So I am watching the avengers movie

[Thanas]

...and this movie is pretty much bad. I mean, 35 minutes in and so far all they have done is assemble the team and shown off some superficial crap like a flying aircraft carrier?

Great production value but the dialogue is bad, the plot so far is worse and the pacing just seems off.

[Darth Nostril]

You are dead to me.

[Thanas]

Okay, the he's my brother - he's adopted dialogue was pretty funny.

But over one hour now and just talk talk talk.

[Gandalf]

It's a Whedon film.

Dialogue is pretty much what he does.

[Thanas]

There is dialogue and then there is just droning on.

I mean, is it really that necessary to do the character exposition one hour in?

[Thanas]

I am done. The movie was largely boring except for the last hour or so. But the enemy never feeled threatening and Loki behaved so stupid I am now wondering if he wanted to lose.

[Napoleon the Clown]

So I'm not crazy for thinking Joss Whedon gets a bit more praise than he deserves? He's done some good, entertaining stuff before but he doesn't have King Midas' bowels.

[Thanas]

IMO if the cast could have been trimmed down to half it would have made a much better movie. There was no reason for the hulk, Captain America, that archer guy and the Russian spy to even be in the movie. Likewise, Iron Man could have been cut as well had the movie focused more on the struggle between Thor and Loki. As it is though, Tony Stark overshadows all of the rest.

[Block]

IMO if the cast could have been trimmed down to half it would have made a much better movie. There was no reason for the hulk, Captain America, that archer guy and the Russian spy to even be in the movie. Likewise, Iron Man could have been cut as well had the movie focused more on the struggle between Thor and Loki.

They've made that movie already.

[Thanas]

So?

[Havok]

IMO if the cast could have been trimmed down to half it would have made a much better movie. There was no reason for the hulk, Captain America, that archer guy and the Russian spy to even be in the movie. Likewise, Iron Man could have been cut as well had the movie focused more on the struggle between Thor and Loki. As it is though, Tony Stark overshadows all of the rest.

Yeah, let's make the Avengers without 5 of the 6 Avengers. That's a great idea!

[Havok]

So?

So you would rather Whedon just make Thor movies? German guy only cares about the blonde Aryan god. News at 11.

[Havok]

So I'm not crazy for thinking Joss Whedon gets a bit more praise than he deserves? He's done some good, entertaining stuff before but he doesn't have King Midas' bowels.

He's like the comic book/nerd version of Tarantino. He's great at dialogue, but he goes overboard. He gets a pass though, because when he is on, he is really on.

[Thanas]

Yeah, let's make the Avengers without 5 of the 6 Avengers. That's a great idea!

Well, I know Whedon can write ensemble casts just fine, but this one just feels off. They don't have much to do except beat up on the extremely weak villains.

So?

So you would rather Whedon just make Thor movies? German guy only cares about the blonde Aryan god. News at 11.

Nah, better to just have Stark go up against Loki but he'd probably lose.

[Alkaloid]

I am done. The movie was largely boring except for the last hour or so. But the enemy never feeled threatening and Loki behaved so stupid I am now wondering if he wanted to lose.

I always thought that was kind of the point. Loki was ultimately pretty pathetic and each of heros had their own individual victories over him.

[Simon_Jester]

I got a sense that part of the point of the movie was that the Avengers collectively had little trouble overpowering a threat that would have severely tested any one of them individually. This movie was consciously one in a series, and I think it was designed to set up the Avengers to confront more serious, powerful opposition later.

Also, we observe that while each of the heroes individually scored victories over Loki, Loki also scored victories over all the (non-'big gun') heroes.

Black Widow manipulated Loki into revealing part of his plan, but was in turn maneuvered into fixating on that part of the plan. She (and by extension SHIELD) were not prepared when Loki enacted the other half of his plan, the commando assault on the helicarrier.

Captain America got to stand up to Loki and have an individual moment of triumph... but at the same time, Loki was beating Cap in a fistfight and would almost certainly have been able to kill him had Iron Man not intervened.

Hawkeye, well... he spent about two thirds of the movie as Loki's mind-controlled slave. Enough said.

The more superhuman protagonists each got moments of triumph against Loki, but all of them were very seriously threatened. Hulk and Thor were outwitted and outmaneuvered systematically, Hulk being literally used as a pawn as part of Loki's plans. Iron Man was threatened physically in a very serious way and narrowly escaped with his life by using his technology.

So granted the antagonist was one that somebody like Thor or Iron Man could conceivably have beaten alone... and yet who had enough layers of backup plans and strategies that he might very well have won against any individual one of them.

That doesn't mean the movie sucks for saying "A bunch of heroes working together are vastly stronger than one hero working alone."

[Thanas]

It does however mean that when you have an ensemble cast, you better not have the vast majority of your actors playing roles that are not integral to the main plot. I mean, you can cut the hulk, and the central plot loses nothing. You can cut the Russian girl and the archer and the plot loses nothing. You can do the same with Captain America, who did the least of any of the guys.

