There's a plot, yep. And a story. But it's not the plot or story that's responsible for this film being made, it's nothing but names. Face it, this movie started with "you know what will make money? Avengers". What they're doing there is taking every character with his own story and stripping that for an ensemble cast for a gimmick of a movie that has no story of its own. It's a premise, I suppose, but nothing more. I guess I just like to think of a film, being a narrative, beginning with a need for a narrative in the first place. This isn't even like X-Men, since X-Men had always focused on a team aspect and dealt with its own themes deeply enough to warrant substance there. It started with a good idea and became a good story with lots to e xp lore. Avengers started with a bad idea and became a gimmick, nothing more. There's literally nothing added. No benefits, no pros. Only everything meaningful about each character is tossed out the window by their juxtaposition. Fine for a comic which doesn't cost nearly as much as a feature film of this magnitude, and you can just skip that issue and stick with the various ink portrayals you like. But these stupid movies they're making, need to get a reboot just to get their crap straight so they can pervert them in the end again. And then they tell them this:

Iron Man thought "through technology, anything is possible"

Sorry Iron Man, it's much easier to be a Norse god and you get magical toy hammers from Wal-Mart.

Thor thought he was a god.

Sorry Thor, Hulk is stronger and he's a freak of a lab e xp eriment. What's that say about you?

Hulk thought he had a hard enough time juggling Banner and the green monster let alone Bana, Norton, and Ruffalo. Jesus, who's he going to change into next?

I'll say it again. The sole purpose of this movie is a cash-in to appease fans with a hard-on for seeing their beloved characters appear in some jumbled movie together, however many reboots it took to get us here. But the fact is, these aren't their beloved characters, they're just actors being called those names in a very laughable and pathetic charade (read in Picard accent).


Oh. Forgot to mention. At the risk of enraging some, it's also Joss Whedon, who I find to be one of the most overrated abominations alive.

[quote=""Sedhal""]

Sorry Thor, Hulk is stronger and he's a freak of a lab e xp eriment. What's that say about you?
[/quote]

Is he? I always thought Thor was stronger and that the Hulk's strength in a rage is potentially... infinite?

Who knows, who cares... point still stands.

Well, I will agree with you on the Joss Whedon thing.

Here is a pic from the upcoming Batman movie that is sure to send Sed into convulsions:

Pfft. I already saw the Bane pic they leaked, which wasn't some lousy concept art dug up on DA. Totally don't even care about anything related to that character above.

WHOT? sed a latex squise ,is not that bad

I don't how Captain America is going to be movie-wise, but I must say, Hugo Weaving looks great as Red Skull!

I did see Xmen First Class, and I was okay with it, was far from perfect, but I will consider myself satisfied.

I am a bit confused on how they are going to bring the Avengers movie together... being that all the previous movies are taking place "now" while the Captain America movie is taking place in WWII, which is what, pushing 65-70 years ago? How is the same Captain America going to be in this movie, or is he, are they just showing the Captain America program and we will have a "new" Captain America, I know Chris Evans is in the movie, is it a clone, does Captain America live a ridiculously long time, has he been frozen or something?

I am suprised they didn't try to modernize Captain America and Red Skull and making Red Skull the head of a "al-qaeda" type terrorist organization.

[quote=""BladeCollector""] has he been frozen or something?[/quote]

Actually, yes, he has. In Ed Norton's Hulk movie, there was a deleted scene that showed a split-second glimpse of the Captain frozen in the Arctic ice. Not sure why they removed this tie-in, but it may be that decision was made because the nature of his freezing has been altered for the end of the movie coming out.

[quote=""BladeCollector""]I am suprised they didn't try to modernize Captain America and Red Skull and making Red Skull the head of a "al-qaeda" type terrorist organization.[/quote]

This would have been a bad move given the current political climate and anti-american sentiment. The producers know what they are doing.

Setting the movie in WWII accomplishes two things: it stays true to the comics and tells the Cap's correct origin story, and it places it in a temporal context when America was seen as a heroic nation that came to the aid of Europe against the Nazi war machine. This makes it much easier for international audiences to swallow the in-your-face patriotic aspects of Captain America without alienating them and have the movie bomb at the box office, which is what they absolutely do not want.

In fact, international theatres were given the option of an alternate title for the movie which drops the "Captain America" bit. Three countries took this route (Russia being one of them,) and there the movie will just come out as The First Avenger.

Edit: Forgot to add - much of the Captain's patriotic symbolism will be absorbed into the background in the Avengers movie. Being an ensemble super-hero movie, there is less focus on individuals rather than on the team as a whole. As such, it will be easier to accept Captain America in a contemporary setting because there won't be as much time devote onscreen to just him. I also heard his costume is being toned down some from the origin movie coming out in a couple of weeks.

