Re: Avengers offical review thread (spoilers ahead)

[webhead2006]

I definately want to see it again. So I can look more for easter eggs I missed and just to enjoy it again. When I saw it my second time it deinfately holds for multiple viewing. And of course see all the great scenes of the film. My fav still is hulk and loki.

[Comicbookfan-V2]

Just saw it early this evening although I was supposedly going to see it the day after opening day but... Lets just say I had some transportation problems that cause me to wait seven more days to go see it and finally I did and not too obvious I fucking enjoyed it, hands down!

Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/Hulk dispite my recent unacceptance of him I was finally open up towards Mark Ruffalo portrayal on the role mostly because I see some of Norton's take on him and the Hulk actually looks good on screen dispite some of the pics I was treated with glad I was able to get a good look at him he dosen't seem to look too different from TIH and thats a good sign (Aleast for me) and yeah I notice the reference footage along with the others! Still wish Edward Norton reprise his role though!

I notice how the film started slow then pick up the pace soon after just as any other film should. Loki definitly showed that he's a villain that anybody would love to hate from start to finish. I also can't help but feel that the whole ordeal that occured during the course of the film was S.H.I.E.L.D.'s fault... Trying to harness the Tesseract's power thus releasing Loki and having him possessing people, putting his plans into action for world conquest and releasing an army of interplanetary invaders (Which turn out to be the Chitauri) but in the end it turns out that S.H.I.E.L.D. did toke some form of responsibility dispite the damage already been done. They should have explain how Thor was able to return to earth after the Bifrost Bridge was shattered which is a shame that they didn't. I should also point out theres a glimpse of Thanos after the mid-credits.

With "The Avengers" still going strong box office & critical wise I'll be hoping that a potential "Justice League" project will be just around the horizon!

[thecolorsblend]

Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/Hulk dispite my recent unacceptance of him I was finally open up towards Mark Ruffalo portrayal on the role mostly because I see some of Norton's take on him and the Hulk actually looks good on screen dispite some of the pics I was treated with glad I was able to get a good look at him he dosen't seem to look too different from TIH and thats a good sign (Aleast for me) and yeah I notice the reference footage along with the others! Still wish Edward Norton reprise his role though!

If the guy is going to act like a douchebag, I say good riddance. Ruffalo is Banner now as far as I'm concerned. Norton is just forgettable in the role to me. Ruffalo had this tic in a lot of his scenes where he was very passive and whatnot. Avoiding peoples path, standing unobtrusively in corners and all that shit. You felt like he was a guy who worked like hell to keep himself under control.

Norton never brought anything like that across in my mind.

I should also point out theres a glimpse of Thanos after the mid-credits.

[Apologist Puncher]

They should have explain how Thor was able to return to earth after the Bifrost Bridge was shattered which is a shame that they didn't.

They did. You must not have been paying attention.

Loki(To Thor): "How much dark energy must the All-Father have conjured to get you here?"

[James Stocks]

I liked Norton and admired his passion for working on the role. But at the same time Norton's problem is that he's too passionate about the role that he's considered rigid by the studio, hence getting the boot. It would have been nice to see him return.

However, Ruffalo did a great job. He managed to step in the role effortlessly much like how Don Cheadle did for IRON MAN 2.

[non_amos]

I initially didn't know about Ruffalo because, well, I didn't know anything about him. I definitely liked Norton in the role, especially compared to Eric Bana. Ya know what's funny about that? I actually liked Bana in other roles like the villain what's-his-name that he played in the rebooted STAR TREK. I thought he did exceptionally well in that. But as Bruce Banner? Not so much. But I did like Ed Norton as Banner. I also liked his acting in RED DRAGON which is the same film that the new guy here doesn't like. When I first saw that on DVD, I didn't even know who he was but was impressed with his acting. So I guess you could say I was on board for his role in TIH.

Nevertheless the studio probably did make the right decision in replacing him. It sounded like he was a bit of a prima donna & control freak whereas the films he worked on were concerned. And that's exactly my point in this post. Can you imagine how Norton would've behaved if he were still in the role & had been in THE AVENGERS?! Fans liked him in TIH but I'm sure some didn't like his behavior afterward. Had he been in Avengers then he'd have been doing his 'power plays' there too. I imagine, for one, that he wouldn't have had a good working relationship with RDJ like Ruffalo does. They'd have butted heads to be sure! And then Norton would've been arguing with Marvel Studios over the 'Special Features' on the DVD sets! Arguing for his cut of the film & such.

