To me Marvel have always done something that DC havent, and that is not making films about stand alone Graphic Novels/Stories for instance Jonah Hex, Constantine, V For Vendetta etc, they are all stand alone I dont think you will see Batman in V for Vendetta some how, do you?
Where as Marvel have made films about characters that can intertwine and essentially made the films they have to lead up to Avengers which is a smart move. As well as that Marvel pick characters with ALOT to draw from where as if DC only has say V for Vendetta then all they have to draw from is that one piece of resource which is the Graphic Novel.
If DC keep doing stand alone features then that is it for them, If they are now looking to do a JL film they need to stop making films like Joah Hex and concentrate solely on different characters that are able who actually have connections with other characters so they can make a little guest appearance in other characters films (like Wonder Woman could appear in Superman, if only for a few minutes then that could wet the appetite for fans wanting a Wonder Woman film)
Also ATM I dont think it would work if they wanted to do a JL film (which i am thinking they will because of the success of The Avengers). They need nay MUST get all the people who have stared as them in the solo films I.E Christian Bale etc. as then you have some continuity which the whole franchise. I'm sorry I am not going to see a JL film where they recast the entier cast. That is one of the reasons why The Avengers did so well same actors and we felt like we knew the characters.
A JL film wouldn't work with the Nolan/Bale Batman... how could you mix the "realistic" Batman side of things with aliens and magic and metahumans etc.?
Just got back from seeing the Avengers. I think I may have seen every big superhero movie you can mention, plus some sleeper/breakout hits like the Crow and Blade and the Avengers is easily, instantly, in my top five. It is a long time, probably since the Pulp fiction in fact, that I wanted to see a movie straight away once it was over. And much like Pulp Fiction, AA got the crucial element of dialogue just right. I can take or leave action scenes these days but the integration of character, themes and action was seamless.
Well worth the hype and the medicore lead-in movies that preceded it.
And, while I've more than had my fill of Stan Lee cameos now, seeing a certain cult-favorite senior citizen again was the dog's conkers. And his last line was priceless
A JL film wouldn't work with the Nolan/Bale Batman... how could you mix the "realistic" Batman side of things with aliens and magic and metahumans etc.?
Glad you put that word in quotes. If we can suspend belief that Batman can diguise his identity simply by lowering his speech to movie-voice over levels, then the imagineers of cinema should be able to mix genres with ease. DC are hampered by lack of imagination and foresight. Ah, well maybe the new Superman film will put them back on track...
Thankfully fairly painless as these things go. The action is sprightly and wittily choreographed, especially at the end. The character & dialogue work were a cut above the standards expected, and I liked its glossy, colourful sheen and the whole chirpy feel of it. Good solid popcorn fodder. But as the film progressed it became more apparent what was amiss.
The Avengers reaching the screen is doubtless an acheivement in itself. But given the multi-film build-up, the sheer lack of ambition on display is quite dispiriting. Is some all-powerful gizmo and a city-trashing, alien invasion the best they could muster? Surely they could've assembled for something not quite so second-hand? Much the same could be said of the largely pointless inter-party squabbling too, where the whiff of second act tedium becomes apparent. Was anything really to come of this?
Not that it matters. This is a strictly give-em-what-they-want exercise that knows full well what its audience wants, with innovation and originality not particularly high on the list. That it redeems itself with the qualities mentioned above is commendable, but a film that didn't need such redeeming would've been preferred.
AA is obviously a film that a lot of people need to see immediately. Time will tell if its fizziness lasts. But it may well fade once more substantial, and more ambitious offerings cast their shadow over it. Score: 7/10
Maybe you need to go to more AA meetings.:) Was quickly trawling through other reviews and saw yours. Only point I want to comment on is that the main squabble scene was manipulated by Loki and as such was totally integral to the plot. As for your last point, I think it's in the nature of all superhero movies to date because they are so effects based and effects always improve, however, it's the interplay that may make this one have more repeat appeal than most.