I understand why you wouldn't want a modern terrorist movie Captain America, but I am not used to comic book movie makers getting origin stories correct in the comic book realm!

It just seems that they don't want to set comic book movies in the proper era.

[quote=""BladeCollector""]It just seems that they don't want to set comic book movies in the proper era.[/quote]

Yet you just watched X-Men: First Class, which was set in the proper era (despite them deviating in just about everything to do with X-Men lore in that movie.)

MOST movies... Xmen was pretty good tho, I'll admit, but they do modernize most of them

I'm so glad I've never read any of the comic books these things were based on. I can judge the movies solely on whether I like them or not, and not worry about authenticity.

That said, if they ever make a "Magnus, Robot Fighter" movie, then it will be my time to be critical!

New Conan preview on-line.

http://www.conanthebarbarianin3d.com/

Start ripping.

That's a fair point, but I pride myself in keeping an open mind. Only someone utterly unreasonable could e xp ect them to cram 40+ years of comic book history into one or two two-hour movies. Liberties have to be taken, but some times it is sheer laziness on the writers' part to not make an attempt to be just a tad more faithful.

Not only that, some updates are always needed to make the story relevant. Some things that seemed cool and important back then just won't resonate with the audiences of today.

[quote=""Olorin""]New Conan preview on-line. Start ripping. [/quote]

Oh great... can't wait for Sed to start frothing at the mouth after watching that.

Honestly, I would join him. Pretty visuals, but that's about it. The whole thing just screams style over substance, and I saw a ton of the derivative former, and precious little potential for the latter.

I am pretty forgiving even growing up with the X-Men and being very particular, I know there are licenses that must be taken, like Spider-Man took place, at the time, the present day, etc.... but 2 things I will never forgive....

1. Topher Grace IS NOT Eddie Brock/Venom

2. Phoenix IS NOT a symptom of Jean Grey's "split personality"... Phoenix is a alien entity that took the form of Jean Grey while Jean Grey was in a cocoon in the bottom of the ocean!!!!!

I forgave that they had Iceman being the same age as Rogue, etc.


One thing I wasn't completely clear of, was Xmen First Class supposed to be a prequel to the other three or a new separate series, because in the trilogy, Beast wasn't Beastly yet, but he already is in First Class

[quote=""Valkrist""]style over substance[/quote]



It has no style.

[quote=""Sedhal""]It has no style.[/quote]

Read closely what I said after: derivative style, as in, stolen from just about everything else these days. I could have just as easily been watching the trailer for Clash of the Titans 2. In others words, yeah... what you said.

BC, yes, this was a prequel to the other three movies. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that given the abundance of clues: the same child/Magneto intro, the older Mystique and Wolverine cameos, etc... too many to count.

Also, not sure what you mean about Beast. In X3, Beast (played by Kelsey Grammer) was in his Beast form from beginning to end of the movie. Only his hand reverts to human shape briefly when he approaches Leech.

Let's just put it this way... I didn't see Xmen First Class at the theater... parts weren't very clear, so I missed some of the subtleties.

In X2, during a the prison scene with Magneto, there is a TV playing, and on that TV is a news conference, there is someone speaking and the name on the bottom of the screen, indicating who is speaking says "Dr Hank McCoy" Beast's real name

Yes, they had a cameo for McCoy in X2, though it was a different actor. I can only assume that he was doing the same thing as in the comics, which is to use a personal holo-emitter that makes him appear human to anyone looking. It doesn't exactly jive with how he interacts with others in the third movie, but I think its mainly a continuity slip up. Only other e xp lanation could be found in the comics also: there is a period of time where he reverts to looking human, then goes back to being Beast later on.

Here are some other movies I've seen lately. I thought Super 8 was a pretty big disappointment. It wasn't terrible or anything, but I just thought there was going to be so much more to it. And today I saw Captain America. I'm not a big superhero movie fan but the previews looked good so I went. I thought it was pretty entertaining. Not tremendous, but then again I didn't think any of the Spiderman movies were tremendous either, but their enormous box office says that a lot of people thought otherwise.

Finally saw Thor...entertaining but not quite worth the 4 stars (out of 5) that most reviewers gave it. I'd give a 3 or maybe 3.5.

(Armour and weapons rating: so-so...certainly nothing I would spend money on , not with pre-ruined Orthanc soon to be available for pre-order)

Anxiously awaiting "Cowboys and Aliens" release at the end of July.

