Does this mean you disagree with my overall point, or are you just throwing out possibilities? This is a legitimate question, not a sarcastic dig at you.

That said, would you say a movie made in 2012 (or really anything post 9/11) showing the destruction of NYC more heavily evokes 9/11 or the Marvel Universe? Given that the context of the film is clearly invested in bringing up virtually every topic associated with the War on Terror (in addition to what I already mentioned, the movie brings up torture and revolves quite a bit around a government agency that withholds information and manipulates), I think it's a little short sighted (and a lot selective) to say, "on, NYC is the center of the Marvel universe, there's no where else it could have been set."



I do. I think it's very cohesive, actually. Having seen the movie for a second time tonight, I plan on writing a little something about it because it's in my head. That said, I'd be interested in having a conversation about the movie with someone who doesn't like it. What I'm not too interested in condescendingly being told it isn't a movie, or that I only like it because I'm an overgrown nerd in denial, or any other of the many criticisms you've put forth of the people who have reacted to the movie. I'll let you decide if you want to continue coming in here and talking at people about why they think what they think (as if you're in their head and could possibly know), or if you want to have an actual conversation with another person and exchange ideas.

Does this mean you disagree with my overall point, or are you just throwing out possibilities? This is a legitimate question, not a sarcastic dig at you.

That said, would you say a movie made in 2012 (or really anything post 9/11) showing the destruction of NYC more heavily evokes 9/11 or the Marvel Universe? Given that the context of the film is clearly invested in bringing up virtually every topic associated with the War on Terror (in addition to what I already mentioned, the movie brings up torture and revolves quite a bit around a government agency that withholds information and manipulates), I think it's a little short sighted (and a lot selective) to say, "on, NYC is the center of the Marvel universe, there's no where else it could have been set."[/quote]I will preface this by saying that I have not seen the movie.

NYC is where just about everything important happens in the Marvel universe. Peter Parker grew up in Queens and went on to attend the fictitious Empire State University. The Fantastic 4's headquarters is in Manhattan. Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters is just a quick trip upstate. Matt Murdock and Nick Fury are both natives of Hell's Kitchen, and SHIELD Central is located not far from there. Dr. Strange's journeys into the astral plane all start in his Greenwich Village apartment. The corporate headquarters of Stark Industries is on Long Island.

Hell, Marvel Comics itself is based in NYC, and Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were both born there. Steve Ditko was born in Pennsylvania, but attended school and became a professional artist in NYC. Those guys are the Mount Rushmore of Marvel Comics.

I'm not saying that the movie doesn't evoke 9/11... but I guess I'm saying that a story about Marvel superheroes is almost invariably a story about New York City. And any New York story that is told, experienced, or set in the time period after 9/11 is going to be about 9/11 to some extent, whether it means to or not. Never mind a story that features war heroes, government fugitives, and secret agents as its characters.

You fucked the quotes up, Ken. Way to go. Now I don't know who said what!

Seriously though, your point is well taken. Maybe in 2012 it's impossible to divorce common superhero tropes and plot points from reality. That said, don't filmmakers know this? Given how the film is presented, I have a tough time believing it wasn't a conscious choice. I do think the movie purposely addresses the major issues surrounding the War on Terror and, as always with films, it's more about the how than the what. I think the movie even goes so far as to propose a solution of sorts, or at least show how the "bad guys" can't ever win in a situation like this.

Less related to our discussion: I've made no bones about it in the past - I think Whedon is a great writer. He meshes character, idea, and humor as well as anyone, and that's the main strength of The Avengers. Maybe he isn't a great director, but the film does have specific shots and scenes that tell the story visually. I just think people see an action-oriented superhero movie that has a lot of humor, and they refuse to analyze it. Anyone who was any sort of knowledge of Whedon's previous work should know the he doesn't just write stories for fun. There's always something he wants to say. That's just how the man works, and I don't see why it would be any different with The Avengers.

Can you elaborate on this? What is the solution and how does the film integrate it into the story?

Gladly. I'm not using spoilers because...I'm just not.

The movie proposes that those who fight for a cause bigger than themselves will always prevail over those fighting for purely selfish interests. Loki (who's essentially Iago from Othello, but that's a separate discussion) brings war to Earth for purely selfish reasons. He wants to get back at Thor and the rest of Asgard and wants to accumulate power. Someone like Loki can never win because one of two things will always happen: 1. He'll run into someone/something/a group fighting for the same reasons and lose or 2. He'll run into someone/something/a group fighting for a real, selfless purpose who are capable of sacrificing themselves for a higher cause and he'll lose. In the film, after many squabbles and in-fighting between The Avengers, they come together and become option #2.

