it so popular? For the same reasons 50 Shades is, or Twilight or Harry Potter... because:
* it asks little more of its audience than to let its hair down, laugh, cry, applaud, and have a blast. It goes for the gut, the emotions, not the intellect - and we all need that. We need the emotional catharsis, that emotional thrill ride - which is safe. It's why people go to amusement parks.
* The ending is a happy one. The heroes succeed and vanquish the evil bad guy.
*And the message that trying to subjucate others, seek vengeance, rule over other people, or put yourself over others is a bad bad idea is reinforced. A good thing.
On the other hand...the idea of Avenging earth's demise, reacting to violence with more violence...is questionable. Thor in a way questions it himself as does Bruce Banner and even Tony Stark and Captain America - all of whom have issues with Sheild's decision to make weapons out of the new alien technology, as opposed to merely using it as a clean energy source. Thor states that the problem with Loki - is Loki doesn't just want to be King, he wants "revenge" - he wants to hurt Thor and everyone Thor ever cared about. And Stark states that he has turned away from producing weapons and doesn't want to be one himself...he's more interested in creating sustainable energy. Violence...none of them are convinced really resolves anything. Black Widow wants to clean her ledger...which she tells her friend and confidant...Hawkman...is coated in blood.
And I think...well there's the problem. Boys and their toys. Fear of emotion. Of anything deeper than guilt, remorse, or vengeance - emotions connected with violence. Love is actually the most powerful thing on the planet. It's why we never see people making love in these movies...because the children can't handle it. If we had a sex scene this film would be rated R for adult content. But watching people be blown apart...that is fine for every age.
To be fair, I think the director/writer gets this. For Tony Stark's final acts are to call Pepper Potts and to sacrifice himself to save the world - out of love for the world. He takes the bomb and pushes it through the portal, at great risk to himself, certain he'll die, and he barely survives the fall back to earth. Those are acts of love. Just as the Hulk's final act is to save Stark. To bounce up and catch him. To see past the violence to save a man who has become his friend. And Thor's attempts to save his brother, Loki, are as well. (Although I love the line exchange:
LOL! Got to love Whedon's sardonic wit or undercut. He undercut's the sentimentality with these wonderful lines.)
A common trope with Whedon is the reluctant hero, the self-serving, snarky, seemingly uncaring lout...who ends up sacrificing himself to save the universe out of love for a woman, for his fellow men and women, for the world...because you know, he happens to like this world, Manchester United, pop culture. And it is a trope that I tend to love as well, for I keep coming back to Whedon's works like a child to a cookie jar or a bee to honey.
And another, as cited above, is the struggle for control. Man against God. Or rather man against his own personal gods or self-created gods, which as Steve Rodgers states aren't God. I give Whedon kudos for that line. Rogers looks at Loki and says, sorry, I believe in God and God doesn't dress like you. Loki and Thor...and even Glorificus in Buffy, who is the female version of Loki...man-made gods. Aliens with super-powers. Who strive to interfere with men and women, as we interfere with the life around us, playing god. Always playing god with forces we cannot begin to understand, and consequences we cannot begin to imagine to do what exactly? Satisfy our own curiousity? Or attempt to become god's ourselves? A question that will be asked again and again and again this summer through a host of action adventure flicks from Dark Knight Rises, Promethesus and Spiderman, and even Brave. To what degree do we want control over our own fate and to what degree do we want control over the fate of others?
Is The Avenger's an empty-headed superhero film like NY Times and Salon.com's critics suggest? I don't think so. Any more than I think the comics truly are. Or Twilight or Harry Potter or Shades of Grey. The more I study pulp...the more I realize...that art like all things is in the eye of the beholder. Sure a story can be better written, better told,
more rightly told - but it doesn't mean the story doesn't have power or meaning if it's not.
Who are we to be the arbitrators of other's tastes or desires? Who are we to judge?
