[trailer] Avengers! My day is made

Maq wrote:
Thin_J wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Pretty common in the super hero mythos, though; I've heard the JLA described as "Superman, plus six people whose job it is to kick the green rock out of the room".

It stands out more with the incarnation of the Avengers that we're seeing here though. Everybody's massively super powered in some fashion or another and then you have an archery expert and a genetically engineered martial arts expert along for the ride.

Stories are about the characters, not the character sheets. A superhero's powers are only interesting in as far as they define their interaction with the world. The most interesting thing about Wolverine isn't his claws but his longevity. Batman's an exciting hero because he's far more than the sum of his abilities whereas Superman is far less. Hulk could eat the rest of the Avengers for lunch but the problem is he just might. Black Widow isn't much more than a female Jason Bourne in a catsuit but, hey, that's a movie I'd watch.

True...and I'd rather watch the movie where she's out of the catsuit.

Nevin73 wrote:
Maq wrote:
Thin_J wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Pretty common in the super hero mythos, though; I've heard the JLA described as "Superman, plus six people whose job it is to kick the green rock out of the room".

It stands out more with the incarnation of the Avengers that we're seeing here though. Everybody's massively super powered in some fashion or another and then you have an archery expert and a genetically engineered martial arts expert along for the ride.

Stories are about the characters, not the character sheets. A superhero's powers are only interesting in as far as they define their interaction with the world. The most interesting thing about Wolverine isn't his claws but his longevity. Batman's an exciting hero because he's far more than the sum of his abilities whereas Superman is far less. Hulk could eat the rest of the Avengers for lunch but the problem is he just might. Black Widow isn't much more than a female Jason Bourne in a catsuit but, hey, that's a movie I'd watch.

True...and I'd rather watch the movie where she's out of the catsuit.

Hey, they could have gone with the OG lineup and had Ant Man and The Wasp.

nel e nel wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
Maq wrote:
Thin_J wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Pretty common in the super hero mythos, though; I've heard the JLA described as "Superman, plus six people whose job it is to kick the green rock out of the room".

It stands out more with the incarnation of the Avengers that we're seeing here though. Everybody's massively super powered in some fashion or another and then you have an archery expert and a genetically engineered martial arts expert along for the ride.

Stories are about the characters, not the character sheets. A superhero's powers are only interesting in as far as they define their interaction with the world. The most interesting thing about Wolverine isn't his claws but his longevity. Batman's an exciting hero because he's far more than the sum of his abilities whereas Superman is far less. Hulk could eat the rest of the Avengers for lunch but the problem is he just might. Black Widow isn't much more than a female Jason Bourne in a catsuit but, hey, that's a movie I'd watch.

True...and I'd rather watch the movie where she's out of the catsuit.

Hey, they could have gone with the OG lineup and had Ant Man and The Wasp.

I can see why they didn't. How to do sell a concept that the minute yellow speck on the screen is a superhero on par with hulk? And with Ant man changing size so much, I could see where it would be difficult keeping things in frame with the audience still being able to figure out what's going on.

Very annoying article picking on Hawkeye's archery. Kind of like pointy elbows. Overall I like io9 but this was just a stupid article...so naturally I am posting a link.

farley3k wrote:

Very annoying article picking on Hawkeye's archery. Kind of like pointy elbows. Overall I like io9 but this was just a stupid article...so naturally I am posting a link. :)

You jerk. I will now be unable to not watch for this now. Thanks.

Actually I think it makes a good point, particularly given that Pixar seems to have nailed archery in Brave and Jennifer Lawrence apparently studied up and learned correctly for the Hunger Games.

That they lazily didn't bother to make sure Hawkeye looks even remotely like a real archer may be kind of telling.

But then I'm going to spend the entirety of this movie trying to pretend that Hawkeye isn't there anyway so I guess it won't really matter for me.

