Should The Avengers Be at the Oscars?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Who cares about the Oscars anyway? All it does is give the winning actors and directors a nice, new handle for the billing on their future projects. I don't need The Avengers to win some haughty awards to validate my opinion that it's a great movie.

I don't care if The Avengers doesn't get an Oscar nod. The movie was FUN. Let the Academy pass it by if they want, it won't change how I feel about it.

SolveMedia: "it will pass"

You hit the nail on the head already: if the Academy was going to honor a genre film it will likely be toward The Dark Knight Rises or The Hobbit. Many of the Academy members will not appreciate how genre-defining The Avengers was the same way comic fans do, regarding the scope of characters and shared continuity between multiple films. The Avengers is nearly universally adored but the Academy will look down on it for not being as personable or relatable to them, but they (not critics or fans, just the septuagenarian Academy members) will forget about it in 6 months.

Besides, despite the rule change because of The Dark Knight 4 years ago, the rule changes from the past year just amplify the Academy biases even more. It won't be enough if the majority of Academy members believe that The Avengers is one of the top ten films of the year, a significant portion have to pick it as the very best film of the year. I doubt that Robert Downey Jr. has enough friends in the Academy to vote for the film because they want him to come to the after party.

SpiderJerusalem:
There's a very simple reason for that: They're not very good films. They're mediocre, ho-hum adaptations of a great series of books that managed to get by on the sheer gargantuan amount of money that WB threw at it. But in their haste to mimic the LotR frenzy, they hired tedious directors to create dull and lifeless phantoms of the books and lost out on their chances for awards that should have been easy grabs.

Yeah...you can't actually say that the Harry Potter movies were good films. They were just popular. The editing, acting, directing, and writing are all absolutely mediocre.

What is it with the anti-intellectual attitude on this forum? The Academy Awards aren't pretentious - they just aren't designed to cater to people who would honestly place The Avengers above some of the actually well-directed, moving, important films that have come out this year so far. The Avengers was cool and I enjoyed it, but it didn't need to exist; it didn't have any value other than being awesome and appealing to fans. If we're going to turn the Academy Awards into a giant popularity contest instead of an actual examination of film as art, then why even have it? We can just give the award out to the highest IMDB rating for the year and call it good instead of actually calling on industry professionals and experts to pick a film that truly examines what it's like to be human in this day and age over one that examines what it looks like when the Hulk punches a space-caterpillar.

tl;dr - The Avengers was fun but it is, at its heart, a popcorn movie. And I for one hope that we don't sink so low as to throw out risky, passionate directors with real artistic sensibilities in order to glorify the popular culture's obsession with witty one-liners and simple, childish plots.

Avengers is the kind of movie that would and should win technical achievement awards, but I can't exactly say it is the kind of movie that should win an award like best picture. Even with the expanded list of contenders thing they've been doing the last few years to help add the occasional popcorn movie into the mix, I just can't see the Avengers-no matter how much I might enjoy it-getting thrown into next years best picture race.

irishda:

Loki's tricked Thor before with that whole clone thing. Yet, somehow he didn't think the Hulk was a big enough threat to use on him, even though he was counting on the Hulk to take down the entire superhero team. Plus he apparently decided to never get up and walk away at any point.

Everyone keeps pointing their guns at Bruce Banner, even after he just gets done telling them he put a gun in his mouth and the Hulk just spit the bullet out. That one really ground my gears.

If Bruce Banner's always mad, why isn't he always the Hulk. (face it, they wanted to give him something cool to say, but it doesn't make any sense)

How come Fury didn't dispatch any of those soldiers he's got all over the carrier with some experimental weapons Agent Coulson had? Even if they just had the one weapon, those elite soldiers would probably have been at least as helpful as the girl with a pistol and the guy with a bow.

1) Loki didn't get much of a chance to see him coming.
2) Because he's shit scary and not everyone heard him say that. Only the main characters were in the room. It's easy to forget that the viewer can have more information than some of the characters.
3) He can control his emotions because as he demonstrated right after that line he learned how to bring out the Hulk at by his out accord and 'direct' his rage. When he transformed in the Heli-carrier attack he was pushed over the edge into direction-less rage. This is because he was already mad from the argument with the other avengers, the sudden attack on the ship would have got his heart pumping and he was likely injured when he fell through the floor.
4) It was an untested prototype. Plus he wasn't near an armoury, he was cornered in the flight deck.

