Avengers: The Down Side Of Up

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Avengers: The Down Side Of Up

The Avengers may have been great, but Hollywood may not have been paying attention to what made it so.

Read Full Article

It may be cynic in me, but I'm sure that The Avengers will end up creating a few net negatives. The big one that I'm worried about is the creation of a "it worked for the Avengers" axiom when it comes to the creation of future super hero movies.

Isn't this always the way it is, though?

The 80s were full of awful action films until Lethal Weapon and Die Hard came along and blew all those overly macho, incredibly stupid films out of the water. Great writing, good direction, good actors and what was learned?

"Let's just copy what we saw."

Sure it worked for a little while but just a few years down the line, the cliche of 'Die Hard on a X' was a easy point of reference to describe a film--many, many films. Nobody seemed to realize that giving audiences characters they could root for, villains that were more than just cutouts, heroes that had something to risk _coupled_ with action sequences, not just hyperactive shootouts/explosions for 90 minutes were things that people would flock to.

Suffering through mediocrity seems to be one of the constants in the universe.

Very interesting read, definitely one of my favourite Intermissions, and I can't help but agree with you.
That said, I find it curious of you to mention a want for a Justice League movie in the same article as you explain some (but not nearly all) of the reasons why we should all fear a Justice League movie. If Green Lantern proved anything, it's that WB really don't get super hero movies (Chistopher Nolan's Batman is the exception, not the rule) and that coupled with the reasons mentioned here can in my mind only lead to a bad, but profitable Justice League movie, which would only enhance the negative fallouts of the examples given in this article.

I sadly have to agree with you guys. I mean, the Matrix revolutionized action films in a lot of good ways. But it also led to a lot of stylish action movies with gravity-defying bullet-time effects with no substance. The Matrix had a story reason why the heroes had superhuman powers, but other movies did it "because it looks cool". Much like Halo introduced regenerating health to FPSes because there was a good story reason for it, while modern military shooters copy it even though it makes no sense.

GeorgW:
Chistopher Nolan's Batman is the exception, not the rule.

Heck, Nolan's Batman is the exception that proves the rule. Great movies, but far more Nolan than Batman. Nolan's Batman is an overly serious interpretation with a complete lack of self awareness that would fall completely to pieces as soon as something as overtly ridiculous as space aliens, magic rings, or magic powers were introduced to it. Great in their own box, but utterly unable to take part in Avengers style feel good genre mashups.

Falseprophet:
But it also led to a lot of stylish action movies with gravity-defying bullet-time effects with no substance.

Its own sequels most notable among them.

Always expect corporate execs to learn the wrong lesson - see Zynga for reference.

As far as stylistic vision goes, I think it's a case of movies learning to walk before they run. They need to get comfortable with the basics of superhero movies (and get audiences comfortable with them), then they can branch out into something like Miller and Sienkiewicz's Elektra: Assassin or Morrison and McKean's Arkham Asylum. Putting either of those on film at this point would just confuse (and possibly frighten) movie audiences.

I don't think Avengers will have as many net positives as Bob claims. What set Avengers apart from most other summer blockbusters was its writing and characters people already knew and rooted for. That isn't something that can be copied, even if it should be obvious that every film should have those elements. There are probably going to be plenty of films that will try to copy its success in the most superficial way: superhero team-up. Eventually we'll get a crappy team-up film like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, a film that tried to copy the one major aspect without considering the details (in other words, whatever good The Avengers will do, the Justice League movie will probably squander it).

Marvel though may also forget about the details that made Avengers great. My worry was that Marvel would simply begin going through its back catalog and keep churning out average films on an assembly line (even more so than they already do). Right now, Shane Black is done with Iron Man 3 and Edgar Wright still has Ant-Man (IMO Shane Black is a visionary is the same vein as Joss Whedon, with more R-rated dialogue). I remember hearing something about Marvel possibly taking Ant-Man away from Wright if he took too long to film The World's End. Marvel is treating its films as a means of brand awareness instead of ways to tell great stories. I hope that if a visionary director wanted to direct one of the films (like Nolan with Batman, or Del Toro with Hellboy) than Marvel would oblige, but Marvel's a big studio now (well Disney is) and will look at their enterprise through the eyes of accountants and managers like every studio.

Also, any executive who remembers Scott Pilgrim will remember not to always cave to fan pressure.

Failures gonna fail.

I mean, it is known that 90% of everything is crap. It is known that 90% of writers trying to imitate any given success will produce crap.

Applying that to a specific movie, feels less like a needed dose of cynicism, and more like party-pooping, pointing out obvious truisms about the fact that the world is not perfect. It's basically taking the uplifting statement "The Avengers is better than average movie you will see", and changing it to "the average movie will be worse than The Avengers".