So you are left with Thor and Iron Man, both who can carry the movie.

In good stories you cannot have two thirds of your cast do nothing.

[Vendetta]

Yeah, let's make the Avengers without 5 of the 6 Avengers. That's a great idea!

Well they kind of did.

Hawkeye's role in the movie is "get brainwashed and evil", which doesn't actually give him much of a character. (Jeremy Renner has actually complained about how much not a character his character was), and there was nothing that Black Widow did that, say, Nick Fury couldn't have done.

Other than that, Cap, Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye basically make up numbers in action scenes.

[Elheru Aran]

I think it's fairly clear that Hulk gave them an edge they didn't have previously to his arrival on the scene. Without him to inflict mass damage upon the alien forces, they'd have a lot more going against them. Do remember that until Iron Man pulled their asses out of the fire by redirecting the nuke, they were kind of outnumbered and losing...

[Themightytom]

Edit: Really? The youtube embed works if I take out the "S" in https???

This pretty much sums it up for me. The purpose of the movie was literally to see all the individual heroes working together. I think dialogue was necessary to blend styles, and introduce fans of one character to the others. it was over done though, and the characters didn't all pull equal weight in every area. Thor was practically useless in finding the Tesseract which turned out to be pretty important. Iron Man was very helpful all around but was such a primadonna he nearly pulled the team apart, shield did a reasonable job of assembling and coordinating everyone, with Black Wido and Fury's help. I don't agree that Nick Fury was particularly a good replacement for her in dealing with either Hawkeye or Loki. Banner was surprisingly useful both as Banner AND Hulk, because the group dynamics actually permitted him to be both. The hulk would have taken over much earlier in the movie making the outcome questionable.

Thor or Iron Man might have thwarted part of Loki's plan but he was way too reinforced for either to have done more than cause a set back, and you still had the chitari waiting in the wings. Brainwashed Selvig would probably still have finished his portal before anyone ever caught him and stopped him.

Captain America's value was a little debatable for me though, I can't really see him as having done more than manage Stark's ego, and boost Banner's self esteem a little. Especially with Thor who went from trying to pulp him with the hammer to... "Oh well alright we're done" Captain America's contribution seemed more contrived than most.

[Ralin]

Captain America's value was a little debatable for me though, I can't really see him as having done more than manage Stark's ego, and boost Banner's self esteem a little. Especially with Thor who went from trying to pulp him with the hammer to... "Oh well alright we're done" Captain America's contribution seemed more contrived than most.

Reliability comes to mind. Cap can be counted on to follow most orders and put America/the public's interests first. And SHIELD knew they had him available, unlike Banner or Thor. Or at least that makes sense from an in-character standpoint.

[Iroscato]

Not to mention he basically took charge of the team and devised the main strategy in containing the attack, and led the police officers in evacuating the city - plus he was obviously very adept at kicking the shit out of the Chitauri in his own right, maybe not as good as Thor or Hulk but still highly capable.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Yeah, he did do the tactician thing.

Bruce was good for Tony to have around. And Tony was good for Bruce, too. Bruce could keep up with Tony's ideas, and Tony could get under Bruce's skin in a way that helped him be a little less withdrawn.


Far as Loki's less than brilliant planning goes, he DID sort of fall through some hellish dimension or another. Not exactly good on one's sanity, and Loki's an arrogant one in the best of circumstances.

[JLTucker]

But the enemy never feeled threatening and Loki behaved so stupid I am now wondering if he wanted to lose.

BOW TO YOUR MASTER! A+ movie!

[Sea Skimmer]

It does however mean that when you have an ensemble cast, you better not have the vast majority of your actors playing roles that are not integral to the main plot. I mean, you can cut the hulk, and the central plot loses nothing. You can cut the Russian girl and the archer and the plot loses nothing. You can do the same with Captain America, who did the least of any of the guys.

So you are left with Thor and Iron Man, both who can carry the movie.

In good stories you cannot have two thirds of your cast do nothing.

Oh but they rescued some random hostages, because the evil alien invaders are taking people prisoner instead of murdering them out of hand, even while they aren't even clearly winning the fight outside. How evil are these guys really?

You could really just cut all the superheros considering that the end invasion could clearly be repelled by conventional military forces, even if it decided to come a thousand times stronger. We should have kept that portal the hell open to invade the other side. I thought the movie was terrible. Massive waste of time. I love the nuke bit though.. the enemy has partly taken over the streets and airspace of a several city block radius! Police and national guard are apparently already present and fighting them with some effect. Use a nuke.. right. A bow and arrow is working.

They would have had a better movie if they just had it be about the Avengers killing off the shadow council of vagueness ordering NYC nuked, but I guess we have to save that for another movie or five.

Really you could tell at the end the RAR AMERICAN 911 HEROS meme we've been getting in a few movies hit hard. I fear it will also made the new Godzilla movie utter shit, though at least it could find a more appropriate niche in that context.