I think if 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2' was nominated last year I would have said yes but that wasn't the case. It's clear that the Academy don't care about big elaborate projects that span multiple films and take years to assemble (no pun intended) but mildly entertaining escapism that last about 90 minutes and then you forget about it instantly ('The Artist', 'Slumdog Millionaire', 'Shakespeare in Love').It's for this reason that I think the Academy Awards are becoming more irrelevant.

They refuse to look at the big picture.

They don't care that thousands of people worked their asses off for over a decade to bring an amazing saga to the big screen with one cast of characters in the form of Harry Potter. They keep thinking that all that matters in terms of filmmaking is the lead actor. They barely even consider the hundreds of people who work on special effects or the writer/s and editors who make scenes memorable. For example in 'The King's Speech' it had a great lead performance but Tom Hooper's direction wasn't exactly noteworthy, yet he won the award for Best Director JUST because the Academy liked the film and he happened to be attached to it. The direction in 'The Social Network' was much better but without the great editing of the conversation sequences and the score it wouldn't have been as memorable.

It takes more than one person to make a movie.

Joss Whedon had to balance a huge cast from 4 previous franchises of different genres and tones into one cohesive experience and he pulled it off with flying colours.

I think if 'The Avengers' will be nominated for anything it will be the technical awards and if we're lucky it will be nominated for Best Screenplay. Just because 'The Avengers' could be the biggest box office success doesn't mean it should automatically win but it should be considered because it's an AMAZING MOVIE.

I don't actually care one fig for the Oscars or the Avengers. But I'm confused as to why it's being called a phenomenon or an "it" event. I know 1 person who've seen it and she said it was pretty good. That's somewhat incongruous with the praise it get's here.

I think this is mostly that people want a movie they like to win. Hell, I wanted Moon to win but that has zero to do with the real world. Just because you like something doesn't make it good. And frankly, despite my love for Firefly and by extension Whedon, I very much doubt that this is a movie that rises above it's pulpy comic book origins.

I fucking love comic books (not the Avengers though) but it would be moronic of me to claim it's actually worth the time I spent on it. It's basically literary sugar. Hell, I enjoyed the GI Joe movie a ton, but I know it's a shit movie objectively. Pulp is highly entertaining but it's also devoid of substance.

Anyway, millions of fans does not a good movie make. Only popular. McDonalds surely aren't fine cuisine?

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
No.

Sorry, but for all its billion dollar box office and witty dialogue, The Avengers is just another popcorn movie. An entertaining one, true, but nothing more. And there's too much coming out between now and the end of the year for it to stand a chance at the kind of recognition you're talking about. war. The Avengers... was about CGI dudes in rubber costumes beating each other up.

Pretty much echoes my thinking.

I think it's a little unfair to use Avengers as some sort of statement about genre movies probably not getting the awards season respect they deserve. Avangers was a fun movie and a very worthy way to spend a couple of hours, but it is not awards worthy. And, sorry, but that's nothing to do with it being a comic book movie.

It may not be fair that it will take an extremely exceptional genre movie to break through again as Return of the King did as compared to the middling non genre movies that get considered every year, sure, but it's the truth. And Avengers is not an extremely exceptional genre movie.

Oscar for what? Avengers was a solid film but I don't see why the internet has put it on a pedestal. It's nowhere near as good as The Dark Knight or Xmen First Class.

If Avatar can get nominated, then The Avengers should win. Avatar was all special effects and plot holes (and bad acting, useless characters, contrived plot stolen from other crappy movies, i'll stop). But yes, if Avatar can get nominated for anything, then surely The Avengers should win something.

Looking at the Avengers as a stand alone film' I don't really think it rates an Oscar. Worthy of consideration, sure. No film should be excluded simply because of its source material.

However, I do think it does deserve recognition for the combination of various narratives into a cohesive story. It popularized the concept of a huge universal continuity existing outside of a single film. Since the Oscars are supposed to recognize artistic achievement, I would say that the Avengers deserves some sort of recognition for that.

After hearing for over 10 years, "X nerd culture fanservice movie better win or else we will boycott the Oscars forever," I have to say that I don't care any more.

irishda:

Silverspetz:

metaldemoni:
Should the Avengers be at the Oscars? If by "at the Oscars" you mean "parking cars for Oscar attendees," then yes. There was nothing extraordinary about Avengers other than its length. Two plus hours of gravitas-crushing one liners, industry average special effects, and a plot with more holes in it than Dick Cheney's driver do not add up to anything even remotely Oscar-worthy.