And I also imagine that the characters of Banner & Hulk would not have gone over as well as they actually did, which possibly would also have hurt the bottom line of the film, so using Ruffalo turned out to be the right decision.

[James Stocks]

Yeah, problem I had with Bana in HULK was that he already looked like a linebacker and he always looked like had that facial expression of a kid who realizes his dad is gonna beat him with a belt. I didn't dig him much in STAR TREK, he seemed to aim for a more hammy approach (there's one point where he tries to outham Shatner by screaming out Spock's name twice, ala "KHAAAN!") but it didn't really suit him and he's probably most idiotic villain since Tom Hardy's Shinzon in STAR TREK: NEMESIS.


However, he's great in MUNICH. He was much more interesting in that flick than in anything else I've seen him in.

[webhead2006]

I never had a issue either with ruffalo coming in. I liked him in other films i seen him in. So i thought he would bring in some good acting. Which he did and worked great with the rest of the cast. It was disappointing with norton leaving. I do hate when recasting happens. But in the end norton lose was our gain with ruffalo giving good performance, showing to fans hulk is still important. And ultimately might have another solo hulk cause of him.

[James Stocks]

I'd argue it wasn't Ruffalo's Banner that made audiences like Hulk better, but rather the way Hulk was portrayed. Of the three screen appearances, The Hulk has never been more fun to watch than in THE AVENGERS. In the first two he's more or less on the run chased by General Ross and there's very little humor injected in. The humor is definitely a factor that made audiences more responsive to Whedon's Hulk where we got bits like him shoving Thor aside for no reason at all and the ultimate moment where he turns Loki into a rag doll. It's these factors that made Hulk a lot of fun to watch. Ruffalo being a good choice for Banner was just icing on the cake.

[Apologist Puncher]

I'd argue it wasn't Ruffalo's Banner that made audiences like Hulk better, but rather the way Hulk was portrayed. Of the three screen appearances, The Hulk has never been more fun to watch than in THE AVENGERS. In the first two he's more or less on the run chased by General Ross and there's very little humor injected in. The humor is definitely a factor that made audiences more responsive to Whedon's Hulk where we got bits like him shoving Thor aside for no reason at all and the ultimate moment where he turns Loki into a rag doll. It's these factors that made Hulk a lot of fun to watch. Ruffalo being a good choice for Banner was just icing on the cake.

When they make a new Hulk film, and they will, they need to do something different this time.

In both films, we had the Hulk vs. The Army for the first 2/3's of the film, then Hulk vs. Creature for the last 1/3. After Bana's semi-snoozer, they needed to do something more original the second time around. They really didn't. Now, I'm no Hulk "expert", but I know a little. And if I were to make a new Hulk movie, I would have him go up against The Mole Man and his minions.




It would be something new, and will give the Hulk another opportunity to "cut loose". And it expands the Marvel Movie Universe just a little bit more.

After 'The Avengers', they can't go backwards.

[webhead2006]

Could be interesting but moleman probably fells under ff rights with fox. But isn't there some decent villains from hulk books like the leader or some other stuff. Or what if they brought in she hulk as a apsect to explore in films.

[non_amos]

I have to agree that Marvel cannot go backwards with the Hulk film franchise. Let's explore that a moment.

In the years leading up to the 2003 Ang Lee film, some of which were mid to late 90's, I used to read various reports in magazines, mainly because I had yet to get online at that time. Gale Ann Hurd, the producer, seemed to periodically change facts to the ongoing production, even before the arrival of Lee. But when I got online in 2001, I do remember reading something of interest, somewhere online. The villain was going to be THE ABSORBING MAN & was to be played by Goldberg. Yes, BILL GOLDBERG, the pro wrestler, who, although his acting ability may be debatable, he could've pulled off the look, which is why I suspect he was considered. But then I never heard of that again! But lo & behold, the premise did make it into the film! Nick Nolte's 'David' Banner basically became the character without looking anything like him! And remember the 3 gamma dogs that Shrek-Hulk fought? Well, another earlier proposal was to have the Hulk fight 3 or 4 gamma-irradiated villains, so in the final product, we get poodles! But one of the big selling points of the film was Shrek-Hulk battling the Army.

In 2008 we got THE INCREDIBLE HULK which is a far superior film. We also got a better attempt at portraying a Hulk villain, THE ABOMINATION. However, I didn't like how they changed the appearance of the character because somehow the real appearance was too 'comic-booky'. I love the film & that battle but I don't like that change. And once again we had the Hulk battling the Army.