That is true. I actually think the improvement in special effects have been a big part of it........Of course, there was more to it than just that. Superman: The Movie was well developed by Richard Donner, as was Batman by Tim Burton. Things went decidedly downhill when both franchises moved on to their third films and different hands got hold of the helm (ps. yes I know Donner wasn't in charge of Superman 2, but it was still partially his work). Superman 4 and Batman and Robin really killed the franchises stone dead!
Similar thing happened with the X Men series this last decade. Marvel got their first big winner, but only so long as Bryan Singer was at the helm - then it went down the tube with the third film!
Am I the only one that thinks the third X-men movie was the best of the lot? I find watching the other two a real struggle to watch again but the third flows so smoothly I'd give it time whenever I had a spare two hours. Much maligned perhaps, but in many ways, it's the prototype for AA.
And wasn't Singer responsible for the mess that was Superman returns?
Saw this tonight. Loved it. The best thing about it was the script.
Hulk and Captain America were my favourites. Cap doesn't seem too popular but I loved his own movie last year too, and I liked that they teamed him and Iron Man up a bit.
The problem with DC is that they don't seem to be as successful as Marvel on the film front, overall.
On the one hand they have the critically-acclaimed, record-breaking Batman franchise and on the other we have Superman Returns and Green Lantern.
We'll see if the Man of Steel turns things around for them next year, but Superman remains a character that is hard to pull-off (due to him being ridiculously overpowered). However, even if they do, Nolan is putting a cap on his Batman franchise, so it will need rebooting in order to begin a Justice League spin-up.
DC have a lot of work to do in order to attempt a Justice League movie in the same way as Marvel have pulled off Avengers.
Well that's my point really. Marvel have put real thought into how to adapt their films - long-term strategic thought. DC's characters are no less vivid or interesting (and in two cases - Superman and Batman - are far more iconic) than any Marvel character.
The success Marvel have had should give DC pause for thought. They should think long-term and try to plan a strategy for their movie releases. If Marvel did it - DC can do the same.
I saw the film today. I felt the storyline was weak, because Loki's intentions weren't completely clear and to fight over the tesseract didn't exactly make me feel that the world would end if it got into the wrong hands. I did enjoy Hulk smashing everything in sight and becoming more tamer towards the end. Though wasn't impressed with this incarnation of Banner, he seemed different from earlier portrayals.
Am I the only one that thinks the third X-men movie was the best of the lot? I find watching the other two a real struggle to watch again but the third flows so smoothly I'd give it time whenever I had a spare two hours. Much maligned perhaps, but in many ways, it's the prototype for AA.
I'm sure you're not the only one. I did hear a rumour about someone else who liked it.
I don't want to go too far off-topic, but a lot of the dislike (IMO) comes from a total misuse of the Phoenix story (she's there because X2 said she had to be there) and the way characters like Scott were handled. I'd say its the opposite of AA, as it seemed to remove previously important characters (Prof. X, Cyclops and Rogue being little more than cameos), in favour of putting all the story on Wolverine and Storm.
I don't hate X3, though. Its just not a patch on X2, which is still one of my favourite superhero movies.
And wasn't Singer responsible for the mess that was Superman returns?
Yes, he was. Not suggesting he's perfect by any means. He spent too much time trying to make SR a "tribute to the Donner original" that he forgot to inject anything new into it.
i liked SR but understand why many didnt,but singer helped make x-men:fc the great film it is,i love him and want to see him direct x-men again although vaughn did really well
i would iamgine whedon will take reigns of avengers 2? hope so
Fan-bloody-tastic, is what I say. Amazing cast, great chemistry, epic music, superb script. :cool:
I went to see this for the third time yesterday and the audience were roaring with laughter.
People were cheering and applauding, which is something I have never experienced in the cinema before.
My sister got it right when she said it's the best film we've ever seen...
Maybe you need to go to more AA meetings.:)* Was quickly trawling through other reviews and saw yours. Only point I want to comment on is that the main squabble scene was manipulated by Loki and as such was totally integral to the plot**. As for your last point, I think it's in the nature of all superhero movies to date because they are so effects based and effects always improve, however, it's the interplay that may make this one have more repeat appeal than most***.