Name 1 concrete plot-hole in The Avengers please.

Loki's tricked Thor before with that whole clone thing. Yet, somehow he didn't think the Hulk was a big enough threat to use on him, even though he was counting on the Hulk to take down the entire superhero team. Plus he apparently decided to never get up and walk away at any point.

Everyone keeps pointing their guns at Bruce Banner, even after he just gets done telling them he put a gun in his mouth and the Hulk just spit the bullet out. That one really ground my gears.

If Bruce Banner's always mad, why isn't he always the Hulk. (face it, they wanted to give him something cool to say, but it doesn't make any sense)

How come Fury didn't dispatch any of those soldiers he's got all over the carrier with some experimental weapons Agent Coulson had? Even if they just had the one weapon, those elite soldiers would probably have been at least as helpful as the girl with a pistol and the guy with a bow.

There's four, people can probably come up with more.

1) Loki was using the mistrust everyone has towards Banner and the 'Other Guy'. While I watched that scene where they are arguing, my first reaction was Loki wanted the group to split. By themselves not one of those heroes or a small portion of them could slow or stop the invasion.

2) Has been answered, but I will expand on it pointing out that soldiers on capturing missions will aim their weapons at the target to 'force compliance'.

3) People can be mad without losing control, but with how the Hulk works is either extreme anger, pain/death, or heart rate over 200.

4) Experimental weapons that no-one knows how this unknown technology will work in a stressing environment. Hence Coulson's reaction when he pulled the trigger 'So that's what it does.' I believe is the quote.

Just for fun, it should win every award going, including Best Foreign Language Film and Best Animated Feature. There'll be a single universe out there at least where this is about to happen.

Captcha: Happy Anniversary. Well, I'm not even married or anything, but thanks anyway.

One of the major reasons that Avengers is such an important movie is that it is the first time ever that continuities from different movies blended together for a single movie.

This wasn't Avengers 1 It was Iron Man 3 + Thor 2 + Captain America 2 + Hulk 2. Forget about the new sequels coming out. This is the Real numbering that should be used for the next movies coming out.

Iron Man 4 Thor 3 Captain America 3 should be the real titles for the next movies

DVS BSTrD:
It should but we all know it won't.
Best Screenplay
Best Special Effects.
Best Actor
Best Movie
I'd really like to see the Hulk get nominated for best supporting actor.

Isn't the Hulk more of a main character? And if he got nominated, I would demand the guy who played Agent Coleson get nominated. He was by far one of the best actors in all the movies.

Winnosh:
One of the major reasons that Avengers is such an important movie is that it is the first time ever that continuities from different movies blended together for a single movie.

This wasn't Avengers 1 It was Iron Man 3 + Thor 2 + Captain America 2 + Hulk 2. Forget about the new sequels coming out. This is the Real numbering that should be used for the next movies coming out.

Iron Man 4 Thor 3 Captain America 3 should be the real titles for the next movies

Whats really shocking is that they made great stand-alone films, gave you hints as to the next movie (like the Thor's Hammer scene at the end of the credits for Iron Man 2), and delivered a movie I think most of us were really worried about not living up to the previous movies, or the hype it was getting.

OT: If a movies like The Kings Speech and The Artist can win Oscars, then The Avengers can at the very least get nominated. It doesn't even have to win, but at the very least they need to start putting movies the average person would watch. Or maybe movies that don't make people want to go and smash their DVD player.

SpiderJerusalem:

PortalThinker113:
No Harry Potter movie has won a single Oscar.

There's a very simple reason for that: They're not very good films. They're mediocre, ho-hum adaptations of a great series of books that managed to get by on the sheer gargantuan amount of money that WB threw at it. But in their haste to mimic the LotR frenzy, they hired tedious directors to create dull and lifeless phantoms of the books and lost out on their chances for awards that should have been easy grabs.

I certainly would agree with you on some of them (Order of the Phoenix and Goblet of Fire immediately spring to mind in the "dull and lifeless" category- I'm talking about the FILMS, of course), but at the very least, I loved Prisoner of Azkaban and Deathly Hallows: Part 2 quite a bit. The series has certainly had ups and downs, but in my book, those two deserve a bit of recognition. I'm not saying either of them deserved to WIN Best Picture or anything, but a nomination for Deathly Hallows: Part 2 might have been nice. Each to their own, I suppose!