And more importantly why do we want to? What can we learn from pulp fiction? From populist stories...told to the common person, the working man and woman?
I'm asking these questions of myself tonight, more than anyone else. Wondering...perhaps I'm too quick to judge. And wondering why I feel the need to judge at all. Is it a flaw or a gift or both in my makeup?
Anyhow...judging the Avengers solely on what it is, I'd give it a B+, not an A, merely because of the plot gap regarding the Hulk and the lengthy exposition that slowed the film down. Other than that...it was a fun and interesting flick. Definitely worth the price of admission - which for me was $13.50. Definitely preferred it to Cabin in the Woods, but it should be noted that I'm more of a fan of this genre than Cabin's...so that may have had an effect.
So sue me, I enjoyed The Avenger's movie. It wasn't deep but it was a lot of fun. I like pulp. It's fun! And ...It's a lot of fun to see that movie in a packed movie theater with a NYC urban audience. Specifically an audience filled with comic book buffs and fans of the genre. They get the jokes. There were a lot of NYC insider jokes in that film. Even though it's more expensive, I'm glad I saw it in a theater - you sort of need to. Like Hairspray, it's a better film in the theater than it is outside of it. The audience went crazy during the fight scenes, laughed, applauded...was weirdly interactive and very warm and fun. You are in the dark with like-minded souls. I felt safe and warm and included. Happy. Which is why I think The Avengers is making millions of dollars.
Is the film great? No. It has problems. And yes, Whedon is clearly obsessed with the whole free will vs. subjucation or loss of free will bit. I've noticed this as a recurring theme in all of his stories and it does to a degree echo George Lucas' Star Wars, The Matrix, and Cameron's Terminator films...a somewhat cut and dried view of power.
The Avengers' was in some respects a repeat of the same themes addressed in Buffy S8, Cabin in the Woods, and Dollhouse...except with better execution.
And the movie is quite good in places. It's a lot of fun. And to date the best "ensemble" superhero movie that I've seen. Not the best superhero movie. It does owe a lot to Sam Rami's Xenia and Spiderman Flicks in how the action sequences and build up is accomplished. If you've seen Rami's Spiderman flicks - you'll see the similarities. I'm more of a Chris Nolan fan myself, preferring the dark noir opera, but I admit, Rami is more fun as is Whedon.
That said it does have its flaws.
Whedon still struggles with plot. The most glaring examples?
* The Hulk goes from being unable to communicate in his "hulk form", unable to control his anger issues, and his reactions, and hurting anything and everything in his path...an uncontrollable monster to...someone who easily takes orders, saves his friends, and is controllable. With no explanation and no build-up. It took me out of the story and I was jarred by the sudden 180 degree turn.
* Too much time was wasted on explaining the McGuffin - which is a problem George Lucas has in his later films. Whedon's always had this problem - he can't do exposition well. We get long boring monologues and speeches, during which my seat companion felt the need to browse his messages on his iphone - I had to nudge him and say, please don't do that. He stopped. Thank god. Other than that he was a good seat companion - laughed in the right places, and loved the story.
Exposition is admittedly hard to do well. Few directors and writers can pull it off. Chris Nolan is a master. So is Ridley Scott and David Fincher. Whedon unfortunately is not there yet. It was the problem I had with Buffy as well - we had these long boring speeches filled with exposition. The audience went to sleep. Note to Whedon if you have to spend a lot of time explaining your plot - there's a problem with your plot. Action films require simple plots. This one actually had a fairly simple plot, Whedon made it complicated.
Other than that? The story was just plain fun.
* Whedon is great at interpersonal relationships, snarky/snappy dialogue (master at the snappy dialogue filled with pop culture references - no one does snappy dialogue better than Whedon), he also knows how to do dialogue during fight scenes and how to do fight scenes with an ensemble. Michael Bay should take notes. Michael Bay is horrific at this - if you've seen the Tranformers films, you know whereof I speak. Rami is actually fairly decent.