Entirely redundant "glass-half-empty"-ism.

Everyone has a boner for Avengers but imo it was about the same level as Captain America which is above Iron Man 2 and below Iron Man 1 and Thor.

I really didn't like how the alien invaders were space rednecks who didn't have a plan beyond "lets break stuff". Downey was good as expected and Ruffalo was brilliant as David Banner but other than that nothing stood out. It all seemed like generic high budget Transformers-level cg effects blah. It was fun to watch but totally forgettable.

Look, I hate to be the party pooper, but could it just be that the Avengers won't have a positive net effect on Hollywood because it's just not that great a movie.

It is what it is: it's shallow entertainment, and it succeeds at that. But honestly, the biggest problem with the film is that its fans, Bob included, are holding it up not just as one of the year's better action flicks, but one of the best films of the past decade. I'm sorry, but it ain't that special. Witty one liners do not a genre-buster make, especially when so much of the rest of the film revolves around the same tropes that have been pervading superhero films for the past fifteen years. The Avengers won't have a massive positive effect on Hollywood, because there is nothing innovative or different enough about it to cause such an effect. Yes, it has some good banter. Films have have had good banter and one liners ever since the talkies first came out.

Other than snarky one liners, all the Avengers has is spectacle. Like Transformers 3, along with practically every other blockbuster of the last few years, the Avengers will simply convince Hollywood to pour money into expensive CGI tech demos that show yet another city being destroyed by yet another extraterrestrial threat, probably by some sort of machiney looking enemy.

Here's the thing: the comics industry is an inherently shallow medium. When something great comes along, it's always the least important elements that are taken and copied by everyone else. When The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen were released, did the comics industry then put out more stories focused on deconstructing the superhero genre, including multiple levels of symbolism, thematic subtext and psychological characterisation? No. They assumed that people dug violent, moody comics, and we got over a decade of comic book characters trying to outdo each other in the unpleasant, sociopathic violence stakes. When Nolan released Batman Begins, did the film industry focus on releasing intricate, deep stories that use superheroes as a tool to explore big ideas? No, they just assumed people really dug origin stories, and set about rebooting every property they could to get another origin story out there for people to see.

DemBones:
snip

You know he was playing devil's advocate, right? Despite saying you doubt it will have many negatives, you seem awfully cynical lol.

Also, no executive will ever use Scott Pilgrim as a palette for success, it was a box office failure.

Edit: ^ this

Will some negatives happen? Of course they will it's Hollywood and well we see the results every year of cases where Hollywood just doesn't get why something works.

But I look at it on the bright side. If Avengers can kill things like the Micheal Bay Transformers series I'll be a happy person. When Hollywood uses in name only to produce something cool and great it's wonderful, but too often in name only just gives a bitter disappointment to people who loved something before Hollywood got their hands on it.

I'm also thinking that maybe Avengers will encourage Hollywood to go with some color other than black for the costumes. If Avengers means we don't have to deal with X-Men all wearing black or GI Joe all wearing black costumes then Avengers has done has a great favor.

Im actually hoping that the Avengers amkes the Dark Tower series more than any of the DC movies and the then inevitable Justice League film. I mean, id welcome some films (a better green lantern [though I didnt mind the first but then again im not a film critic], a wonderwoman film [just to see what they'd do with it], and even a flash film), but to actually see a Dark Tower film that encompassed the main series, the comics, and the off shoot books (The Wind Through the Keyhole and The Little Sisters of Eluria), as well as made connections to other Stephen King books (and thereby meaning we need to actually make movies or new movies of said books [such as 'Salem's Lot and Hearts Of Atlantis]) would make me personally very happy, especially if you got the right person on it.

... Though thinking about it now to actually do that would take literal decades and be arguably the most ambitious film project, topping such others as LotR, Harry Potter, and yes even the Avengers (again, arguably).

Sorry Bob, but after all the hype and later praise by criticts of Avengers I found it a decent movie, 7.5 out of 10. Whereas the "Not that good" Batman blew me away; 9/10.

OT: Let's just hope all the bad things it can bring about won't happen.

sailor_960:
It may be cynic in me, but I'm sure that The Avengers will end up creating a few net negatives. The big one that I'm worried about is the creation of a "it worked for the Avengers" axiom when it comes to the creation of future super hero movies.

Oh mose def, people will always try to imitate success without even the most basic understanding of WHY it worked in the first place. But I think the mere fact that the Avengers exists more that ballances out any negative consiquences.

MrLumber:

DemBones:
snip

You know he was playing devil's advocate, right? Despite saying you doubt it will have many negatives, you seem awfully cynical lol.

Also, no executive will ever use Scott Pilgrim as a palette for success, it was a box office failure.