* Bad-um tish!
** True, not without motivation, but didn't really lead anywhere unexpected.
*** The enjoyably snappy talk and such like is proving key to its success with many it seems.
Ok, fess up time. AA is turning out to be a far larger beast than I'd anticipated, probably snatching TDK's crown as it whizzes past the billion mark. Not that TDKR can't snatch it back, of course, but AA now has a predicted $1.3bn checkout which is mighty indeed. Still, who knows?
Congrats to Marvel, btw, who doubtless from now on will continue to interconnect their superhero offerings. It makes sense in many ways, though some might say it's also creatively shackling. Say what you like about DC's wayward output, they treat each property differently and allow it to be its own thing. Now that superhero films are fast becoming a genre to themselves, this is a far more interesting approach than being cojoined to others, wherein a certain 'house style' must perhaps be considered. It could lead to some rather vanilla film-making - a criticism I've already heard aimed at Thor and C. America.
with nolans batman coming to an end now is the perfect time for justice leaguie movie,reboot batman,make sure new superman will be in a position to be tied in and get a wonder women movie out there, those 3(along with a possible GL sequel,it wasnt THAT bad!)can then headline JL movie which can lead to spin offs for flash etc
I've seen all the lead in films apart from Hulk, so I've seen Captain America, Thor and the 2 Iron Men, loved them, Thor being my favourite but this film was so boring. Hubby, 13 year old son and I just looked at each other at the end and shrugged. 13 year old even struggled to stay awake and it was his birthday.
Robert Downey Jr was his wise-cracking best, loved Thor but the others were just personality-free zones, the worst being Bruce Banner. It was just too talky and the baddies just seemed like Spiderman/Transformer rip-offs.
There were too many characters struggling to get screen time and the plot just seemed to drag endlessly to try and shoehorn them all in.
I've never read the magazines, I'm not really a fangirl, but I love action movies, I hate to say this but as a family we preferred both Battleship and John Carter. I think it says more about us though, than about the films. :D
Comments
Where as Marvel have made films about characters that can intertwine and essentially made the films they have to lead up to Avengers which is a smart move. As well as that Marvel pick characters with ALOT to draw from where as if DC only has say V for Vendetta then all they have to draw from is that one piece of resource which is the Graphic Novel.
If DC keep doing stand alone features then that is it for them, If they are now looking to do a JL film they need to stop making films like Joah Hex and concentrate solely on different characters that are able who actually have connections with other characters so they can make a little guest appearance in other characters films (like Wonder Woman could appear in Superman, if only for a few minutes then that could wet the appetite for fans wanting a Wonder Woman film)
Also ATM I dont think it would work if they wanted to do a JL film (which i am thinking they will because of the success of The Avengers). They need nay MUST get all the people who have stared as them in the solo films I.E Christian Bale etc. as then you have some continuity which the whole franchise. I'm sorry I am not going to see a JL film where they recast the entier cast. That is one of the reasons why The Avengers did so well same actors and we felt like we knew the characters.
Well worth the hype and the medicore lead-in movies that preceded it.
And, while I've more than had my fill of Stan Lee cameos now, seeing a certain cult-favorite senior citizen again was the dog's conkers. And his last line was priceless
Glad you put that word in quotes. If we can suspend belief that Batman can diguise his identity simply by lowering his speech to movie-voice over levels, then the imagineers of cinema should be able to mix genres with ease. DC are hampered by lack of imagination and foresight. Ah, well maybe the new Superman film will put them back on track...
Maybe you need to go to more AA meetings.:) Was quickly trawling through other reviews and saw yours. Only point I want to comment on is that the main squabble scene was manipulated by Loki and as such was totally integral to the plot. As for your last point, I think it's in the nature of all superhero movies to date because they are so effects based and effects always improve, however, it's the interplay that may make this one have more repeat appeal than most.
Am I the only one that thinks the third X-men movie was the best of the lot? I find watching the other two a real struggle to watch again but the third flows so smoothly I'd give it time whenever I had a spare two hours. Much maligned perhaps, but in many ways, it's the prototype for AA.