They certainly don't even touch the shoelaces of the Lord of the Rings films, though- you're right about that.

Oh god no. A million times no.

The Avengers was dumb fun, and nothing else.

It won't get a single nom or win.

I loved the movie, but it was just goofy over the top punch line ridculousness.

I honestly gave up on the oscars long ago. The one time I actually agreed with their winners was the year Return of the King walked away with enough brass to outfit an orchestra. And that was more or less an apology to the audience for being so out of touch as to gloss over the first 2 films. I expect Avengers to get a nomination or 2 for supporting actor - Sam Jackson, and special effects. But best picture? The winner will be some WW2 period piece about a downtrodden jew or other underclassman of the era who becomes best friends with a rich man. It will win because the voters have to internalize their guilt for being rich old white men, and to do so in a method they can understand.

Eh. I gave up on those things after Conan the Barbarian failed to get an Oscar in 1982.

As to the titular question, Academy Awards judges are free to judge movies and distinguish good ones from bad by whatever standard they want. If we demand and force them to consider Avengers for best picture, it is no longer their awards ceremony, it is ours. We may as well print our own gold medals for completing 12 achievements in Skyrim and wear it while walking down the street to show people how cool we are.

The Academy Awards judges are free to judge a film by whatever standard floating around in their heads. I'm accustomed to movies I like--some I remember fondly dozens of years later--not being contenders at the academy awards, yet being very popular among my friends. If such movies ever make it in, that's when I start to worry.

Rebuttals to my plot hole comment:

Why didn't Loki use his powers on the Hulk, even though he was counting on Hulk to kill the rest of the heroes?

JaredXE:

NvrPhazed:

Jeff Gibson:

Because, the Hulk snuck up on Loki, Loki is a talkative villain, and Loki didn't see Hulk as a threat.

But even though Loki's powers are rather dubiously defined, he clearly showcased his ability to replicate even when surprised. Coulson tried to "ambush" him after all. And the worst is the idea that he didn't see the Hulk as a threat. I'm sure he thought he was smarter than the Hulk, but when his earlier plan was counting on the Hulk to kill all the other superheros, including his brother, who he kind of takes seriously. So the idea that he didn't think the Hulk could hurt him doesn't really hold water.

Why do people keep pointing guns at the Hulk

Because the Hulk is scary and people would therefore react irrationally.

You know what else people do when they're scared? Run. People do a lot of running. Especially when the object of said fear specifically says bullets don't harm him. If the Hulk says to me, "hey I can literally eat bullets" I'm pretty sure my first instinct would be to start running if he starts to show up.

If Bruce Banner is always angry, why isn't he always the Hulk?
I'm not gonna paraphrase the two counter arguments because they are just hilarious as is:

There are different levels of anger dude. Also hulk comes out because of his heart rate not his anger. So him being always angry would allow him to control his heart rate so it wont go up since his attitude gets left out of the equation.

3. The "I'm always angry" line actually make a good deal of sense. One of the defining characteristics of The Hulk is 'The madder he is, the stronger he is.' If he's just a little bit angry all the time, there's no noticeable change(apart from going from looking like Ed Norton to looking like Mark Ruffalo, apparently), but if he's always a bit angry, he's always a bit Hulk, so it becomes simpler to focus the epic-tier asskicking on a specific target.

Okay, that's not how anger works. Anger has physiological symptoms, like any mood. One of those symptoms is an elevated heart rate. Constantly being angry means constantly having an elevated heart rate. And if he's a little angry, then what's the anger level at which the Hulk comes out, and how does he just automatically jump to that level of anger while still remaining in control of the Hulk's actions? This is part of a lot of comic book or sci-fi writer's repertoire: this hero's power will do exactly what the story needs it to do. Personally, I thought it would've been more interesting if Bruce never had control over the Hulk and they had to figure out how to use him without getting themselves killed.

Why didn't Nick Fury send soldiers down to help along with the Helicarrier, along with some of those cool weapons like the one Coulson had.

Because they were trying to keep the helicarrier from coming down, they were useless against Loki, and that weapon was clearly a prototype, so there's no more.

