The Avengers (2012) *spoilers from post 1181*

Handsome Bob

Pter wrote: »

Agreed - if you have hugely powerful characters grounded in reality (cough Superman cough), and they dont have anyone to hit (hard), then whats the bloody point. That has always been the one thing that has been lacking in the Superman movies - someone to actually put it up to Superman.

Bang on the money there, best example one could give.

Baggly

Ill add that i mean that in the modern age of movies. I dont think the effects were available to make Superman 2 epic by todays standards.

If you did Superman 2 with Avengers SFX, direction and such; you will have a hell of a movie (which is hopefully what will happen next year).

hightower1

Pter wrote: »

Ill add that i mean that in the modern age of movies. I dont think the effects were available to make Superman 2 epic by todays standards.

If you did Superman 2 with Avengers SFX, direction and such; you will have a hell of a movie (which is hopefully what will happen next year).

My thoughts exactly, superman returns failed cause the appeal of superman was watching a tiny man fight huge and hugely powerful foes but in returns he what....lifted a large bit of land? Meh, the plane chase scene was great cuase it showed off superman at his best - taking on something massive. Maybe with Zod in the new version we'll get a good old brawl. As of right now the best superman action scenes are in the animated movies.

Galvasean

'78 Avengers TV movie. They fight KISS

allanb49

I still want KISS Save Santa

krudler

hightower1 wrote: »

My thoughts exactly, superman returns failed cause the appeal of superman was watching a tiny man fight huge and hugely powerful foes but in returns he what....lifted a large bit of land? Meh, the plane chase scene was great cuase it showed off superman at his best - taking on something massive. Maybe with Zod in the new version we'll get a good old brawl. As of right now the best superman action scenes are in the animated movies.

Superman Returns had a sh1te villain, ohhh, Lex Luthor wants LAND! only Superman can defeat an evil property developer. hopefully the new movie gives Supes a more interesting villain than a crafty real estate scammer. the problem with Superman is while the character has a fantastic origin story and mythology, unless he's fighting something that can hurt him back its kinda pointless, thats why Superman 2 was awesome, he's actually in peril.

Penn

krudler wrote: »

thats why Superman 2 was awesome, he's actually in peril.

Superman can never truly be in peril so long as he has his trusty magic plastic S logo which he can throw at people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiN0Lwvi7CA

With his magic plastic S logo, he can minorly inconvenience his foes

krudler

^ yeah genuine WTF with that, even as a kid I hated that scene, love when he crushes Zod's hand though. is Michael Shannon playing Zod in the new one? he's amazing in Boardwalk Empire so will be cool to see what he does with the role

Penn

krudler wrote: »

^ yeah genuine WTF with that, even as a kid I hated that scene

I just never understood why he used that thing, even as a kid. Why didn't he just blow him? (Quit giggling. You know what I mean!)

mikhail

krudler wrote: »

Superman Returns had a sh1te villain, ohhh, Lex Luthor wants LAND! only Superman can defeat an evil property developer. hopefully the new movie gives Supes a more interesting villain than a crafty real estate scammer. the problem with Superman is while the character has a fantastic origin story and mythology, unless he's fighting something that can hurt him back its kinda pointless, thats why Superman 2 was awesome, he's actually in peril.

Luthor could be one of cinema's great villains if they only thought to make something of him thematically. He's a brilliant human man who irrationally fears the alien, but who rationally fears the ultimate consequences of having an invinciple superman inflict his morality on the world. Next to him, most of the Superman stable of villains amount to large punching bags of varying degrees of toughness. It'll be nice to have a change of pace, but the real shame is that no one's yet made a Superman movie where Luthor wasn't just a one-dimensional greedy antagonist with some kryptonite.

Thoms Yorkie Bars

If The Avengers were 10 times manlier

johnny_ultimate

Tickets booked in glorious 2D.

I thought this 3D fad was over Serious lack of screens showing it the way it should be seen.

Bullseye1

Thursday night tickets booked for Thursday. Unfortunately only 3D available.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Tickets booked in glorious 2D.

I thought this 3D fad was over Serious lack of screens showing it the way it should be seen.

2D showing for me on Thursday as well. the hell with this 3D malarkey

Ape X

Howdy lads and lassies.