I was just saying to myself that a movie that features the Norse God of Thunder, a supersoldier frozen for 60 years then resuscitated, a ridiculously strong green avatar of rage and destruction, and a hyperintelligent guy in a suit of flying super-armor all fighting said thunder god's brother and some kind of alien invaders was really stretching my ability to suspend my disbelief because the guy isn't holding his bow right.

The guy's archer skills are so good that he qualifies as a superhero because of them. If his technique is poor, perhaps people should rethink what makes proper technique.

That's kind of missing the point. They spend countless hours of time making sure the Hulk looks right in this scene, or that Iron Man's armor behaves correctly in this one, or any number of other things, basically getting details right, and then just up and don't care if Hawkeye actually looks like he knows jack all about shooting a bow?

It's going to stick out to anybody that knows enough about the other characters to notice that they got them right, but also knows something about archery. If they're going to be that lazy with a character they shouldn't have bothered to put them in the movie.

I don't particularly care because I don't like Hawkeye to start with but I think we've been over that.

If Archery was a hobby of mine I'd probably find it pretty annoying.

Thin_J wrote:

That's kind of missing the point.

Right back at you.

Nevermind. Blah blah blah, not worth my time, etc, etc.

Short summation: Either the director, the instructor, or the actor himself is ignoring the very thing that makes Hawkeye who he is. Regardless of who's at fault it's bad filmmaking.

Won't bring it up again.

...I thought it was a very amusing column.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I was just saying to myself that a movie that features the Norse God of Thunder, a supersoldier frozen for 60 years then resuscitated, a ridiculously strong green avatar of rage and destruction, and a hyperintelligent guy in a suit of flying super-armor all fighting said thunder god's brother and some kind of alien invaders was really stretching my ability to suspend my disbelief because the guy isn't holding his bow right.

...there it is. Is this really coming up again?

To sum up the point that gets made and laughed at and rebutted and butted some more every single time someone gets annoyed at things that are not internally consistent:

It's not about realism, it's about believability (as defined as remaining consistent to the setting you've presented).

I can accept that the Norse God of Thunder is protecting the world from aliens because that's the scene you've set. I can accept that Tony Stark has built a flying suit of armour because you've told me he did. I would have trouble accepting a handgun who's bullets fly in curves unless that's part of the world you've built for me. Bullets curve in the world of Wanted because they do; I can accept that, and it ceases to bug me for the duration of the movie (unless I try to rationalize that with the real world). Bullets don't curve in the real word, so any other movie that is presenting itself as taking place in the real world should not have curving bullets.

If you present Hawkeye as an expert marksman who suffered a grievous forearm injury in international competition and spent years retraining himself to compensate, all of a sudden his "incorrect" technique becomes part of the character, and part of the world you're building. At that point, he could shoot with his teeth, or with his toes, or using only his sense of smell, and while it may seem hokey, it won't seem wrong. If you only present him as an expert marksman, his technique is just wrong.

Because a movie has fantastical elements doesn't necessarily mean that no rules apply. A "real world" movie with freaky things should still behave like the real world except for those freaky things; see The Matrix.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

...I thought it was a very amusing column.

YOU TAKE YOUR EVEN TEMPER AND MODERATED ATTITUDE AND YOU GET THE HELL OUT!

If we're talking realism, shouldn't Scarlett Johansson be wearing something more suitable for combat.

mooosicle wrote:

If we're talking realism, shouldn't Scarlett Johansson be wearing something more suitable for combat.

You shut your dirty mouth!

mooosicle wrote:

If we're talking realism, shouldn't Scarlett Johansson be wearing something more suitable for combat.

Like a helmet?

Seriously, the archery thing. So . . . Hawkeye had an injury, and he had to learn to shoot "funny" to account for it. He wears two arm guards for fashion. Some reason. He uses his bow differently, because yadda yadda super training yadda. It's all I need.

Tanglebones wrote:
mooosicle wrote:

If we're talking realism, shouldn't Scarlett Johansson be wearing something more suitable for combat.

