got raves in variety & the reporter




http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117947410/

I think 3.5 stars from JB is a given.

I dunno about that. I don't think that 3 stars is out of the question but 3.5 might be pushing it. I know that with some of the superhero films in the past (particularly the X-Men franchise) he has complained about the presence of too many characters hindering the strength of the story and making everything seem a little unfocused. That could definitely be an issue here with so many high profile superheroes competing for screen time.

Well, there's "high profile" and there's "high profile". It will probably be like Ocean's Eleven where there's 2-3 "stars" (i.e. the ones who already have a sequel or 2 under their belts) and then the rest will get a scene here and there and then fade into the background for stretches.

I hate to be the wet blanket...

...but how much is Jack Kirby's family getting from this?

I mean... nothing? Not a lot?


I don't know about all that. Although, yes, the more clips get released, and trailers come out, this is looking more and more like a can't-miss movie. Let's just say expectations are somewhere around X-Men 3 expectations: potential for it to be great, still nervous about it coming together, ridiculously excited to find out. Probably going to be hard waiting any later than opening night.

Already have my tickets for next Thursday (opening day here in Germany). Front row balcony, in the middle. Wheee!

Still don't really care about this movie. >/

I would bet it's somewhere in this range:

I don't think JB's past opinions will carry much weight with this one. It's being marketed as something new, and that will be how he's obliged to treat it. It looks like a good movie just in the sense that it might keep things fresher than they were last year. Also, Whedon has great skill with ensemble casts.

G'Day,
I just watched this movie and I liked very much!
If you want to know more about my opinion, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsgmsoq2EGk
Cheers

Just found out that Kirby won't even be credited in the movie. Not at all. Not even in fine print, below the company that did the catering.

What the fuck. Seriously, fuck Marvel.

EDIT:

Kirby's name has been added.

I'm actually not sure whether or not this makes it better. Marvel still has yet to redress the innumerable other ways that it has screwed or tried to screw Kirby.

Going to see it tonight, opened here yesterday but didn't get a chance. Still not that excited about it but going purely because of my adoration of Firefly and Serenity.

What is the deal with Kirby and why is he cut out everything? As what I understand he is a co-creator so where does the whole thing go sour?

I saw a tweet this morning saying the craft services guy made more on The Avengers than the Kirby estate.

What must be understood before anything else is that the mainstream publishing houses--i.e. DC and Marvel--have a history of treating their creative talent extremely poorly.

They've rarely done anything for anybody who ever created a valuable property for them, except on a strictly work-for-hire basis. In other words, whether you're the guy who works strictly as a house artist or the guy who created the Green Lantern, you're most likely getting the same basic page rate. No royalties. No payments for subsequent publishing or merchandising of any kind. You get one paycheck per pay period for as long as you're employed. Even if you've created a property that goes on to make a billion dollars for some multinational media conglomerate. Nothing except regular employee payment.

I'm getting that out of the way now, lest anybody think that what happened to Jack Kirby is any way atypical or special. It's neither of those things. I do have to admit, though, each case seems to have its own interesting personality. Some day, I'll unload the interesting screwage of Alan Moore--which, thanks to the new Watchmen prequels, was just rejuvenated.

Anyway, in 1976, Marvel had to firm up a bunch of its shittily designed contracts. There was new copyright legislation in the offing, and Marvel didn't want any of its creative people to be under the impression that they were entitled to anything.

Kirby either created or co-created the majority of Marvel characters worth giving a shit about. Marvel figured they would pacify him by offering to return something like 80 pages of his original artwork to him.

Reasons why this is bullshit:

A. Marvel had absolutely no right to the original artwork in the first place; only the right to copy it. It belonged to Kirby. Marvel had no right to withhold it from him as they did.

B. Jack Kirby, as Marvel's most prolific creator and one of Marvel's most prolific artists, had done thousands of pages of art during his time there. Literally thousands. Compare that to the 80 pages that Marvel was willing to give back to him in exchange for the full rights and titles of every character he created for them.

If that sounds insane, consider that Marvel viewed this to be an unprecedented show of generosity to a comics creator.

Other conditions Marvel placed upon this gem of a deal:

1. Kirby was legally forbidden from claiming that Marvel had any of his artwork, even though they had tons of it.
2. Marvel demanded access to the artwork in Kirby's possession at any time, for any reason.
3. Not only would Kirby never receive any royalties ever, but he would also be legally forbidden from publicly questioning Marvel's right to his stuff.
4. Not only that, but Kirby would be legally forbidden from aiding others in the effort to question Marvel's right to their stuff.
5. Marvel would have the right to use Kirby's name, face, and reputation to advertise their stuff...
6. ...While Kirby would be forbidden from using his own artwork for any reason at all, including gifts or exhibition.

Eventually, Marvel generously sent Kirby some more of his artwork, mainly as a ploy to avoid public embarrassment. At this point, Kirby didn't really have any recourse but to sign, lest he face an endless and utterly futile battle against Marvel's corporate lawyers. Kirby died in 1994 without any of this being rectified.

