[trailer] Avengers! My day is made

Grenn wrote:

Wasn't there a shot of everyone arguing which pans upside down to show the scepter? Then it goes to Loki smirking and back to Banner acting increasingly angry and unknowingly picking up the scepter?

Now come on, you know that's exactly what happened. Unless you're somehow manipulating my memory of a movie I've watched twice in the past three days. I think it's no stretch at all to say this is supposed to be Loki's doing. The design of the scepter isn't cool enough to warrant so many gratuitous shots.

EDIT: Fixed for my misread of Clocky's post re: scepter location and chronology.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Miashara wrote:

Is the bolded bit referring to when Hulk rampages or before?

When he's going crazy around the airship. Obviously it's in the room with Banner et al. up until the first explosion.

That's what I thought you meant but wanted confirmation. Thanks.

You could reasonably argue either way, because you're right, there's no definitive proof. I kind of liked that as supernatural mind control should be a little slippery and non-obvious. Still, I prefer the scepter theory because of both the implications and it seems more in character for Loki. Otherwise he's an amazing idiot and inconsistent.

I'm normally a big fan of "open to interpretation" and all that and agree that slippery, non-obvious mind control fits with Loki's character, but in this case I think a bit of clarification would be helpful if only to fill in that gaping plot hole with the Hulk on the ship vs. the Hulk in New York. I heard lots of people asking about it when I saw the movie, and it's been brought up a few times here in the thread.

There's a time when being subtle enhances your work, and there are times when it makes you look like you're not paying attention to what you're doing. This falls into the latter category.

Funny, the way I remember it being shot and cut, "subtle" is exactly the last word in existence I would use to describe that scene. It was hammered so hard, I was waiting for the characters to become aware of it, and one of them to say "Guys! Look at how we're being edited right now!"

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

It's the scepter that makes him go crazy in the airship.

Aside from one somewhat ominous shot, there's no evidence for that in the movie.

I wouldn't have thought you one for unnecessary exposition.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Funny, the way I remember it being shot and cut, "subtle" is exactly the last word in existence I would use to describe that scene. It was hammered so hard, I was waiting for the characters to become aware of it, and one of them to say "Guys! Look at how we're being edited right now!"

No kidding. Just watched it on Friday and the cause of the anger was as plain as the nose on my face. Then of course there's the f*cking explosion that batters Banner and traps Black Widow's foot. Banner is simply pushed beyond his capacity for normal control.

With or without Loki's influence, I'm fine taking Banner's "I'm always angry" remark and subsequent at-will transformation as an indication that the Hulk/Banner transformation and any split between their personas don't work quite the way the in-universe characters or the audience think. In fact, given that we don't have any explanation of how this all works in the film, and considering that we have two previous Hulk films which don't tie in as closely as the other relevant Marvel flicks and may not be completely canonical, we have to assume that the latter transformation and subsequent actions are by nature different from the former, simply because they are different. It's a simple explanation and it doesn't contradict anything presented in this film. And if we're to have further Hulk adventure on the big screen, I say thank goodness, because exploring the nature of the split between the two can at least make for a decent b-story amidst rampaging...um, Hulk.

Miashara wrote:

Though noteworthy is that Stark, the one guy explicitly shown to be immune to the staff's power, is just as crotchety as everyone else in the lab scene. Admittedly he doesn't really get belligerent, just sarcastic, and that seems to be his default state.

Stark's immunity to the staff is not as deep as that. I felt that he was not turned at the end simply because his power supply physically protected his heart from the spear. There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe Stark is immune from the psychic effects of being close to the scepter.

The Hulk/Banner dynamic made sense to me on the first viewing, but the filmmakers could have made it bit more obvious, otherwise people would not get confused by the Banner line in the last reel. My wife had the same question. The exchange between Banner and Tony earlier in the film alluded to it, but not explicitly. Alternately they could have tweaked that last line to be more obvious what his "secret" was.