For those of you who've seen the advance screenings, was it in 2D or 3D? And if it was the latter, did it add to the experience?

Generally, I try to avoid watching movies in 3D as it just seems tacky and gimmicky, and I'll only go to see the 3D version if the movie genuinely benefits from it (Avatar, How to Train Your Dragon etc), so would be nice to know if it works well in this.

And this has probably been mentioned already (sorry, didn't read the whole thread), but Cineworld are giving out Avenger styled 3D glasses. Choose from Ironman, Thor, Cap or my own preference, Hulk :pac:

Zero-Cool

For the advanced screening, it was in 2d, the 3d version hadn't even been finished. Whedon said he's not big into 3D but the film was finished and then converted into 3d so there scenes weren't filmed gimmicky like thors hammer coming straight at you, but it's an action film so you'll stil see coming at the screen.

speedboatchase

The screening I saw on Monday night was in 3D and while it wasn't spectacular, it did add to my enjoyment. Unless you're dead set against 3D, I'd give it a go

kronsington

I need to see this. Now. I have managed to avoid all the tv spots but the marketing bonanza really is overkill. Just give me the movie. I need to see it so much I am doing something I rarely do; going to the cinema alone. I'd rather watch this alone or with like minded people who like these kind of movies rather than most of my mates who turn their noses up at superhero flicks

johnny_ultimate

sheehy83 wrote: »

For the advanced screening, it was in 2d, the 3d version hadn't even been finished. Whedon said he's not big into 3D but the film was finished and then converted into 3d so there scenes weren't filmed gimmicky like thors hammer coming straight at you, but it's an action film so you'll stil see coming at the screen.

Remember: if you go to a 2D screening, not only are you watching the film as the director intended, but you're also making a very clear and admirable stance against an aesthetic menace that is threatening the cinematic form. A menace that has, arguably, only ever benefited one film, and that film wasn't really very good in the first place.

Also: everyone looks silly in 3D glasses.

Zero-Cool

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Also: everyone looks silly in 3D glasses.

How can you not look cool in a pair of Avengers 3d glasses!

johnny_ultimate

sheehy83 wrote: »

How can you not look cool in a pair of Avengers 3d glasses!

Point proven.

krudler

krudler wrote: »

I thought Thor was the best of the buildup movies so far. I dont count the first Iron Man as it was Iron Man 2 that was a lead in to the Avengers.

I thought it was OK. Then i watched the deleted scenes which made more sense. They really should have been kept in, or put in for the DVD.

Zero-Cool

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought it was OK. Then i watched the deleted scenes which made more sense. They really should have been kept in, or put in for the DVD.

What were the deleted scenes about?

Handsome Bob

I think more or less it's a 4/5 year strategy that has been executed quite well, I mean I don't think they've made a bad film since 2008. Marvel deserve props for something that has been pretty much unprecedented.

krudler

Handsome Bob wrote: »

I think more or less it's a 4/5 year strategy that has been executed quite well, I mean I don't think they've made a bad film since 2008. Marvel deserve props for something that has been pretty much unprecedented.

Its a pity they dont have the rights to all their characters, Spider-Man, X-Men, Daredevil, would love to see Marvel do their own versions of them, not that the others are bad movies in any sense (except for X3 and spiderman 3, shudder) but it'd be cool to have them all in continuity and in the same universe.

johnny_ultimate

Handsome Bob wrote: »

I think more or less it's a 4/5 year strategy that has been executed quite well, I mean I don't think they've made a bad film since 2008. Marvel deserve props for something that has been pretty much unprecedented.

I assume you're not counting Wolverine / X-Men First Class there :pac: Iron Man 2 is a dangerously close to being a bit crap as well.

As devil's advocate though, all they've really made are a few somewhat above average CGI-filled blockbusters. While I have enjoyed the Marvel movies in recent times for what they are - especially Thor - I'd much prefer one film of the Dark Knight's quality than several of Marvel quality. There's a place for both at the end of the day, I guess, but I think the inherent absurdity and silliness of Marvel characters denies the potential for a truly great film.

That said, I look forward to the Avengers for some harmless popcorn fun from a talented director.

Brendog

Definitley going to be the movie experience of the year.

Can't wait to see this tomorrow. Not looking forward to the line though.

