Discussion in 'Community' started by JoinTheSchwarz, May 20, 2010.
Hawkeye got a cameo in THOR. That's all.
I would argue Hulk was one of the strongest movies, and that CA:TFA and Thor were the weakest.
Interesting details in the lego descriptions.
Like that Loki might drive a SHIELD off-road 4x4 in the movie?
Well one, it is kind of a joke about Hulk being strong.
In Thor, when Thor is first trying to break in to get his hammer, Coleson calls for Agent Bartlet, who is Hawkeye.
Movie opinions: Really, if you care (most people think I'm nuts)
I enjoyed Hulk greatly--they finally got everything right with it. After the horrible Ang Lee movie, the Ed Norton movie just nailed what Hulk could be, and got a lot of the trademark Hulk attacks right. It just was. The only problem with it was that it came out the same year as the first Iron Man and got totally overshadowed by it.
Thor was just a mess. "Not magic: just way more advanced Science." Um, so why do they ride HORSES across the bridge. WTF that unicron eye-blaster bridge ball? Shouldn't Baldar have been guarding the BiFrost bridge? The whole science thing made no sense. The scene in the beginning with the truck in the middle of the desert doing research was totally out of place. Movie should have started with Odin's exposition, all the build up to Thor being exiled, cut to the researchers in the desert, and gone from there. Oh, and overnight, Thor learns everything about humility and modern social customs. No. Totally unmotivated. Way overdone with the petty spoiled brat angle. And the science aspect of the movie never comes up again. It was just a way to pacify the mid-western christians into not being offended by a movie about "an evil pagan diety," when Thor is not Evil of Pagan. Oh, he's just an extradimesional scientist. Yuck.
Iron Man 2 the letdown. Really, it was played way too much for comic relief, and not enough of what made the first one work so well. And the fight scene with Black Widow in the all-white hallways is actually painful for me to watch because of the "style" of filming--all white with the black blurry object that seems out of focus. I just can't watch it. The rival arms merchant just can't be taken seriously by any of the characters, so how can we? He just isn't even in the same class, so they play him as comedy, and it is superfluous.
Captain America: Well, they got the mood right. All the propaganda, the training, the imagery, was spot on. But it went on way too long. It was all build up, and then short-change on the action. They introduced the rest of the howling commandos, but didn't do anything with them. They didn't really show them kicking butt & not taking names. Did they even name the characters? And the Red Skull & Baron Zemo: who are they? If you didn't know from reading the comics, you wouldn't know who they were or why what they were doing was important. Same with all of the Nazis and Hydra. Why are they important? Don't know. It isn't in the movie. Again, it feels rushed and short changed, almost exactly the way The Rocketteer did. There was a lot of build up, and a disappointing lack of payoff.
Compare to the Avengers Assemble cartoon, which introduces the characters, has them spot on right from the start, and gets the job done in a single 1/2 hour episode. And all the while the overall story arcs continue to build and develope. To me, the cartoon is bordering on perfect (except that now that Disney owns Marvel, all the other companies have had their Marvel-based cartoons cancelled), while the movies haven't lived up to the potential.
While that design does appear Skrull-like, it also appears very "Alpha Centaurian", as well. If you look up your Marvel history for Alpha Centaurians, the color scheme matches the antagonists in the Super Bowl Spot quite convincingly.
And, as far as the post above me... while I admire most attempts at film snobbery, the commendable knowledge of the existence of Heinrich Zemo is sorta flat in contrast to his not actually appearing in the film.
Strange Double Posting
I'm pretty sure its a demon army summoned from Limbo.
I thought I was the only one!
The problem with the other movies is that they're all basically the same movie with different names/powers. By-the-book Campbell stuff, stupidly assuming that because most people aren't familiar with these characters we have to follow them step-by-step from their beginnings to their superhero status quo. Indiana Jones is basically a superhero (double life and everything); funny how we didn't need to visit his beginnings until movie 3.
What Leterrier, Norton & co. so marvelously understood is that what makes these characters interesting isn't how they got their powers, but what they do now that they've got them. We learn everything we need to know about where the Hulk came from in a two-minute credits montage.