I'm planning on seeing Cowboys & Aliens also. I don't really have any e xp ectations that it will be good (and I've been underwhelmed by the trailers) but Daniel Craig is in it and I have yet to see a movie with him in it that was bad. Scratch that, I saw Quantum of Solace; I keep forgetting that (mercifully).

I thought Captain America was well done myself when I saw it opening night.

[quote=""RevAnakin""]I thought Captain America was well done myself when I saw it opening night.[/quote]


It was truly horrible.

Given your natural revulsion to the very concept, I'm surprised you even watched it. Did you really watch it, or are you just saying that as if you did? Did one of your friends con you into it? Doesn't sound like your style.

Anyway, by comparison at least, Cap has gotten very good reviews (yes, I know... opinion of the masses) but Conan (another big 'favourite' of yours) is getting truly horrid reviews. Whatever curiosity I may have had about watching that remake has been thoroughly and certifiably quashed.

Yes, I actually saw it. Friends wanted to go, so I said whelp okay, let's go. I knew it would be revolting, but it actually surprised me just how awful it was. I mean TOTAL crap. Laughable, hilarious crap.

And yet, Conan is worse.

Sed, you have such intriguing opinions about everything. I would like to know your top 5 favorite movies from some type of different categories please?

Is that an order? lol

Not that I categorize a whole lot, but in no particular order some of my favorites (top 5 is silly for anyone who watches a lot) include:

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Heat
Last of the Mohicans
The Thin Red Line
Highlander
The Fall
The Fountain
Unforgiven
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Thief
Manhunter
Black Rain
Blade Runner
Gladiator
Black Hawk Down
Conan the Barbarian '82 (Jesus, why do I need to put that now)
The Road
The Proposition
Collateral
The New World
Harsh Times
Gangs of NY
No Country
The White Buffalo
The Edge
Spartan
Tears of the Sun
Revenge
The Missing
The Dark Knight
Batman Begins
Inception
The Shadow
Lord of the Rings
The Wild Bunch
Tombstone
Appaloosa
Eastern Promises
28 Weeks Later
Sunshine
American Psycho
The Machinist



And the list goes on. I'll be kicking myself in 5 seconds for missing a few, but I'll call it quits here.

Well, thank you, and that was not in anyway an order. I was curious. At least we all know that Batman Begins and Dark Knight have saved you from hating ALL super hero movies! lol Nonetheless, judging by a few of those movies, Chris Nolan Fan? I agree with a lot of those films. I am glad to see you like more than you put off online.

No problem.

I like a lot. It's the reason I hate so very much. I also like the first two X-Men (especially the first), Spiderman (or I used to, but they've worn out on me), and parts of Iron-Man, save the retarded SHIELD/Avengers perversions.

And don't forget the Shadow.

So, you are kind of like me and only like that Robert D.J. has Tony's arrogance down and everything else in those movies is pretty much fluff?

Actually, I think RDJ -- as much as I like him -- makes a bit of a mockery of the role at times. He shows no 3rd dimension, no depth, no change, or growth. You think he'll change fifty times between both movies but he reverts back to wisecracking Stark four seconds later.

Had they gone with one of their initial choices, I think Timothy Olyphant would have made the best Tony Stark, both physically and personality-wise. Everything about him just oozes Stark potential. It's a real shame they missed that golden opportunity for a guy who was merely popular and loud.

What really makes the movies are the villains, actually. Jeff Bridges and especially Mickey Rourke have been the best parts of their respective flicks, and unfortunately the latter was tossed aside without much thought (hey kind of like Nero from the terrible abomination that is Star Trek '09) for more screentime for SHIELD for the Avengers push. This is the sound of no hands clapping. -_-

I agree that there is no real change in TS, but with that in mind, isn't it possible that that is direction? The only reason why I am saying this is because I was watching a behind the scenes thing with Hayden C. on ROTS and he said one of those corny lines and actually made it sound pretty decent, THEN freaking GL came over and was like, "No, no, no, more dramatic, with a pause, and then a lower." And that was the crap that was put in the movie. Given how good RDJ is in many other films with diversity, maybe it is the direction with an invisible hand from Marvel saying "The public liked it, keep it the same." ???

I'm by no means blaming RDJ. It's actually least his fault, if you ask me. It's the writing, to be honest. It's like he is written in one scene to have a very impactful turning point, and then the next page he's back to the same old Stark.

I think the problem is most of these people don't know that there's a difference between consistency and shallowness. For example, Bale's Bruce Wayne is written to grow and change but still remain the same character. People themselves do it all the time. No real person stays the same throughout their life. Add to that the comic mentality that is mucking up these FILM adaptations, and it's further impression that characters need to stay constant and have no arc. And the most hilarious thing is their reasoning might be along the lines of "but he's always like that in the comics!" -- that's because comics go on forever. Hence: comics. Movies should be adapting these stories into definitive and compact narratives, otherwise what's the point. And as such, they need to have beginnings, middles, and endings, and have characters that react to and reflect this.