My favorite bits were between Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark and Mark Ruffaulu's self-loathing Hulk. I fell in love with both actors. Although, admittedly, my favorite bits in the comics were Banner and Stark. The two scientists whose experiments turn them into reluctant heroes and potential governmental weapons. Whedon seems to understand both characters on a level many don't, being a pop culture fanatic...he's watched the Bill Bixby TV series The Incredible Hulk and imbued Banner with the self-loathing redemptive compassion that Bixby portrayed so well. The tv series actually worked because of Bixby.
Who you couldn't help but fall in love with. His successors, Ed Norton and Eric Bana lacked that humility, empathy, and compassion...they are almost too cold in their roles.
Mark Ruffaulu on the other hand got it across. Also he has the build that morphs well into the Hulk. Robert Downey Jr, likewise, seems to have been born to play Tony Stark. He understands Stark's demons, much as Ruffaulu appears to understand the Hulk's. There's something to be said for having a qualified, A list actor, play these roles.
And the relationship along with the easy comraderi between these two scientists who speak the same language works.
* Whedon also writes women well. Not everyone does. Chris Nolan struggles with this - its the one weakness that I see in his films. Whedon borrows heavily from his fave's Sam Rami,
Cameron and Scott who all write great women warriors. Black Widow is complex. She's not just a lady in a catsuit. And Cobie Smulders is given a smart role. As is Pepper Potts.
But Natasha...is interesting, smart, tough, and complicated. Who else wants to see a Black Widow film? I'd love to see Black Widow and Hawkman film. (Renner is an odd actor - he's not really physically attractive, yet I'm always compelled by him and fall in love with him on-screen - he pulls you in.) Their relationship was also well drafted, subtle, hinted at. We don't quite know what their feelings are for each other, but we can guess. She hints that she wants to kill Loki for what he did to him.
* The other bit that worked rather well in the Avengers - is Whedon's understanding of what worked in the comic books. In the comics - the heroes don't get along. They don't in the DC verse either, by the way. Not in the more interesting comic books. Stark and Steven Rogers are oil and vinegar. They annoy each other, made worse by the fact that Rodgers knew Stark's father and Stark's father...talked endlessly about him. Thor doesn't get along with either Stark or Rodgers...because he likes to be boss. While Rodgers, Stark quickly realizes, is a natural born leader. The Hulk doesn't get along well with anyone.
And you can't trust the spies - Hawkman and Black Widow - who may or may not be romantically involved.
A super-hero team that doesn't get along...is more interesting and realistic than one that does. Because people in the workplace often don't get along. We fight. Relationships in pulp novels, comic books, genre stories are often exaggerations of real life - operatic
takes. It's safer to see our own personal battles, dilemmas and fears blown up and changed into a superhero battle for the earth. Also humor helps.
* The snappy dialogue makes the action scenes fun and not ponderous. Also, unlike a lot of these types of films, Whedon pauses to worry about the people in jeopardy. We have to save these guys over here. And worry about getting the people out of the bus. Films that do not take the time to worry about this tend to lose the audience. (Transformers? I'm looking at you. Along with half-a-dozen bad Arnie and Sly Stallone action films).
The film is admittedly slow in places in the beginning, due to all the explanation on the device that opens portals in space - which reminded a great deal of Star-Gate, except they did a better job with the exposition on Star-Gate. I did however like the interrogation sequence with Black Widow and Loki...where Loki believes he played her, but she flipped it on him. Loki's lines to Thor, however, brought back memories of Buffy.
Loki to Thor: Will you never stop falling for that?
Angelus to Buffy: You fall for it every time.
That's not a bad thing, necessarily. I clearly love Whedon's dialogue or I wouldn't bother with his movies.