I think it's time to move past the Army, especially after THE AVENGERS since the Hulk will no doubt be looked at as a HERO now. But TIH did set up a potential villain in it's cliffhanger, THE LEADER, which is like the Hulk's 'Lex Luthor'. But would they go with the Leader now? Even if they do, it won't be Tim what's-his-name anymore & would probably also have a different explanation for his existence as well. However, a new film needs to continue from Avengers, so let the Hulk be 'fun' and the hero. Forget the Army pursuit for a change & instead, have the Hulk duking it out with the likes of, I'd like to say RHINO, but since that's a Spiderman villain, it might not be allowed by Sony. But how about having the real Absorbing Man (who's also a THOR villain-Hint! Hint!)? How about DOC SAMSON? Well, he's not really a villain but could still go at it with the Hulk like Thor did.

Give me some time & I may think of some more but that's the point. Take this new Hulk film & milk it for all it's worth!

[thecolorsblend]

It's got jackshit to do with your post but one thing that bugged me about the Ang Lee movie is that it's like the G-rated Hulk or something. I defer to you on this but I always thought that Banner and the Hulk were two separate psychological entities. Because of that, the Hulk doesn't really give a rat's ass if he, oh I dunno, kills a few Army dudes. It's nothing to him. All he knows is survival.

But in the Ang Lee thing, you see the Hulk bash the fuck out of everything in sight and yet there are few or no casualties. Somehow people can survive when the Hulk tears their tanks apart and stuff.

Hulk in TIH and Avengers is a lot more in line with what I've always assumed Hulk is all about. There may be some part of Banner in there somewhere but basically Hulk is his own guy and he doesn't necessarily distinguish between "foe" and "innocent bystander".

[Apologist Puncher]

It's got jackshit to do with your post but one thing that bugged me about the Ang Lee movie is that it's like the G-rated Hulk or something. I defer to you on this but I always thought that Banner and the Hulk were two separate psychological entities. Because of that, the Hulk doesn't really give a rat's ass if he, oh I dunno, kills a few Army dudes. It's nothing to him. All he knows is survival.

But in the Ang Lee thing, you see the Hulk bash the fuck out of everything in sight and yet there are few or no casualties. Somehow people can survive when the Hulk tears their tanks apart and stuff.

Hulk in TIH and Avengers is a lot more in line with what I've always assumed Hulk is all about. There may be some part of Banner in there somewhere but basically Hulk is his own guy and he doesn't necessarily distinguish between "foe" and "innocent bystander".

It's worse than that:

They actually go out of their way to show the Hulk DID NOT kill anyone! He rips the top of a tank off, then shakes and shakes and shakes until every single soldier is out of it before it bashes it to shit. That tank he flung two miles away? They make sure to show the soldiers crawling out, unharmed. The helicopter he rode to the ground, crashing it? We hear thru Ross' headphone that the ship is all banged-up and can't fly, but they're A-Okay.

Trust me, I noticed it and it bothered me from the first time I saw 'HULK'.

[James Stocks]

Definitely kills the drama with how Banner copes with the Hulk. The kind of reckless killing is what should scare him just as much as the monster inside.

[thecolorsblend]

Since we're on the subject, you go back and watch the Lee movie and you're constantly about thirty minutes ahead of the narrative. It's been a while since I've seen the whole thing but it felt like the opening credits ruined the reveals the movie was supposed to be going for. "You can't fight the Hulk, you'll only piss him off more", "David fucked Bruce's DNA up something fierce" and, IIRC, "David killed Mrs. Banner". This is one of those few times when an edited version of the movie should be shorter. By all means, let's watch the Hulk tear everything apart but for crying out loud don't telegraph your beats so far in advance because all you end up doing is boring the audience. So much of it just comes off like bush league filmmaking in a lot of cases.

[non_amos]

It's got jackshit to do with your post but one thing that bugged me about the Ang Lee movie is that it's like the G-rated Hulk or something. I defer to you on this but I always thought that Banner and the Hulk were two separate psychological entities. Because of that, the Hulk doesn't really give a rat's ass if he, oh I dunno, kills a few Army dudes. It's nothing to him. All he knows is survival.

But in the Ang Lee thing, you see the Hulk bash the fuck out of everything in sight and yet there are few or no casualties. Somehow people can survive when the Hulk tears their tanks apart and stuff.

Hulk in TIH and Avengers is a lot more in line with what I've always assumed Hulk is all about. There may be some part of Banner in there somewhere but basically Hulk is his own guy and he doesn't necessarily distinguish between "foe" and "innocent bystander".