The soldiers probably aren't necessary for the technical maintenance of the ship, and certainly would've been better utilized saving lives. As for the weapon, like I said, they don't necessarily need it. After all, Widow and Hawkeye both proved the aliens could be held back even with less technologically advanced weapons. These are supposed to be elite top-secret soldiers, there's no reason they can't help against aliens that are apparently susceptible to pistol fire and martial arts.

absolutely it had a big name cast, high production value and cleaned house in revenue, it'd be an insult if it wasn't included. Just because its topic is viewed as childish doesn't make it less of a movie

VoidWanderer:

1) Loki was using the mistrust everyone has towards Banner and the 'Other Guy'. While I watched that scene where they are arguing, my first reaction was Loki wanted the group to split. By themselves not one of those heroes or a small portion of them could slow or stop the invasion.

You just reminded me of the laziest write off of all. (It's not technically a plot hole, but more of just lazy writing)

OT: This movie's not exactly the pinnacle of filmmaking, and doesn't really bring a whole lot of groundbreaking. Other directors, mainly Tarantino and Guy Ritchie, have done the whole "bringing separate characters with different storylines together" before, and they've done it in one movie instead of five. It's a fun movie to be sure, and it would stand a chance at the Oscars for special effects, sound editing, or costumes. But there's better scripts, better actors, and overall better movies out there. Hell even Bob doesn't give it the best picture and that guy's got a hard-on for the Avengers.

irishda:

Silverspetz:

metaldemoni:
Should the Avengers be at the Oscars? If by "at the Oscars" you mean "parking cars for Oscar attendees," then yes. There was nothing extraordinary about Avengers other than its length. Two plus hours of gravitas-crushing one liners, industry average special effects, and a plot with more holes in it than Dick Cheney's driver do not add up to anything even remotely Oscar-worthy.

Name 1 concrete plot-hole in The Avengers please.

Loki's tricked Thor before with that whole clone thing. Yet, somehow he didn't think the Hulk was a big enough threat to use on him, even though he was counting on the Hulk to take down the entire superhero team. Plus he apparently decided to never get up and walk away at any point.

Everyone keeps pointing their guns at Bruce Banner, even after he just gets done telling them he put a gun in his mouth and the Hulk just spit the bullet out. That one really ground my gears.

If Bruce Banner's always mad, why isn't he always the Hulk. (face it, they wanted to give him something cool to say, but it doesn't make any sense)

How come Fury didn't dispatch any of those soldiers he's got all over the carrier with some experimental weapons Agent Coulson had? Even if they just had the one weapon, those elite soldiers would probably have been at least as helpful as the girl with a pistol and the guy with a bow.

There's four, people can probably come up with more.

The real big one is why no one questioned Loki for just waiting on that hill when Ironmon and Thor fought or why all the aliens just up and died.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZkqC4Lz8dU&feature=g-all-u

I liked Avengers but I don't think it deserve best picture a Pixar movie is coming out this summer for one, I think it deserves a nod for best adapted screenplay, maybe even screen play, costume and effects.

Plot Holes:

1. How can the Hulk, a mindless raging id monster, now suddenly be able to differentiate between friend and foe?

2. Why didn't Loki mind control Fury at the beginning instead of Hawk-Eye?

3. Speaking of Loki's mind control, what a lucky chance that a knock on the head clears it up (more of a plot contrivance than a plot hole I suppose)

The Gentleman:

Maxtro:
There need to be new categories created for the Oscars.

Because you want to see how long an awards show can go on?

OT: There probably should be an "exceptional achievement" Oscar for movies like Harry Potter and the Avengers, where there is no justifiable reason to give them one of the main awards, but the movie achieved something unique or a milestone in cinema.

At the very least, they can toss a few technical awards in the Avenger's direction...

Oh they will throw a few technical awards at The Avengers... and will come at the expense of Prometheus, which will likely turn out to be the film that earned those awards.

You gotta go all the way back to 1983, when E.T.: The Extraterrestrial, which was not going to beat Ghandi for Best Picture... but it got the bone tossed in Visual Effects, beating Poltergeist and Blade Runner. The alien puppet movie, with flying bikes, beat Douglas Trumbull's effects team who managed to create the FX for BLADE RUNNER... arguably the greatest visual effects achievement since Star Wars... and created by the man who got snubbed when he did not win the FX statue for 2001: A Space Odyssey

ET beat TRON and Das Boot in sound. Seriously? WTF?