I'm not saying this is the most profound thing in the world, or that the dichotomy between the opposing sides is all that complex. However, it isn't mindless. The movie also scores points for knowing this, pointing it out, making fun of itself, but still embracing the idea. Whedon seems to know that fighting for a higher cause is an old-fashioned, and maybe even corny, idea. Still, he seems to believe in it.

More than that though, there's the idea that the individuals that comprise a group (maybe even a society!) are the ones that have to decide, through their beliefs and actions, what that group stands for. Captain America has to decide to go for the red lever to help out Iron Man even though he's being shot at. The Hulk has to decide to embrace "the other guy" and try to tame/control him. Iron Man has to decide he's willing to sacrifice himself and take the nuke into the portal. This is right in line with Whedon's worldview, considering he's a self-described humanist. As a society, we'll be what the individuals within it want it to be. Real power isn't making people fear you and kneel in your honor, it's a group of selfless individuals fighting for a cause. As the film so eloquently shows, sentiment is power, not weakness.

The film incorporates these ideas mostly through its dialogue and character interactions. However, I know you, like me, appreciate something more visual, so I'll skip giving you a summary of all those bits of dialogue that go a long way in telling the story. I'll grant you that Whedon is a better writer than director (he's perfect for TV), but the movie isn't without its moments of visual prowess. 3 jump to mind - 2 shots and 1 scene. First there's the obvious symbol at the end of the film of the A in Stark becoming The Avengers' A. Since Stark makes the biggest change from selfish to selfless in the film, it's fitting that the movie uses the former symbol of his massive ego to make the statement that this isn't just a group of individuals anymore.

Second, there's the single, long take during the climactic battle that shows each member of the team working together and helping one another out while fighting. Yeah, it's really cool to look at, but it's more than just showy. It's the movie using it's visuals to show the team coming together. It reminded me of the lengthy pan towards the end of The Royal Tenenbaums that shows the formerly fractured family whole again. This one is nowhere near as good, but it's still a very nice shot.

Finally, there's the scene where the mind-controlled Hawkeye attacks the Helicarrier. It's a brilliant scene that serves as a microcosm for 9/11. How does something like that happen? When people are too divided and bicker over their own self-interest that they become blind to the world around them. As a scene, cutting between the Avengers arguing and Hawkeye attacking isn't formally inventive, but it is effective. It's simply the correct directorial choice for what the scene is trying to accomplish. It makes the film's point by showing us, again and again, that the "bad guy" is coming as they bicker. It's visually underlining its point and stamping it with exclamation marks.

A large percentage of the Avengers audience is not old enough to remember 9/11. But that point aside, all of your points are valid in and of themselves. I just don't think they're enough to make a great movie, or even a good one. Kael used to deride what she called the "cinema of good intentions," and I think that idea applies here.



The trouble I have with this is that I don't feel there was ever much of a conflict in regards to them coming together. When Loki forces the opera people to bow down to him, Cap shows up, then Iron Man shows up to back him up, I felt like they were already complementing each other. You don't have to be best friends with your coworkers, after all, do you? Their tension for the rest of the film felt forced and unnecessary. The more logical thing would have been to involve them all in a sophisticated narrative in which any tension, or relation at all, was incidental. Making a film whose spine is the tension itself? Stupid and pointless, I'd say.



What is the big deal about this? You could find deeper meaning in a Disney Channel movie. I mean, come on, what film is truly devoid of meaning on every level? I think you're really reaching here.



So obvious, and so simple, it would scarcely be impressive on a theme park ride.



Dude...so what? Tell me what's deep or creative about that. I think a child could have come up with something cleverer.



But 9/11 was perpetrated by 19 Arabs, not a guy with a bow and arrow. Why not watch Munich, which is not only riveting, very mainstream entertainment, but also a literal reflection on the post 9/11 political climate. How can you promote Avengers as such when that movie exists? You say I'm condescending, but dude...you're at least 10 years older than me. I'm not saying it's wrong to enjoy something like Avengers as an adult, but for God's sake, why be afraid to enjoy it for guilty reasons? It's trashy pulp, so enjoy it as such. Leave the analysis for films which are intended exclusively for adult consumers. It may be douche-y of me to claim Avengers is nerdy, but how is it any better to claim it as anything more than the frothy popcorn it's intended to be?

MGames... Many have tried to interact with you, dude, but when people do present reasoning for their thoughts, you continually and consistently say their reasons are stupid and that people are "afraid" to be on your side of the argument. You literally believe all of these people are afraid to admit the "real" reasons they like something?



And yet you preach the artistic merit of schlock like Tintin? Why can't we enjoy that just as a minorly entertaining family film?