[quote=""Sedhal""] Movies should be adapting these stories into definitive and compact narratives, otherwise what's the point. And as such, they need to have beginnings, middles, and endings, and have characters that react to and reflect this.[/quote]

Here here, brother! That's the biggest problem with most of the superhero movies lately, which is why I haven't even bothered paying to see half of them since the first Iron Man.

I completely agree Sed, writing is honestly the only thing that hasn't come along with Superhero flicks. Graphics and acting ability are there, these writers just need to get a grip.

The problem is, everyone--filmmakers included--keep thinking about the material as a superhero/comic flick. That right there, you might as well throw the project out the window. You're already severely limiting the potential of your adaptation.

You are totally right, Comic book movies should actually be the best movies on the market because half of production is already done for these makers. Think, a comic book is just a perfect storyboard. So they already had the storyboard handed to them, so you think they would focus on all the other aspects like improve character grown ect.

Well I don't know about that exactly, as I think most comics severely need some changes. But again, we simply need to drop this categorization of "COMIC BOOK" movie. Think about this.

People compare the Dark Knight with Fantastic Four, for example, in that both are "comic book movies". But has anyone besides me actually stopped for two seconds and thought "*** does that mean?"

We're comparing mediums, not genres. Since WHEN do we categorize by medium? That would be like comparing Eat, Pray, Love and Silence of the Lambs because they're both based on novels. "Hey, which is the better novel movie!" Process that for a bit...

And it's worse than categorization by medium. Because guess what: The Dark Knight is not even a comic book. It's a film. So we're not only mismatching films, but we're comparing them on a basis that holds no weight whatsoever, in considering the key term "comic" is completely removed from the equation. When something is adapted from a comic, it's not a comic movie... it's a movie in whatever genre the story falls under, regardless of origin.

Like the Dark Knight is somehow not a serious movie, where it needs to be called "the godfather of comic films"?? What about the Godfather of vigilante action/thriller/crime dramas? Why even categorize at all? Appreciate it for being a good film.

Nolan set out to make a good film about Batman, not a superhero film, nor a comic book film. He knew how to look at it, and that's why it surpassed that box.

It's just another narrow-minded way for people to simplify their world and pass judgment without proper consideration.

I do agree that people are small minded and need to categorize things, hence why there are social clicks, hence why people have to name "God", hence why we even have names for ourselves. Why can't we just be appreciated as people?

I agree, Dark Knight is more Drama where FF is a comedy and we know that most comedies suck.

I watched Thor tonight, got it on Netflix, which is surprising since it was only released last week on video.

Anyway, I really enjoyed it. I'm not going to give a full on review here, I am sure most people have already seen it or are going to see it if they want. But overall I was pretty impressed by it. Maybe its because I have started going in viewing comic book movies with the lowest of low e xp ectations, though I am forgiving on a lot of things.

Growing up as a Marvel Fan, I didnt keep up quite as much with Thor/Iron Man/Avengers as I did, say for X-Men and Spider-Man, so I am usually pretty critical about the latter two series.

I gave it a 4 out of 5 on my Netflix ratings, which means 'I Really Liked It"

Oh course, Sed will disagree , but I personally liked Thor more than any other Marvel Film the last few years. I feel as if stupid Shield played its small role and finally got its butt kicked by the God of Thunder, without taking over the entire movie. The first third is really Thor dealing with Shield, but you always have Loki in the back of the mind. I saw it 3D IMAX and that was surely a treat.

Not to mention Thor himself is my new weight loss and workout goal!

Wow, that is quite a goal. I am going for at least a Tony Stark, then maybe Bruce Wayne, and then Thor after that lol

Saw Drive last night. Issues here and there, but it was great. I loved it. Totally refreshing to see someone understand the potential of an opening credit sequence. Overall, very much reminded me of Michael Mann's Thief (1981), one of my all-time favorites. Props!

Sed approves! Better to me than rotten tomatoes, gotta see it now.

How do you think the acting was compared to the action?

You know how some movies are great one or the other, but lack.

Well, seeing as how it's not an action movie, the acting was phenomenal and Gosling deserves an oscar. But the action itself was what it needed to be: serving the story honestly and humbly, not the other way around.

I've seen the previews for Drive, and it looks pretty good, but with the rate I actually go see movies at the theater, I am sure I will be seeing this one on a netflix rental.