Finally got around to seeing this over the weekend. I really enjoyed it.

I definitely got the vibe that the staff was sowing discord in the room. Seemed pretty obvious to me.

Yonder wrote:
Miashara wrote:

Though noteworthy is that Stark, the one guy explicitly shown to be immune to the staff's power, is just as crotchety as everyone else in the lab scene. Admittedly he doesn't really get belligerent, just sarcastic, and that seems to be his default state.

Stark's immunity to the staff is not as deep as that. I felt that he was not turned at the end simply because his power supply physically protected his heart from the spear. There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe Stark is immune from the psychic effects of being close to the scepter.

That's my reading as well. Loki touches Stark's chest with the staff and IIRC you hear the metallic clink of hitting the power source.

I still like (I think it was) Malor's suggestion that Banner is the Hulk's psychosis, rather than the other way around.

It's a really good idea, but it wasn't mine. I'd claim it if I could.

Stark's immunity to the staff is not as deep as that. I felt that he was not turned at the end simply because his power supply physically protected his heart from the spear.

Yeah, apparently it needs to touch 'person', even through cloth, and touching an arc reactor isn't good enough. If Loki had poked him a little higher or lower, the staff would have taken him over.

OK, thinking back now, I can see how it was the staff thingie that was causing the anger. So once he was far enough away from it, he could control his Hulkism.

Do we get a version of the Avengers where the enemy actually does something, poses a threat, and is not to be pitied?

Puce Moose wrote:

Do we get a version of the Avengers where the enemy actually does something, poses a threat, and is not to be pitied?

Loki wasn't the most fearsome enemy, but... pitied? I don't remember feeling any pity for him...

Any time Thor tried to elicit some emotion from him, he faked it and then stabbed him in the back

While I disagree that Loki did nothing, I can see where Puce Moose is coming from - our heroes got over the in-fighting and then took out that huge Chitauri army with relative ease, though in spectacular and wildly entertaining.fashion. I'm not sure whether to chalk it up to "hey, it's the intro to these characters working as a team combined with establishing the rift between S.H.I.E.L.D. and the rest of the government!" or "Yer man Joss failed to present a team of previously established highly-powered heroes with a credible threat in a two to three hour motion picture".

I wouldn't say either exclusively, and I still think the movie kicks ass, but I think see what you mean.

From the old Bruce Bixby Hulk series, the basic trope there seemed to be that if Bruce Hulked out by accident, it would be a horrible rampage, but if he wanted it to happen, it would be well-controlled. If he was going along with the process, the Hulk would be smarter and gentler. That didn't happen very often, IIRC.

I think it's pretty clear that the film was more about the heroes anyway, and let's face it. When you get a God, who is, y'know, a God, a billionaire playboy philanthropist with a giant ass suit of armor used to doing things his way, a scientist that doesn't trust the government and wants to be left alone, a super soldier with an old-fashioned sense of morality and values together with a super spy and his soldiers, cooperation is going to be a little tough to manage.

So I think they did a good job with the film, which is how do you get these guys to work together?

With that in mind, I think Loki was a fantastic choice for a villain because 1) we already know him and are familiar with him as a threat, and 2) he's a perfect villain for mind-games, which allows him to sit back and seem like he's doing nothing and then just write a few things in the dialog to make it sound like he's doing stuff and being more or less proactive.

Keep in mind some of the deleted/extended scenes also hint at Loki's own planning and plotting. In the scene where Dr. Viking and Hawkeye inform Loki of the expensive material and target they need that leads to Germany where Loki gets captured, the original version had Loki speaking in anger about hiding underground and wanting to do more. Hawkeye mentions Fury putting a team together, and Loki asks about it and basically it is led to believe that he begins plotting everything there. So you get more of a sense that Loki is much more active, but also that he wasn't so cartoonishly omniscient as the final cut of the film portrays.