And wasn't Singer responsible for the mess that was Superman returns?
Hulk and Captain America were my favourites. Cap doesn't seem too popular but I loved his own movie last year too, and I liked that they teamed him and Iron Man up a bit.
Well that's my point really. Marvel have put real thought into how to adapt their films - long-term strategic thought. DC's characters are no less vivid or interesting (and in two cases - Superman and Batman - are far more iconic) than any Marvel character.
The success Marvel have had should give DC pause for thought. They should think long-term and try to plan a strategy for their movie releases. If Marvel did it - DC can do the same.
I would give the film 6/10.
I'm sure you're not the only one. I did hear a rumour about someone else who liked it.
I don't want to go too far off-topic, but a lot of the dislike (IMO) comes from a total misuse of the Phoenix story (she's there because X2 said she had to be there) and the way characters like Scott were handled. I'd say its the opposite of AA, as it seemed to remove previously important characters (Prof. X, Cyclops and Rogue being little more than cameos), in favour of putting all the story on Wolverine and Storm.
I don't hate X3, though. Its just not a patch on X2, which is still one of my favourite superhero movies.
Yes, he was. Not suggesting he's perfect by any means. He spent too much time trying to make SR a "tribute to the Donner original" that he forgot to inject anything new into it.
i liked SR but understand why many didnt,but singer helped make x-men:fc the great film it is,i love him and want to see him direct x-men again although vaughn did really well
i would iamgine whedon will take reigns of avengers 2? hope so
I might have spread that rumour
"They wish to cure us, I say that we are the cure."
If Shakespeare was alive today he'd pray to be able to write lines like that
" You know what happens to a frog when it gets struck by lightning?"
There's just no contest.....
I went to see this for the third time yesterday and the audience were roaring with laughter.
People were cheering and applauding, which is something I have never experienced in the cinema before.
My sister got it right when she said it's the best film we've ever seen...
Here's hoping!
** True, not without motivation, but didn't really lead anywhere unexpected.
*** The enjoyably snappy talk and such like is proving key to its success with many it seems.
Ok, fess up time. AA is turning out to be a far larger beast than I'd anticipated, probably snatching TDK's crown as it whizzes past the billion mark. Not that TDKR can't snatch it back, of course, but AA now has a predicted $1.3bn checkout which is mighty indeed. Still, who knows?
Congrats to Marvel, btw, who doubtless from now on will continue to interconnect their superhero offerings. It makes sense in many ways, though some might say it's also creatively shackling. Say what you like about DC's wayward output, they treat each property differently and allow it to be its own thing. Now that superhero films are fast becoming a genre to themselves, this is a far more interesting approach than being cojoined to others, wherein a certain 'house style' must perhaps be considered. It could lead to some rather vanilla film-making - a criticism I've already heard aimed at Thor and C. America.
It was a hoot!
Finally opened in china...
Is it necessary to watch the other films to understand this one properly, or should I be able to follow it without any previous knowledge?
Nah - it's fine to see it not having seen the previous films. IMO not seeing Thor and Hulk would have been a bonus!
I thought Thor and Hulk (Edward Norton) were the best Avengers movies out of the lot. Iron Man was great too, but Cap America was dreadful.
Someone asked this the other day.
My answer: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=58137945&postcount=9
I've seen all the lead in films apart from Hulk, so I've seen Captain America, Thor and the 2 Iron Men, loved them, Thor being my favourite but this film was so boring. Hubby, 13 year old son and I just looked at each other at the end and shrugged. 13 year old even struggled to stay awake and it was his birthday.
Robert Downey Jr was his wise-cracking best, loved Thor but the others were just personality-free zones, the worst being Bruce Banner. It was just too talky and the baddies just seemed like Spiderman/Transformer rip-offs.
There were too many characters struggling to get screen time and the plot just seemed to drag endlessly to try and shoehorn them all in.
I've never read the magazines, I'm not really a fangirl, but I love action movies, I hate to say this but as a family we preferred both Battleship and John Carter.