Why? ET earned $359,197,037 in it's release year, compared to Blade Runner's $27,580,111. I'm not gonna argue Blade Runner is better than ET. It is, in my subjective opinion... and it has weathered time better... but better is a tough call because ET is arguably also a great movie. But objectively looking at the achievements of classic films like Blade Runner and Das Boot... Blade Runner featured the greatest FX on screen to date... and Das Boot was a tremendous sound achievement.

I'm tired of seeing, year after year, the technical awards tossed like meat scraps to appease the crowd pleasers. Douglas Trumbull was denied no less than 5 Academy awards. Trumbull has distinguished himself as a visual effects pioneer with major contributions to such films as "2001: A Space Odyssey," "The Andromeda Strain," "Silent Running," "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," "Star Trek - The Motion Picture," "Blade Runner" and "Tree of Life." He finally received the Gordon E. Sawyer Award in February 2012, an honorary Academy Award given to an "individual in the motion picture industry whose technological contributions have brought credit to the industry." And he received it at the technical awards show... not on the big night.

Hell no it shouldn't. It's ridiculous. It's an AWESOME movie, not a great one. Granted, it probably has a better right to be nominated than many movies that WILL be up for best picture, but at the end of the day, its a big, dumb action movie with big, dumb fights and snappy witticisms. The Marvel bloc hasn't been this ground-shaking parade of cinema giants, it is just a bunch of very entertaining 'splodefests with a decent script. the only difference between this and Ahnold's work is that they have better reasons for action movie implausibility.
like godhood, robot suits, and magic juice.
deserving of recognition, certainly, but unless NOTHING ELSE IS BETTER THIS YEAR, it shouldn't go up

irishda:
Rebuttals to my plot hole comment:

Why didn't Loki use his powers on the Hulk, even though he was counting on Hulk to kill the rest of the heroes?

JaredXE:

NvrPhazed:

But even though Loki's powers are rather dubiously defined, he clearly showcased his ability to replicate even when surprised. Coulson tried to "ambush" him after all. And the worst is the idea that he didn't see the Hulk as a threat. I'm sure he thought he was smarter than the Hulk, but when his earlier plan was counting on the Hulk to kill all the other superheros, including his brother, who he kind of takes seriously. So the idea that he didn't think the Hulk could hurt him doesn't really hold water.

Why do people keep pointing guns at the Hulk

Because the Hulk is scary and people would therefore react irrationally.

You know what else people do when they're scared? Run. People do a lot of running. Especially when the object of said fear specifically says bullets don't harm him. If the Hulk says to me, "hey I can literally eat bullets" I'm pretty sure my first instinct would be to start running if he starts to show up.

If Bruce Banner is always angry, why isn't he always the Hulk?
I'm not gonna paraphrase the two counter arguments because they are just hilarious as is:

There are different levels of anger dude. Also hulk comes out because of his heart rate not his anger. So him being always angry would allow him to control his heart rate so it wont go up since his attitude gets left out of the equation.

3. The "I'm always angry" line actually make a good deal of sense. One of the defining characteristics of The Hulk is 'The madder he is, the stronger he is.' If he's just a little bit angry all the time, there's no noticeable change(apart from going from looking like Ed Norton to looking like Mark Ruffalo, apparently), but if he's always a bit angry, he's always a bit Hulk, so it becomes simpler to focus the epic-tier asskicking on a specific target.

Okay, that's not how anger works. Anger has physiological symptoms, like any mood. One of those symptoms is an elevated heart rate. Constantly being angry means constantly having an elevated heart rate. And if he's a little angry, then what's the anger level at which the Hulk comes out, and how does he just automatically jump to that level of anger while still remaining in control of the Hulk's actions? This is part of a lot of comic book or sci-fi writer's repertoire: this hero's power will do exactly what the story needs it to do. Personally, I thought it would've been more interesting if Bruce never had control over the Hulk and they had to figure out how to use him without getting themselves killed.

Why didn't Nick Fury send soldiers down to help along with the Helicarrier, along with some of those cool weapons like the one Coulson had.

Because they were trying to keep the helicarrier from coming down, they were useless against Loki, and that weapon was clearly a prototype, so there's no more.

The soldiers probably aren't necessary for the technical maintenance of the ship, and certainly would've been better utilized saving lives. As for the weapon, like I said, they don't necessarily need it. After all, Widow and Hawkeye both proved the aliens could be held back even with less technologically advanced weapons. These are supposed to be elite top-secret soldiers, there's no reason they can't help against aliens that are apparently susceptible to pistol fire and martial arts.