You shut your dirty mouth!

He's got a point. Wearing clothes can only restrict her movement.

<3 Chumpy

Tanglebones wrote:
mooosicle wrote:

If we're talking realism, shouldn't Scarlett Johansson be wearing something more suitable for combat.

You shut your dirty mouth!

Thin_J wrote:

...Short summation: Either the director, the instructor, or the actor himself is ignoring the very thing that makes Hawkeye who he is. Regardless of who's at fault it's bad filmmaking....

Please remember that you said this and be ready to have this discussion again when the next Star Trek flick comes out next May. I'm going to need backup.

Saw the trailer this weekend. Looked great except I saw it in 3D because I went to watch something I'm ashamed to admit. The 3D in the trailer was awful, and the chances of finding a 2D screening are not good so I'm not sure if I will go.

momgamer wrote:
Thin_J wrote:

...Short summation: Either the director, the instructor, or the actor himself is ignoring the very thing that makes Hawkeye who he is. Regardless of who's at fault it's bad filmmaking....

Please remember that you said this and be ready to have this discussion again when the next Star Trek flick comes out next May. I'm going to need backup. ;)

I'm sure there's bad filmmaking in Star Trek (whole ice planet monster chase is a prime example), but I never liked old Star Trek to start with (hated it, in fact) so I'm going to be a fair degree less critical of it than I might of something I genuinely care about before I see it

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Saw the trailer this weekend. Looked great except I saw it in 3D because I went to watch something I'm ashamed to admit. The 3D in the trailer was awful, and the chances of finding a 2D screening are not good so I'm not sure if I will go.

That's surprising. The movie is being filmed in 3D natively, not converted, so it should be a good deal better than most of the other 3D movies. At least in theory.

I was never going to see it in 3D anyway so no big deal to me, just kind of weird.

Thin_J wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Saw the trailer this weekend. Looked great except I saw it in 3D because I went to watch something I'm ashamed to admit. The 3D in the trailer was awful, and the chances of finding a 2D screening are not good so I'm not sure if I will go.

That's surprising. The movie is being filmed in 3D natively, not converted, so it should be a good deal better than most of the other 3D movies. At least in theory.

I was never going to see it in 3D anyway so no big deal to me, just kind of weird.

That is weird, but yeah. It had a very Viewmaster look. Characters looked like flat objects on artificial planes. Ghostrider 2 looked really good in comparison, although the movie was bad enough to make me wish I'd gone to Journey 2 the Mysterious Island like my fiance wanted.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
mooosicle wrote:

If we're talking realism, shouldn't Scarlett Johansson be wearing something more suitable for combat.

You shut your dirty mouth!

He's got a point. Wearing clothes can only restrict her movement.

Her outfit, or proposed lack thereof, is itself a weapon. It distracts opponents, lowering their defenses.

Weird. I wish I could remember where I saw that it was native 3D, or maybe I was mixing it up with another movie. Hrm.

That's surprising. The movie is being filmed in 3D natively, not converted, so it should be a good deal better than most of the other 3D movies. At least in theory.

It's being filmed in 2d and then post converted:

The film will be distributed in 3D, but it wasn’t shot in 3D. The decision was made by the filmmaker. Joss Whedon did a day of testing for The Avengers to decide if he wanted to shoot the movie with 3D cameras. Whedon shot the end of the credits tag sequence in Thor using the RED camera in 3D camera rigs. They lost three and a half hours due to 3D camera rigging issues, which led to Whedon’s decision to shoot the movie in 2D. The movie was shot on the Arri Alexa camera and not film.

From here: http://www.slashfilm.com/60-learned-set-the-avengers/

I'll just put this here.

It's really bad that my one takeaway is the price of gas.

Speedhuntr wrote:

It's really bad that my one takeaway is the price of gas.

That was a really slow gas pump, too.

Thai Bo tapes ?