It's also a whole movie, with a beginning, middle, and end. There's a ton of material left room to explore in sequels, but TIH is a satisfying narrative all by itself. I can't say the same about any of the other four movies - IM, IM2, Thor, and Cap all leave me oodles more interested in what comes next, with minimal interest in revisiting what I've just seen.
The Incredible Hulk is the sort of movie that comes from thinking, "What story can we ONLY tell with this character?" The other movies come from thinking, "How do we plug this character into the 'origin movie' formula?"
From a financial standpoint, I understand why they do this. If they can make a formulaic origin succeed based almost entirely on the charisma of its lead, then it becomes a walk in the park to make a superior sequel by telling a story that really plays to the character's strengths and lets us see him in action right off the bat. You can see this in action in the Spider-Man and X-Men franchises. Today, people are more frank about the films' flaws, but both second installments came out to wild praise because of how much they improved on their predecessors. Because instead of just telling a story about who these characters are, they told a story about what they DO.
IM2 kind of dropped the ball on that, though, by deviating into Avengers-Land. It sort-of gave us an "Iron Man in his element" movie, but it was bogged down by a second origin story - worse yet, one that didn't even finish by the end of the film.
Fortunately, most of the fun with Avengers (IMO, at least) IS "What's it like when these guys all get thrown together?"
I just hope there's not TOO much dwelling on the predictable not-getting-along-until-we-realize-we-work-better-as-a-team stuff.
I think that the Hulk is not a character that needs his origin told, his origin has nothing to do with what he does. Captain America doesn't need his origin told either. Thor needs some reason to explain why he hangs out on Earth, so having his first movie be an origin story makes sense.
However, Iron Man's origin is crucial to the character, just like Spider-Man. There is a reason the comics for Spider-Man and Iron Man so frequently flash back and retell the origin stories.
Sorry, I meant the guy they made a scrawny little wuss (or The Red Skull's Bitch), instead of the powerful character he was supposed to be.
Again, I would really like to see a good Avengers movie. But based on the last few, I am very concerned that this is not going to happen.
The other thing TIH did was to combine both the military vs Hulk of the comics with "The Fugitive" Hulk of the TV show, without insulting either one, or the audience.
I agree about TIH being one of the strongest Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, second only to Iron Man, perhaps.
Really enjoying all the TIH love in here (first Blu Ray I ever bought). I actually prefer it to Iron Man - not least of all because the last act is actually connected to the rest of the film, with a villain who BELIEVABLY descends into "Mwahaha"-dom. Iron Man has no re-watch value for me; once is enough for Tony's origin story, and once is too much for that Iron Monger fight. Maybe if they released a special edition that was just the scenes with Pepper and the robots...Whereas I can watch TIH over and over.
I just think these movies are putting the cart before the horse. We should be interested in the origins because we care about the character. If you need to know all about character's back story to be interested in who they are in the present, then your present character isn't good enough.
But if you don't tell the origin in the present action of the story, that means you actually have to come up with something more creative than "After he becomes a superhero, the villain (with connections to the hero's origin, either tangential or immediate) appears and they fight until the hero wins. The end," for the main story of your film.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if that last sentence was the entire script for the last half of Iron Man, minus the appended, "just sit back and let Downey and Bridges do their thing".
LEGO Iron Man looks like a bobblehead.
Nope. Hulk is actually still my favorite, but I'm slightly biased, as the Hulk was my favorite growing up as a kid in the 70's.
It still pains me that Norton is not in this movie.
THE INCREDIBLE HULK is criminally underrated. It got everything right where most of its contemporaries only got *most* or some right.
EDIT: I will say that the film would have been *that* much greater had they not removed the deleted, original intro with the suicide attempt in the arctic. It would bookend the film nicely between that struggle and his relative peace/acceptance in a similiar environment at the end of the film.
Arnim Zola. Otherwise known as the guy with a TV screen on his stomach for a face.
The one thing I think they messed up in The Incredible Hulk is not having him speak.
They could only get 30 minutes with Lou Ferrigno in the sound studio?
Also thinking that Lou Ferrigno has a good voice for the Hulk.
This. I was too young so never watched the old Hulk TV show and don't really get why people keep insisting that he take part in these new movies. We don't need Adam West in the new Batman movies do we?
Actually, from what I remember both Nolan and Burton toyed with the idea of an Adam West cameo in their respective films. And West DID guest star on the 90s cartoon.