Rabies

Going to see this in 9hrs
Have a morning cinema session booked in with mates.
Movie got released Tuesday midnight.

Mindkiller

Handsome Bob wrote: »

I think more or less it's a 4/5 year strategy that has been executed quite well, I mean I don't think they've made a bad film since 2008. Marvel deserve props for something that has been pretty much unprecedented.

Maybe Captain America and Thor have their merits (though I hated them), but Iron Man 2? Baaaaad film.

Maybe Iron Man 3 will be better.

Penn

If I had to put an order on them:

Thor
Iron Man
Captain America
Incredible Hulk
Iron Man 2

Thor completely took me by surprise. I knew because of all the Asgard stuff it'd be the most difficult one to pull off, but not only did they manage it, they made just a really great film.

Iron Man 1 is just great, really set the bar high. Then it's a tough call between Captain America and Hulk. Both are actually great films.

Then Iron Man 2 in last place. The villians just ruined that movie.

Overheal

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Remember: if you go to a 2D screening, not only are you watching the film as the director intended, but you're also making a very clear and admirable stance against an aesthetic menace that is threatening the cinematic form. A menace that has, arguably, only ever benefited one film, and that film wasn't really very good in the first place.

Also: everyone looks silly in 3D glasses.

^

Is this what arguments looked like a hundred years ago when they tried to add sound and dialog to films?

The whole lets slate 3D is getting a little old at this stage. Plenty of films have put the technology to great use and while there is the odd dud over all I have to say that I've been impressed by recent 3D films such as Hugo, Transformers 3, Underworld Awakening, Resident Evil After Life, Ghost Rider 2 and a slew others. Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams looked absolutely fantastic in places and animation can really shine in 3D.

3D has a place and while post converted 3D should die a quick death film makers who understand what the technology can bring to a film will do some wonderful things with it. To write all 3D off because you saw one or two films use the tech in a poor manner is ludicrous and to actively try and talk people out of going to see a 3D film that you have not seen is just ridiculous.

sheehy83

sheehy83 wrote: »

What were the deleted scenes about?

You get to see him and Loki bond as brothers. Loki using his power to trick a frighten people as a funny practical joke. Thor laughing with him. You get to see the warriors 3 and what they are all about. Then you also get to see a bit more of Thor on earth getting used to being a mortal.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

3D has a place and while post converted 3D should die a quick death film makers who understand what the technology can bring to a film will do some wonderful things with it.

3D does have a place and its in stage shows and musicals with real people.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

3D does have a place and its in stage shows and musicals with real people.

They also have a place in cinema, the Imax 3D docs are nothing short of stunning. There are plenty of films that use 3D to enhance what is occurring onscreen, Avatar in 3D is nothing short of breathtaking and far more enjoyable experience than the 2D version.

Otacon

Deleted User wrote: »

3D does have a place and its in stage shows and musicals with real people.

3D is a tool. It is up to the filmmakers to use it where appropriate and to do it well.

Studios seem to have a hardon at the moment for crowbarring it into every film they can. That needs to stop fast. However, that does not mean 3D should be abandoned altogether.

frogcheese

I am so excited! I cant wait to see it!!! its actually going to be epic... Iron Man is by far the best superhero! Tony Stark

Otacon

Otacon wrote: »

3D is a tool. It is up to the filmmakers to use it where appropriate and to do it well.

Studios seem to have a hardon at the moment for crowbarring it into every film they can. That needs to stop fast. However, that does not mean 3D should be abandoned altogether.

Its a tool or an idea to combat piracy (video camera) as well as making a little extra money. I have a 3D TV at home. I dont like it.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

I've been impressed by recent 3D films such as Hugo, Transformers 3

Pardon?

Must have something in my eye, I though you said you were impressed by Transformers 3 there for a minute.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Its a tool or an idea to combat piracy (video camera) as well as making a little extra money. I have a 3D TV at home. I dont like it.

If it was really a tool to combat piracy then there would be no 2D screenings of films shown in 3D.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Pardon?

Must have something in my eye, I though you said you were impressed by Transformers 3 there for a minute.

The 3D in the film was breathtaking and amongst the best examples of the tech being used for something visually interesting.