Last year, Marvel claimed in court that Kirby's properties were all created under work-for-hire circumstances. Marvel won, meaning that they legally don't even have to acknowledge his role as creator. They don't have to pay his family anything for the Avengers movie.

And if they don't have to pay anything, they're not going to pay anything.

Some of the characters Kirby created or co-created:

* Captain America
* The Fantastic Four
* The X-Men
* The Hulk
* Thor
* The Silver Surfer
* Dr. Doom
* Galactus
* Magneto

Again: the guy who created all those characters got paid the page rate and received no payment beyond that. Not for the comics that have been in continuous publication since then, not for the toys and other merchandise, and not for the multimillion dollar blockbuster movies.

Just think of how much money is going to be made from some of those characters from the Avengers movie alone.

Thanks for the insight Ken, much appreciated and easy to understand. The whole situation is not in the least surprising but extremly disappointing considering this sort of shit happens in the creative industries all the time.

OK, I just came from watching the film - it was released here in Peru last night, and virtually everywhere except the US, hehe - and it was AMAZING. Yup, all the positive reviews are pretty much spot-on. This is as much a crowd-pleaser as any movie can be, full of action - without being as loud and obnoxious as the Transformers movies -, lots of humour, excellent, state-of-the-art special effects but, most importantly, an impressive balance between all heroes and villains that not even the X-Men movies could accomplish. I just loved it - all my friends loved it, and it seemed the whole packed theatre loved it. It was simply amazing - not as complex or challenging as The Dark Knight, but possibly more entertaining.

I gotta see it again - and more than once. I'm REALLY impressed.

I saw it last night as well. 2 1/2 hours of awesome. Lots of fun. Excellent balance between the characters (Joss Whedon does ensemble so well), great action, witty script. It will be more accessible if you have seen the "prequels" but it is not a prerequisite.

Totally crazy story, but what did you expect.

After seeing this, I would love to see yet another Hulk movie, this time with Mark Ruffalo.

Oh, did I mention ScarJo in a really, really tight body suit? Mmmmmm....

WOW! In a nutshell, that is all I can say. Joss Whedon has understood the pulse of the audience like few directors would've, maybe not even Jon Favreau who gave us two amazing Iron Man movies.

First off, the best thing about the film, no exposition. We have four separate movies that allowed us to connect with Hulk, Iron Man, Thor and Captain America on a personal level. We know who they are. We know how they will react. We don't need to be shown that Tony Stark/Iron Man is incredibly egoistic and self-centered, we already know that. All I wanted from The Avengers was this collection of people to kick ass. And that they did. For 2 1/2 hours, there was nothing else but ass-kicking. And I loved it!

Secondly, writing! We've always known that Whedon is a talented writer and this is one more example of that. Every line from the mouth of Robert Downey Jr. is pure gold and quotable. Even excluding Iron Man, there's still enough great writing here as far as comic book movies are concerned.

Finally, the acting. Not surprisingly, one actor has all the others for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I am, of course, talking about Robert Downey Jr. It's not surprising he has all the best lines since no one can do justice to a wisecrack quite like he can. He is the pillar of the movie and I feel the film would lose a lot of its charm without him as Iron Man. I've also been wondering that he's the only actor who owns his superhero in that it just wouldn't look good on anybody else. The rest (including the supremely talented Christian Bale) are interchangeable, not so with Robert Downey Jr. Mark Ruffalo takes over from two gifted actors in Eric Bana/Edward Norton and we don't miss them for a second. He owns the role of Bruce Banner and packs a load of wisecracks himself. The rest of the crew have no trouble reprising their respective roles though aren't really stressed acting-wise. Plus, as MunichMan said, Scarlett Johansson in tights for 2 1/2 hours, enough reason to see this film multiple times.

The 3D was surprisingly well done. It wasn't distracting and it didn't really spoil any of the major scenes. I would still 2D because it is post-converted after all but there's no other version in India, so I am all out of luck.

Of course, Whedon has to be commended. He knows Nolan has the dark and broody crowd covered with The Dark Knight Rises. That is going to be en extremely different but equally awesome superhero film. As far as traditional superhero films where the hero (or heroes in this case) kicks the villain's ass back to oblivion are concerned, The Avengers is the new golden standard. I am catching it this Tuesday another time. And the film has set up for a sequel as well plus more Marvel films in the pipeline, I cannot ask for more. DC's so far behind in the big-screen race that I don't think they can hope of catching up. I can give them one idea though: Justice League.

What charactors would you have in the film.
Would you go with the origional comic book
or would you go with the cartoon.

I've seen the film and it is a fine film. I am off the opinion how ever that the best realised charactor is the hulk/Banner.

I feel that this film works becuase each charactor has already been introduced in their own film. The 2 charactors that haven't had their own film, Hawkeye and Black widow get little more screen time to develope which is justafiable. I also liked Loki but I feel that while i was watching him I was reminded of Michael Fassbender.