That said, the only cut scene I wish was still in the movie was the whole Captain America bit. I don't really like the tone of the alternate opening/ending and feel as if it is made for a different movie.

Last thought: I love how everyone on the Internet is trying to figure out the logistics of Hulk's freak outs, but no one gives a damn that Thor got to Earth even though he destroyed the rainbow bridge and no explanation is provided.

Loki says something about Odin spending a lot of Dark Energy to send Thor to Earth.

And one assumes Odin could use the Tesseract to recreate the Bifrost.

Nevin73 wrote:

Loki says something about Odin spending a lot of Dark Energy to send Thor to Earth.

I missed that. Considering the sequel to Thor is subtitled "Dark World" or something to that effect, a possible tease to the next film?

ccesarano wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Loki says something about Odin spending a lot of Dark Energy to send Thor to Earth.

I missed that. Considering the sequel to Thor is subtitled "Dark World" or something to that effect, a possible tease to the next film?

They spend the entire film trying to send Thor to Earth to get Loki. It's 90 minutes of Odin straining to squeeze out some Dark Energy.

Citizen86 wrote:
Puce Moose wrote:

Do we get a version of the Avengers where the enemy actually does something, poses a threat, and is not to be pitied?

Loki wasn't the most fearsome enemy, but... pitied? I don't remember feeling any pity for him...

Any time Thor tried to elicit some emotion from him, he faked it and then stabbed him in the back

The post-credit epilogue has a tantalizing glimpse into who the next villain might be. Talk about a real heavy!

This movie was all about internal team conflict and having the god of chaos at the center grinning worked great for me. There is even a suggestion by Thor that Loki is not really interested in sitting on a throne, even if that is what he (Loki) claims.

After watching the blu-ray, the only flaw I found is with Scarlett Johansen's uneven acting. She got thise amazing emotive eyes, but her dialogue delivery seemed poor compared to her compatriots.

S.H.I.E.L.D. cast.

Surprised to see no Whedon alums. Guess they will do guest spots.

Stele wrote:

S.H.I.E.L.D. cast.

Surprised to see no Whedon alums. Guess they will do guest spots. ;)

I suspect we'll see some of the movie casts pop in (minus Thor, as that wouldn't make sense based on the movies). Might see some of Coulson's squeel moments from the Cap being brought in. Or maybe some tracking of Hulk taking place.

As to some of his alumni from various other shows and such... I can't imagine many fitting in well. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like most would be weird fits.

Mostly I want Enver Gjokaj to get more work. He's one of the best actors I've ever seen, period.

Script review of The Avengers by Todd Alcott.

Stele wrote:

Mostly I want Enver Gjokaj to get more work. He's one of the best actors I've ever seen, period.

He was a cop in the movie, and since this is taking place before the movie, it'd be weird if he was part of S.H.I.E.L.D before that.

S.H.I.E.L.D. pilot filming.

Pictures

Didn't find an Avengers 2 thread, so I'll post it here. Found this little tidbit:

Spoiler:

Apparently, Whedon is going to have Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver join the team in the sequel. Rights to the characters are owned both by Fox and Marvel, which is weird, and a bit confusing. From what I read, as long as there's no mention of "being a mutant", and no mention of Magneto, Marvel's in the clear. Which, begs the question; are they going to change their back stories and origin?

Here's the link: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/notyetamovie/news/?a=78662

Found it interesting, and am sure will cause some discussion amongst our comic book fans.

Stengah wrote:
Stele wrote:

Mostly I want Enver Gjokaj to get more work. He's one of the best actors I've ever seen, period.

He was a cop in the movie, and since this is taking place before the movie, it'd be weird if he was part of S.H.I.E.L.D before that.

SHIELD is a prequel?

http://www.superherohype.com/news/ar...

IGN spoke with ABC President Paul Lee, who said flat out that the series takes place after the events of The Avengers.

“There is no question that it is part of the Marvel Universe. In fact, the story takes place after the battle for New York."