Could this be kind of like how they treat SUPERMAN in the films? Only Zod & company killed, as well as Luthor, but Superman himself? No way! So treating the Hulk the same way could be similar to that.

But probably an even more notable example of the Hulk not killing is in the PILOT EPISODE of the original TV series. In it, 'David' Banner, played by Bill Bixby, is worried that he may have killed someone the night before when he lost his memory after his transformation. His fellow doctor/colleague/love interest ( I forget her name at the moment) tries to convince him that he didn't kill. Why? Because David Banner won't kill, so therefore this 'creature' won't kill either, since it's an extension of Banner himself, although in a primitive form.

I'm aware that the TV series had very little in common with the actual comics but it was also one of the best TV adaptations ever IMHO, for that time period. And I think we all know how much of an influence it has had. Even Mark Ruffalo defers to it. And that above explanation from the TV series may be what's even influencing the actions of the Hulk in the current films.

[Apologist Puncher]

Could this be kind of like how they treat SUPERMAN in the films? Only Zod & company killed, as well as Luthor, but Superman himself? No way! So treating the Hulk the same way could be similar to that.

Superman does not kill. Hulk does.

But probably an even more notable example of the Hulk not killing is in the PILOT EPISODE of the original TV series. In it, 'David' Banner, played by Bill Bixby, is worried that he may have killed someone the night before when he lost his memory after his transformation. His fellow doctor/colleague/love interest ( I forget her name at the moment) tries to convince him that he didn't kill. Why? Because David Banner won't kill, so therefore this 'creature' won't kill either, since it's an extension of Banner himself, although in a primitive form.

And this was a guilt Bana's Banner NEVER had to face.

Which is kind of our point...

I'm aware that the TV series had very little in common with the actual comics but it was also one of the best TV adaptations ever IMHO, for that time period. And I think we all know how much of an influence it has had. Even Mark Ruffalo defers to it. And that above explanation from the TV series may be what's even influencing the actions of the Hulk in the current films.

The Hulk in 'Avengers' most DEFINITELY would kill.

[thecolorsblend]

I assumed there was, ah, "collateral damage" in his fight with Thor on the helicarrier. And he probably wasn't chasing after the Black Widow so that they could exchange casserole recipes.

Now that I think about it, he probably killed in TIH too during the fight with the Army at the college.

As far as the Lee movie goes (any guess what I've been watching snippets of for a while now?), it's striking how far CG character animation has come in the last 11 years. In the Lee film, Hulk looks (as someone else said) like Shrek. In Avengers, he mostly looks like a Hulked out Mark Ruffalo. It's some really remarkable CG animation when you really think about it. Not just the face but the textures, hair, skin, all that stuff.

[non_amos]

I watched the entire Ang Lee film just a few weeks back on the Blu-Ray I bought at Walmart for under 8 bucks without tax. I know, I know, not the best film to buy but I'm always a sucker for the Hulk anyway who's without a doubt my 2nd favorite character, behind SUPERMAN, of course. And I wanted to see it on Blu-Ray. Suffice it to say that I'm glad there's been improvements in CGI since then. That Hulk was built like an ape or something. Ridiculously tall but with a long torso & very short legs! It's a 'light-years' improvement now to say the least!

[James Stocks]

I actually never saw it until right around before THE INCREDIBLE HULK was released. I just remember at the time everyone told me it was a big disappointment and I never looked into why it was. Then when I finally saw it I was pretty shocked by how tame the whole thing was. No surprise it wasn't a hit. I hadn't seen it since then, but maybe I'll give it another look after having seen THE INCREDIBLE HULK and THE AVENGERS just recently.

[Apologist Puncher]

One scene in TIH that I found, and still find, very powerful is when he has saved Betty from her father, and he is "protecting" her from the thunder and lightning.



Good stuff.

[non_amos]

One scene in TIH that I found, and still find, very powerful is when he has saved Betty from her father, and he is "protecting" her from the thunder and lightning.



Good stuff.

Online there's been claims that there's a spoiler/Easter egg for THOR in that scene but I can't find it, even after watching so-called Youtube video explanations. Supposedly when Odin casts Thor to the Earth like in the Thor film, well, in TIH, we're supposed to see him falling to Earth in the lightning, a very fast descent that's supposedly visible in slow motion.

I still haven't seen it!

[James Stocks]

That was a great scene. The romance between Bruce and Betty was one of the best parts of the flick, I found it more believable than in Ang Lee's HULK.

[webhead2006]

Marvel thanks Fans for Avengers Success:

[Sponsored content]