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Mgames is that douchebag critic in the movie Annie Hall, who claims to know everything about Marshall McLuhan because he teaches a class at Columbia on tv and media. Then Woody breaches the 4th wall and brings in Mcluhan to set things straight. Cook, stop forcing your opinion on people. It's completely all right if someone thinks that the Avengers is the best film ever made. No matter how much you would like to think so, you are not an expert or even a definitive voice of anything in this forum. The reason? You can't be, because opinions are not finite, they are just subjective banter. There is no equation for film that proves one is right or wrong. Stop searching for truth (in film). Stop acting like you are a scholar or theologean on film. It's laughably pathetic.

I really didn't want to be this brash, but enough is enough.

Here. You are the critic, and everyone else in this form is Woody Allen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY

Nailed it. And by using a film! Bonus points.

I see a few differences. For one thing, none of you has yet managed to produce Nolan himself in your defense. For another, this guy was not speaking directly to Woody Allen. For a third, don't you think Allen is making fun of his own character here just a little bit?

I may not be 100% in the right, but even if I was, one person can't stand up to a group. So I surrender, throw in the towel, hold up a white flag, whatever you want to call it. I'll try to be a better person and less of an asshole, but that also means no more of this:



Okay? You want me to be better, then it's on you to give me that chance. Shade, I think you'll agree that's fair, yes?

Agreed. You don't like Nolan's films, most do. I don't think he is a genius, but I have enjoyed all of his films (even the flawed The Prestige) and think he is a very talented filmmaker. You don't like or respect the Avengers. I think it is a great summer blockbuster that "feels" like a comic book come to life.

On to the next movie...Battleship perhaps?...lol we might actually agree on this one.

The film is basically an origin story for the team of Avengers. Obviously, the individuals themselves have had separate origin stories in their respective films, but none as a member of a team. So, I'd say, yeah, it is important to show the how and why of the team coming together.

The movie you're asking for sounds like they go from individuals to members of a team without any sort of incident or adjustment period. No, you don't have to be friends with your coworkers, but it does take time to get to know them and know how to work with them. I think it would have been a pretty big mistake, and made for a really boring movie, if the plot went straight from these individuals gathering together to a seamlessly functioning team. To me, that's what would have felt forced.



I'll kindly remind you here that in my post I acknowledged it wasn't the most profound thing in the world. However, it isn't mindless. Your point throughout this thread seemed to be that The Avengers isn't really a movie, but a product of hype with nothing to say. I disagreed and told you what it had to say. If now, you want to change your stance to "it isn't deep", then fair enough. Who am I to tell another person what constitutes deep?

I just wanted to point out that calling something an unmovie with nothing to say is completely different from not thinking what a movie has to say is deep.



And I never called it subtle. Still, it's a symbol. It's a visual symbol in a film. It's using the medium for something other than executing a plot.



It's an example of style matching substance in the film. The movie is using its camera to tell the story. It's visual storytelling. If you don't like that in movies, I don't really know why you like movies (anyone, not just you).



So because Munich exists, no other movie can be about the post 9/11 political climate? I agree that the Spielberg film is better, and you should also note that I've never called Whedon's film a great one. However, it is a movie that has something to say and is about something. The fact that other movies exist that are about similar things has no bearing on that. It's a useless point to make. Not even a point, since I'm not saying The Avengers is the definitive post 9/11 film or the best.



That. In bold. That's the problem I have with most people. They can't fathom that something that they don't think is "supposed" to be important or hefty can have something to say. It's raging pretentiousness.

So, you know, you stay in your little box and only analyze movies you think are "supposed" to be analyzed. I'll keep trying to approach everything I see with an open mind and let the movies speak for themselves.

Honestly, at this point, I'm confused as to what your stance on the movie is. At the beginning of your response you acknowledge that my points are valid but they don't make a good movie. That's a fair stance to take, even if I disagree. However, by the end of your post you've reverted back to insisting the movie is trashy pulp and that I'm somehow afraid to enjoy it for what it is. Either my points are valid and the movie isn't trashy pulp, just one you didn't like, or my points are not valid and the movie is an unmovie.

Finally, this doesn't amount to much of a counter argument. I mean, I write 700 words with specific examples from the movie that support my stance and you reply by saying my examples are stupid, pointless, and simple without any real substance other than insisting that is so. It's just...a poor argument on virtually every level. If the debate is going to consist of me bringing a legitimate point of view to the table with a good deal of supporting evidence, and you saying that evidence is stupid and pointless without giving any of your own, well, that's a debate I'd rather not have. I can't learn anything from that.

A friend of mine pointed out that the final battle "plot" in Avengers is the same "plot" as that of the classic arcade game "Galaga" (waves of aliens attack from above). Discuss.

