The Pros and Cons of Modern Action Films and Directors.

[Skyquake87]

Do we excuse bay's films on the grounds of his efforts being like the slow learner at school whom gets to play with safety scissors and glitter whilst everyone else is doing proper work?

"look class, look what michael's made! Tell us about it michael."

"its an explosion"

"and whats happening over here?"

"a man is saying 'willy'"

...continues for millions of dollars

[angloconvoy]

I enjoyed Avengers a lot. Haven't seen it on the small screen yet, but as a big screen action flick it delivered well enough for me. Haven't seen DOTM at all yet, since I really didn't enjoy much of ROTF at all (except for the forest battle, that part I loved). I'll get around to it at some point I guess, but I haven't really enjoyed a Bay movie since Bad Boys (which was pretty much a perfect action movie for a 15 year old boy, as I was when it came out). I found the sight gags much more intrusive in ROTF than in Avengers though, so if people could easily ignore one, as Cliffy says, I see no reason to dwell on the other. I dwelled on both a bit, as the sand bag thing was basically going for the old Superman gag where he punches it to bits but fell a bit short (which isn't even a particularly good gag anyway), and ROFTs puerile humour took me right out of the story on several occasions.

I would never be so presumptuous to say Transformers should be done differently. A huge number of people lap up that moronic shit the way I lap up Paul Anderson's moronic Resident Evil shit. Which, by the way, I will never try to defend as good movies or valid pieces of art. I still can't get enough of them though. The fact is, all 3 series pull in enough money to keep getting sequels. If you enjoy any of them you pretty much give up the right to criticize anyone who likes the others (totally criticize the films though, it always pays to demand a higher standard of product).
But suggesting that we are somehow worse now for accepting this than in the past disregards a huge amount of crap entertainment people have accepted for centuries. There's never been a golden age for cinema, books, video games, or anything else. There are always just diamonds in the sea of crap.

I enjoy Marvel's current series of super hero movies a lot. Oh, and as for the Hulk not killing anyone they did their best to clear that up in the comics a long time ago. Something involving Banner's superhuman intellect calculating every angle perfectly to avoid casualty. There was even a series where Banner was separated from the Hulk where the Hulk did kill people without Banner to subconsciously guide him. Not a perfectly believeable explanation, but I'm mentioning it just to show that it didn't necessarily come from Disney, as it's always been a part of his character, much like his fluctuating intelligence and stability. The shame was that they didn't set this out clearly in the Hulk's own film, when they had the chance.

[Cliffjumper]

Surely while it might not have come from Disney it came from the Comics Code Authority which Marvel adhered to for years? Sounds to me like one of those awful Marvel Time-style ****-ups which sound plausible until you actually sit down and read earlier material with them in mind.

As I say, my problem isn't that he didn't kill anyone or really in itself that he was just another hero (as both have been explored in the comics before). It comes with the script spending much of its' first half telling us (largely unbidden and in a leaden fashion) that the Hulk is a bad uncontrollable thing that Banner can't let loose. And then he's let loose and he's nothing of the sort, a complete 180 in the film as scripted. It's a classic case of a film wanting to have its' cake and eat it too - they want the Hulk to be all "you don't want to make me angry!" but they also want him to help bail them out at the end in a nice guilt-free manner.

I get that a good Hulk movie would have maybe sorted the problem but there was an easy opportunity to address it in the Avengers and they just didn't bother; it is worth noting, though, that the Avengers has a massive advantage over most films due to having what are affectively seperate introductions for nearly all of its' main characters pitched at mainstream audiences rather than the self-contained universes most deal with.

[angloconvoy]

The expanation's only from a few years back, during world war Hulk. It works within the confines of the rules of the Marvel universe, but I'll grant you it wasn't really addressed in the movie. I could justify it by saying that none of the characters actually fully comprehend what the Hulk is and fear his unstable mentality and immense power, and as a fan of the Hulk that explanation works very well. But taken as a movie in it's own right, they did fail to explain that.

[inflatable dalek]

Neco bump!


Having put my region A blu ray (with the proper title of the film and no odd editing for violence) down after buying it and not being able to find it for a year- it was under a book on my bookcase, what was it doing there?- I've just rewatched The Avengers for the first time since I saw it at the cinema and totally failed to cop off with my date because I couldn't answer her "What was that purple guy at the end then?" question.

And whilst I do think the final New York battle in underwhelming compared to the hell-carrier sequence, I have to disagree with Cliffy when he talks about how sanitised the fight was and how empty the streets were.

There's actually a very clear visual progression in the film- when the aliens first come through the streets around Stark Tower are full of people who flee and have lots of stuff exploding at them, the only way lots of people aren't dying in those cars is if you actually need to see dismembered limbs flying about on screen to make the point.

Then, as the battle goes on the streets get emptier, until Cap sorts out the sewer evacuation and cordon, after which point the streets in the immediate area around the tower are empty due to everyone having run/died/hidden. But, at the same time every-time the fight moves further afield in the city to places that haven't been cleared yet you're back to lots of civilians and implied deaths. It absolutely works, albeit likely with a smoother and faster evacuation than you'd get in real life (but then, in fiction this is a year after the Hulk wrecked most of Harlem, so New York may have really upped its supernatural attack procedures).

Plus, there's no shortage of death and carnage in the rest of the film, Loki is actually more brutal than I remembered, with his constant stabbing of people in the chest or gorging that bloke's eye out, there's no softening of the fact hawkeye killed a lot of innocent people whilst under the influence as well (and from the "Playing a brainwashed baddy for most of the film wasn't what I signed up for" comments from the actor I'm guessing he won't be back for the sequel?).

Overall, it's a good fun film, and I'd say about exactly as good as Dark of the Moon, it's main disadvantage being coming out after than movie softening the impact of a lot of the visuals.