Avenger's benefits a great deal from having a comic book's geek writing it. Someone who loves the genre, and loves the Avengers. Whedon doesn't poke fun at it. Instead he laughs with it...in this film, he throws what he loved most about the comics on screen. So when you see the film, you see the comic book in all its crazy glory. The snappy one-liners during battle, the sentimental patriotism, the outsiders who come together to save the day, all of these tropes are in the comics. Nothing that appeared on screen diverges from the original comics in any way. A truer depiction of the original comics and the authorial intent of their creators...you will be hard-pressed to find.
Why is it so popular? For the same reasons 50 Shades is, or Twilight or Harry Potter... because:
* it asks little more of its audience than to let its hair down, laugh, cry, applaud, and have a blast. It goes for the gut, the emotions, not the intellect - and we all need that. We need the emotional catharsis, that emotional thrill ride - which is safe. It's why people go to amusement parks.
* The ending is a happy one. The heroes succeed and vanquish the evil bad guy.
*And the message that trying to subjucate others, seek vengeance, rule over other people, or put yourself over others is a bad bad idea is reinforced. A good thing.
On the other hand...the idea of Avenging earth's demise, reacting to violence with more violence...is questionable. Thor in a way questions it himself as does Bruce Banner and even Tony Stark and Captain America - all of whom have issues with Sheild's decision to make weapons out of the new alien technology, as opposed to merely using it as a clean energy source. Thor states that the problem with Loki - is Loki doesn't just want to be King, he wants "revenge" - he wants to hurt Thor and everyone Thor ever cared about. And Stark states that he has turned away from producing weapons and doesn't want to be one himself...he's more interested in creating sustainable energy. Violence...none of them are convinced really resolves anything. Black Widow wants to clean her ledger...which she tells her friend and confidant...Hawkman...is coated in blood.
Loki: Don't tell me you love him? Is this what this about?
Tasha: Love is for children. I owe him a debt.
And I think...well there's the problem. Boys and their toys. Fear of emotion. Of anything deeper than guilt, remorse, or vengeance - emotions connected with violence. Love is actually the most powerful thing on the planet. It's why we never see people making love in these movies...because the children can't handle it. If we had a sex scene this film would be rated R for adult content. But watching people be blown apart...that is fine for every age.
To be fair, I think the director/writer gets this. For Tony Stark's final acts are to call Pepper Potts and to sacrifice himself to save the world - out of love for the world. He takes the bomb and pushes it through the portal, at great risk to himself, certain he'll die, and he barely survives the fall back to earth. Those are acts of love. Just as the Hulk's final act is to save Stark. To bounce up and catch him. To see past the violence to save a man who has become his friend. And Thor's attempts to save his brother, Loki, are as well. (Although I love the line exchange:
Thor: Loki is my brother.
Tasha: He killed 8 million people.
Thor: He's adopted.
LOL! Got to love Whedon's sardonic wit or undercut. He undercut's the sentimentality with these wonderful lines.)
A common trope with Whedon is the reluctant hero, the self-serving, snarky, seemingly uncaring lout...who ends up sacrificing himself to save the universe out of love for a woman, for his fellow men and women, for the world...because you know, he happens to like this world, Manchester United, pop culture. And it is a trope that I tend to love as well, for I keep coming back to Whedon's works like a child to a cookie jar or a bee to honey.
And another, as cited above, is the struggle for control. Man against God. Or rather man against his own personal gods or self-created gods, which as Steve Rodgers states aren't God. I give Whedon kudos for that line. Rogers looks at Loki and says, sorry, I believe in God and God doesn't dress like you. Loki and Thor...and even Glorificus in Buffy, who is the female version of Loki...man-made gods. Aliens with super-powers. Who strive to interfere with men and women, as we interfere with the life around us, playing god. Always playing god with forces we cannot begin to understand, and consequences we cannot begin to imagine to do what exactly? Satisfy our own curiousity? Or attempt to become god's ourselves? A question that will be asked again and again and again this summer through a host of action adventure flicks from Dark Knight Rises, Promethesus and Spiderman, and even Brave. To what degree do we want control over our own fate and to what degree do we want control over the fate of others?