I'm still waiting for someone to adapt Pac-Man: a guy lives in a haunted house, but he's also really, really, REALLY hungry.

These comments will be strictly against the movie itself, to the best of my ability:

The question is: to what extent does your analysis cover the entire whole of the film as opposed to minor parts of it? I think there are some painfully weak scenes in the movie that your interpretation of it doesn't account for. For instance, Loki's theft of the cube and destruction of the Shield complex strikes me as an clip lifted from cheap anime. It's overblown and overwhelming.

The scenes which feature Loki's communication with the alien leader come off as 3rd rate Star Wars. The scene in the woods between Thor, Iron Man, and Cap America is straight up poorly lit. As a superhero movie, Avengers requires a suspension of disbelief that none has called for since Spiderman 3; I don't understand why more people haven't been bothered by that. True, this movie didn't have Toby Maguire turn emo, but how is Sandman's ghostbusters-esque rampage any less ridiculous than the giant mechanical worms which keep popping out of the sky in Avengers?

Even Spidey 3 didn't have one aspect of suspension of disbelief which Avengers flaunts shamelessly. Back in 04 with Spidey 2, wasn't it awesome when he battled Doc Ock on the train, then almost killed himself saving the people on the train? What ever happened to that attitude, and to that scale of suspense? In Avengers, first of all where's the suspense? The city gets wrecked beyond all measure. It would take years to repair New York after the severe damage it takes, frankly a lot longer than it took to clean up after 9/11. The Avengers already failed to protect the city on that level. Second, with all the explosions and destruction we have to assume that a lot of people died during the invasion. But while all this death is going on (off camera), at least the Avengers get to do some bonding. Let a couple million bystanders get killed as long as Stark gets to say goodbye to Miss Potts?

Finally, there's the cheesiness. The montage of people praising the heroes on TV monitors at the end is just about the hoakiest thing I've ever seen in a movie. Didn't that sort of thing used to bother the average viewer? I don't get it, it's like nobody cares about these things anymore.

Just on a basic level, isn't anyone else bothered by the number of people who must be dying during the climactic battle? In Watchmen, it was handled with sensitivity...even Rorschach cried over it. Here, it's played up as popcorn. Am I the only one who was bothered by this?

I was more bothered by the fact that they had a multitude of stations represented (MSNBC, CNN, etc.) but no Fox News? I mean, it IS the #1 cable news network with ratings 2-3x its nearest competitor. Some speculation as to the omission:
http://www.politicususa.com/the-avengers-fox-news.html


Having the heroes lament over the loss of life in these instances is certainly a rarity in film rather than the norm. From Transformers to Star Wars (where an entire planet is blowed up fer cryin' out loud), these types of movies generally end on a high note when the evil is defeated. I wouldn't hold that against The Avengers

I'm not saying those films are any better, but I do say the best mainstream movies have always taken moral consequence into greater account. Rorschach's pain at the end of Watchmen is a good example. Another is Bond's angry rant to Vesper that by taking him out of Casino Royale's game she is putting lives in the danger of terrorists. There is a real human pain behind these moments that's missing from Avengers. Even the pain Stark feels in the original Iron Man upon watching the violence of the Middle East on the news. In this latest movie, when a million people are being killed, Stark complains that Thor hasn't invited him to his half of the battle, like it's a joke. When I feel more pain and sympathy for the thousands dying than the characters do who are trying to save them, I feel like something is wrong.

This is based on a COMIC BOOK though. A light hearted, fun comic book at that. The watchmen is a dark graphic novel with serious adult themes. Not to say that some adult themes don't permeate through The Avengers, but all in all it's a comic about putting aside your differences to become one and triumph over evil. The audience isn't suppose to focus on the people that "might" be dying off screen. This isn't a dark and brooding movie (or source material). We are suppose to focus on The Avengers kicking ass.

What about The Two Towers or Return of the King when people all around them are dying, but Legolis and Gimli are counting how many bad guys they kill to try to one up the other? Jackson is throwing in a bit of humor to counter the serious tone of what is taking place on screen. Frankly I enjoyed the lighthearted tone of the Avengers...I'll get my share of "dark" when The Dark Knight Rises later this summer.

Also:

Didn't Iron Man fly the nuke through the opened portal knowing it was a one way trip? He was sacrificing himself for the city (just like spidey). Luckily, he fell back through and was rescued by the Hulk and instead of Whedon getting ultra serious on us, we get the same old Tony waking up and wanting to try Schwarma.

Watchmen is a comic book, too, and it's about the same stuff as any other superhero story. The major operative difference between Watchmen and other superhero books is in style, rather than content.

I guess they figured Loki and the aliens were enough evil for one movie.