Fysh

Deleted User wrote: »

They also have a place in cinema, the Imax 3D docs are nothing short of stunning. There are plenty of films that use 3D to enhance what is occurring onscreen, Avatar in 3D is nothing short of breathtaking and far more enjoyable experience than the 2D version.

The fact that 3D and IMAX can be used well doesn't mean it usually is, though. Avatar is a great demo of how even a terrible film can be made substantially less bad by judicious use of 3D, but I've seen nothing since then that used the technology anywhere near as well. The fact that studios even bother with post-production conversions shows that a substantial number of 3D releases are not based on a desire to make the film better, but on a purely financial motivation to ensure that they can get more money by having a 3D release. (I'm not opposed to them making money but I do oppose gimmicky crap that doesn't actually add to the viewing experience, and every post-prod conversion I've seen has been crap).

Fysh

Fysh wrote: »

The fact that 3D and IMAX can be used well doesn't mean it usually is, though. Avatar is a great demo of how even a terrible film can be made substantially less bad by judicious use of 3D, but I've seen nothing since then that used the technology anywhere near as well. The fact that studios even bother with post-production conversions shows that a substantial number of 3D releases are not based on a desire to make the film better, but on a purely financial motivation to ensure that they can get more money by having a 3D release. (I'm not opposed to them making money but I do oppose gimmicky crap that doesn't actually add to the viewing experience, and every post-prod conversion I've seen has has been crap).

No one is arguing that 3D is anything other than a money making gimmick but in the hands of a capable director it can really add to a film.

I'm not a fan of post converting but there are times when it can look good, Drive Angry and Ghost Rider 2 had some great 3D moments in them but when shooting the film the directors shot with 3D in mind. Clash of the Titans on the other hand was a truly atrocious use of the tech that added nothing, same with Thor which bar the end credits had no real noticeable 3D element

Mindkiller

Deleted User wrote: »

The 3D in the film was breathtaking and amongst the best examples of the tech being used for something visually interesting.

Do you really mean 'visually interesting' or just pretty looking? We have Final Fantasy games for that.

Bullseye1

This has been the longest week ever. Come on Thursday

Penn

I just don't like 3D because I already wear glasses and wearing the 3D ones over them is just uncomfortable.

Sure, some companies convert their films to 3D just to make a bit of extra money, but at the same time, you barely notice it after a while and when 3D is used properly, it can be amazing.

Mindkiller

Mindkiller wrote: »

Do you really mean 'visually interesting' or just pretty looking? We have Final Fantasy games for that.

I take it you are one of the many who didn't bother watching the film but was quick to condemn it. There were a number of visually interesting scenes in the film, and yes most of it was very pretty looking but there was also a number of scenes where Bay did something interesting with the camera. The wing suits scene in particular was breathtaking and the 3D in the scene was amongst the best ever captured/

Handsome Bob

I still maintain that TF3 was for me, the best use of 3D to date.

krudler

Handsome Bob wrote: »

I still maintain that TF3 was for me, the best use of 3D to date.

same, along with Avatar, the wingsuit skydiving scene was incredible to see in 3D. as sh1te a movie as it was visually it was brilliant in places.

Fysh

Deleted User wrote: »

No one is arguing that 3D is anything other than a money making gimmick but in the hands of a capable director it can really add to a film.

I'm not a fan of post converting but there are times when it can look good, Drive Angry and Ghost Rider 2 had some great 3D moments in them but when shooting the film the directors shot with 3D in mind. Clash of the Titans on the other hand was a truly atrocious use of the tech that added nothing, same with Thor which bar the end credits had no real noticeable 3D element

At this point, I've seen Avatar, Alice In Wonderland & Tron: Legacy in 3D. Film quality aside, Avatar's 3D was excellent (I've since had to sit through it in a 2D version and Christ did it ever drag without the 3D to keep you engaged), Tron's was kind of pointless (barely noticeable, and never particularly interesting even when it was noticeable), and AiW's was a demonstration of highest-order cack-handedness.

Transformers 3, Drive Angry and Ghost Rider 2 were films I have no intention of watching because, well, let's just say I can tell they're not my thing.

It will be a real shame if the best commercial demonstrations of 3D in film-making continue to be associated with films that are otherwise critically panned.

what the hell!

This time tomorrow I'll be sitting down with a large popcorn about to wet myself!