Is The Avenger's an empty-headed superhero film like NY Times and Salon.com's critics suggest? I don't think so. Any more than I think the comics truly are. Or Twilight or Harry Potter or Shades of Grey. The more I study pulp...the more I realize...that art like all things is in the eye of the beholder. Sure a story can be better written, better told,
more rightly told - but it doesn't mean the story doesn't have power or meaning if it's not.
Who are we to be the arbitrators of other's tastes or desires? Who are we to judge?
And more importantly why do we want to? What can we learn from pulp fiction? From populist stories...told to the common person, the working man and woman?
I'm asking these questions of myself tonight, more than anyone else. Wondering...perhaps I'm too quick to judge. And wondering why I feel the need to judge at all. Is it a flaw or a gift or both in my makeup?
Anyhow...judging the Avengers solely on what it is, I'd give it a B+, not an A, merely because of the plot gap regarding the Hulk and the lengthy exposition that slowed the film down. Other than that...it was a fun and interesting flick. Definitely worth the price of admission - which for me was $13.50. Definitely preferred it to Cabin in the Woods, but it should be noted that I'm more of a fan of this genre than Cabin's...so that may have had an effect.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-05-20 05:18 am (UTC)I really loved the introduction to Black Widow where we are set up to think she is a damsel in distress, only to learn that she could get out of the situation any time she wanted, but this was her way of getting them to tell her all their secrets (it reminded me of the first scene in the first episode of the first season of Buffy: where we think that Darla in her Catholic school uniform is going to be the victim...LOL).
no subject
Date: 2012-05-20 02:02 pm (UTC)Darla looks like the victim but in reality is the threat.
In addition the intro to Black Widow is great foreshadowing for the later interrogation sequence with Loki. (Which reminded me a little of Buffy's interrogation of Faith in S3 of Angel, where Buffy's in cuffs, and gets Faith to reveal everything.)
ETA: 3D is pointless. I get why they are doing it though - $3 more for 3D and gets the Imax screens. Movies with 3D make more than the ones that don't and bring in audience members who would skip the movie if it weren't in 3D (because they can see it on their 42 inch or 60 inch LED screen at home, via netflix). But...it doesn't really work well, unless you want to pull people into the world and not just throw things at them.
Prometheus will be in 3D - I don't think I can see it in 3D though...
it's horror. Ugh.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-20 03:07 pm (UTC)Hugo and Avatar were examples of using 3D beautifully to add real depth to the story telling (in fact I would argue that that was the only thing Avatar had going for it). And if you see it on iMAX (where the screen is much more brightly lit so the 3D glasses don't make it hard to see) it can be something special.
I'm just really surprised that audiences are willing to pay more for 3D movies where the poorly lit screen makes the action hard to see, and throwing stuff at the screen ends up detracting from the story. It is probably just the novelty aspect.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-20 05:53 pm (UTC)I don't think the Hulk is that big a difference, though I'll have to see the movie again to see it. For me it read quite nicely. Banner assumes that the Hulk is uncontrollable -- so he/it is totally uncontrollable. Stark tells him that it's possible to use "the Other Guy," and to be thankful for him/it. He denies it. But he realizes when he falls from the sky and wakes up having avoided populated areas that the Other Guy isn't so bad -- that he's able to protect innocent people. The big thing that was keeping the Hulk monstrous was Banner's fear of him/it. Which is cheesy, but I love that kind of cheese, I admit. This is a really very hopeful movie. I also love that, in the fight scene, Hulk still smashes Thor away, the moment there are no more bad guys to fight. Ha!
Worth noting too: Hulk is useful in the fight because he primarily is used for smashing -- he has enemies to fight, recognizes them as being a bigger threat, and more angering, than his teammates. And he saves Stark because Stark was the one guy who stood up for him genuinely. (Not entirely selflessly, I might add -- Stark has his own emotional reasons for wanting to see Banner lose his cool. But it's still a real friendship.)