1: Coulsson held Loki at gunpoint for a good amount of time, giving Loki the opportunity to switch himself with an illusion. The Hulk smashed Loki through a window and didn't even let him finish a sentence before pummeling him around. There is a pretty big difference there.

2: Right, because when you are an organization dedicated to protecting people, running is the first thing you do as soon as your first plan (guns) doesn't work. Since when has anyone EVER just put the gun down because they have been told it won't work. At the very least holding on to it shows the adversary that you aren't just going to roll over.

3: Yes, that IS how anger works. You can be angry but still have it subdued. Have you never encountered something that enraged you, and even after the initial moments of heartponding have passed you still feel really pissed off? Even if Banner's heart rate is always elevated, he has become so desensitized that he he doesn't let most things make him MORE angry and thus raise his heart-rate past the breaking point. Unless something extremely sudden and stressful happens (like if a bomb goes off and sends him crashing through the floor) he can keep the hulk down. And if he always has a bit of anger in him, then he can LET that anger boil up at any time too while still retaining a bit of himself so that he doesn't smash his allies. All he has to do is to start to really think about all the things that piss him off and let them get to him. We also saw at the end of "The Incredible Hulk" that he can control his heartbeat through meditation (and in that movie we also saw what the limit for his heart is before the Hulk comes out).

4: The Helicarrier was almost crashing as it was, and a whole lot of soldiers died in the attack on it, leaving it understaffed. So yeah, I do think it is plausible that they were needed on-board. Widow and Hawkeye are the elite of the elite, even if conventional weapons can hurt the aliens, they are the only ones skilled enough to do a damn with them.

As for that bit about Iron-man and a nuke being all that was needed. Not only would a LOT more people have died if the other avengers weren't there to hold back the invasion before the could do the nuke-trick, but Iron-Man wouldn't even have been able to pull that off without the team backing him up (someone still needed to close the portal for instance). Not to mention that the whole thing was a fluke since the counsel really wanted to just blow up NY. This is really the most convoluted complaint for the movie I have ever heard.

Do you have more nitpicks you would like to share?

If they could nominate Avatar they can return the favor with The Avengers.

Moser Grey:
Plot Holes:

1. How can the Hulk, a mindless raging id monster, now suddenly be able to differentiate between friend and foe?

2. Why didn't Loki mind control Fury at the beginning instead of Hawk-Eye?

3. Speaking of Loki's mind control, what a lucky chance that a knock on the head clears it up (more of a plot contrivance than a plot hole I suppose)

1- hes a creature like any other, he's going to fight against the ones who pose a threat to him.

2- because he had a plan that involved hawkeye. It was a pretty good plan since it worked.

3- thats just a film device rather than showing some pointless de-hypnosis scene.

No. No it shouldn't get any Oscars. Or even be nominated.

It was an enjoyable popcorn movie with snappy dialogue and comic book characters beating the shit out of each other, and nothing more. No emotional attachment to anyone, no real threat, no real plot twists and simplistic and sometimes nonsensical writing is what prevents the film from being qualified for it. Even on a technical level, it does very little that something like Transformers hadn't done 5 years earlier.

We can't let the avengers go to the oscars! It'd be a disaster.
Think about it, Loki would try to kill everyone, There'd be a huge battle, Hulk would smash...
The after-party clean up would be a nightmare.

It doesn't do anything we haven't seen before and it doesn't do anything we do know any better than the other films I've seen this year.
I believe that when a superhero film is something more than flashy effects and one-liners then there might be some awards going that way. But to be taken seriously, you have to take it seriously in the first place. Most superhero films are too light hearted, too tongue in cheek to make you want to believe in it.

SpiderJerusalem:

PortalThinker113:
No Harry Potter movie has won a single Oscar.

There's a very simple reason for that: They're not very good films. They're mediocre, ho-hum adaptations of a great series of books that managed to get by on the sheer gargantuan amount of money that WB threw at it. But in their haste to mimic the LotR frenzy, they hired tedious directors to create dull and lifeless phantoms of the books and lost out on their chances for awards that should have been easy grabs.

I tend to agree this. I really like the Potter films but they aren't brilliant. Simply making a series of seven films shouldn't earn you an Oscar.

As for the Avengers. It depends. I haven't seen enough films this year to say, but it would be a poor year for Cinema if the Avengers win.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here