OTOH the exposition is pretty weak, so I agree there.
The professional reviews leave me in a bind. Do they think the movie is empty-headed because they see the themes I see/we see in it, and just think those are uninteresting/banal? Or is it that they don't see them at all?
ETA: Oh, right -- I had forgotten about that line of Steve's about God. I am impressed with that too -- Whedon doesn't leave a trace of irony in the line, and lets his religious character be religious in a heroic way, even if it's not Whedon's belief, and may or may not be the beliefs of the other characters.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-20 06:49 pm (UTC)Oh, they see the themes, they just interpret them slightly differently.
The NY Times critic stated that the over-arcing theme felt very "authoritative" in character, with a government organized and gathered group taking down the enemy. He's not wrong - it was government sponsored. This isn't the X-men. The Avengers was Marvel's answer to The Justice League, and had similar issues, except The Justice League is see as super-powered beings who are above it all...gods, while the Avengers are basically the Dirty Dozen - gathered together to fight the bad-guys.
The problem the detractors had is the story is not smoothly told. It wanders. So - not "rightly" told, from the critics position. Also it
focuses more on the "gee-whiz" action and less on the philosophical questions - hence the empty-headedness.
But Whedon didn't intend to make a deep story with lots of layers.
He was just having fun.
The problem with the Hulk storyline is we were told not really shown, which is a problem with Whedon's storytelling. Although you could say that the story is technically shown in the previous two movies and the Bill Bixby series. I was rather happy that the Hulk didn't do what he usually does in these movies which is become a big teddy bear whenever a girl is involved. This round he become the big teddy bear for Iron Man - LOL!
Oh, right -- I had forgotten about that line of Steve's about God. I am impressed with that too -- Whedon doesn't leave a trace of irony in the line, and lets his religious character be religious in a heroic way, even if it's not Whedon's belief, and may or may not be the beliefs of the other characters.
That was impressive and changed my mind about something...Whedon appears to have a tendency to see God solely as a man-made construct or a personalized extrapolation - God as Zeus or the skybully or in contrast, the neglectful father who doesn't lift a finger and enjoys watching his creations suffer - God as Man. When most people - such as Steve Rogers really don't view God that way or they don't believe in a personalized God or self-serving God. The fact that this line exists in the story...makes me believe that Whedon realizes others view God or the existence of God in a vastly different way than he does. They think differently. And he is striving to understand that.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 10:25 pm (UTC)http://www.maxgladstone.com/2012/05/the-avengers-and-mozart
no subject
Date: 2012-05-24 11:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 02:50 pm (UTC)I didn't notice the exposition, and I'm not sure if that's because I didn't see Thor or Captain America and so I liked the explanation of the Tesseract, or if it's just because this is a comic book movie and I expect them to be a little obvious about their exposition. Comics never seem to spend much time building up their story points, and I suppose I can't fault them as they usually only have 22 pages per month-- and most of those end up being spent on fight scenes. It's why I often enjoy the movies more-- they give us the action as well as the character interactions the comics don't have time for or just don't want to bother with.
But Natasha...is interesting, smart, tough, and complicated. Who else wants to see a Black Widow film? I'd love to see Black Widow and Hawkman film.
I heard they're going to be doing a prequel film for her now? Possibly with Hawkeye? I agree, I definitely want to see that. My friend said that according to comics canon Black Widow is the one that killed Tony Stark's parents, which... is really interesting and I wouldn't mind seeing addressed in her own film.
Actually apparently Marvel is expanding this even more-- I heard that Thor 2 and Iron Man 3 are supposed to be released in 2013? And I'm sure they're already working on Avengers 2 after the success of this one. I wouldn't mind more X-Men films, although my hope would be that they retcon the terrible choices of X3 and go more in the direction of First Class.