Edit: ^ this

My point was that executives will use Scott Pilgrim as a reason to not listen to fans because it was a failure. Scott Pilgrim had massive Comic-Con marketing and was made in a way that geared almost exclusively to fans and comics/gamer geeks. The filmmakers listened to the fans, and the film bombed. For every good example of a concept working, there is an example of it failing.

I know Bob is playing devil's advocate, I'm just more inclined to believe that some of the more negative impacts will come true. The biggest positive right now is a whole lot of cash for Marvel so they can make Guardians of the Galaxy. The cultural tastes of the zeitgeist will change, and eventually people will get tired of the over abundance of comic book style comic book films in the same way that people got tired of dark & gritty comic book films (or overly campy films as well).

I was also playing devil's advocate.

image

I'm hearing a lot of people talk about how the like the romance in Amazing Spider-man, I would assume that might have something to do with Webb, since he did (500) Days of Summer, but then again that's also the ONLY film he's ever done so...

Falseprophet:
Much like Halo introduced regenerating health to FPSes because there was a good story reason for it, while modern military shooters copy it even though it makes no sense.

I would argue that there wasn't regenerating health because there was a story reason, the story reasoning was made because they wanted to have regenerating heatlh, to speed up the pace of FPS games for consoles. I would imagine its also why they limited the weapons to two instead of nine or more, and why grenade tossing became its own button instead of a selectable weapon.

Alterego-X:
Failures gonna fail.

I mean, it is known[...]

------------------

Yeah, if there's one thing you can count on in the entertainment industry, it's people completely misinterpreting/taking out of context what made a particular property a success and running with it, straight into the bottom of a canyon.

I know its a bit off topic, but I'm glad to see someone else that likes the changes made to the Starship Troopers movie. I mean, I do like the book and all, but the movie was so much more fun and memorable than it ever could have been if it was more faithful to the book.

Overall, I think everyone needs to get off the whole "perfect adaptation" thing. It should go without saying, but movies are not books or comic books. Each medium has its own strengths and weaknesses, and in moving a story from one medium to another, things will have to change to account for this.

So is he saying that having auteur-directors do the next films would be a good thing or a bad thing? That being said, I'd like to see Guy Ritchie do a Marvel film. Slow-mo, quirky nicknames, awesome licensed soundtrack, wacky dialogue. Good times to be had.

Also, Neveldine & Taylor would be cool as well. What's that, they already did a superhero movie, you say? Nope. Didn't. Ghost who? Never heard of him.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Other than snarky one liners, all the Avengers has is spectacle. Like Transformers 3, along with practically every other blockbuster of the last few years, the Avengers will simply convince Hollywood to pour money into expensive CGI tech demos that show yet another city being destroyed by yet another extraterrestrial threat, probably by some sort of machiney looking enemy.

I think you're missing two big points here about what makes The Avengers special and extraordinary.

The first is what you dismiss as 'snarky one-liners', but is much more than that: it's a strong, effective group dynamic - precisely what Whedon specialises in and why he was such a perfect choice for the job. It is very easy to underestimate how difficult it is to write effective scripts with large numbers of equally prominent characters, especially when those characters are all interacting with one another (as opposed to separate or intersecting plot strands).

As Orson Scott Card once pointed out, the number of relationships between characters increases according to the square of the number of characters (or thereabouts), so keeping track of those relationships, especially in the context of an action movie with only limited time available for character development, is a huge challenge. Add to that the issue that all these characters are played by major stars and that is a really impressive achievement.

The second is what you dismiss as 'spectacle', for which I'll refer you back to Bob's review of (IIRC) Transformers 3, where he was talking about the poor editing of action movies. I was watching Quantum of Solace the other day and it struck me again there how plain confusing the action sequences were - a mess of jump cuts, extreme close ups and loud noises that made it almost impossible to keep track of what was happening to who, and meant that really all I was doing was waiting for them to be over so we could get back to the story.

Contrast that with the final battle that takes up the last act of Avengers, or for that matter the sequence aboard the flying fortress in the second act. Consider that each of these contained multiple intersecting stories - we're not talking Return of the Jedi here with three simultaneous but separate stories, but one big battle taking place on multiple fronts simultaneously. Note how often we move from one part of that battle to another, and how well we are kept informed of all the action, and how well-paced it is with each character being given their own role and story beats - even useless Hawkeye.

Again, Whedon pulls this off so smoothly that you don't even notice what an achievement it is, but it really is masterful. If I were awarding Avengers an Oscar, it would be for Best Editing.

So - is it Casablanca? No. Is it a better all-round film than Dark Knight Rises? Not sure. But is it a bigger *achievement* than Dark Knight Rises? Undoubtedly, in my opinion.

(tl;dr: They're really, really *good* snarky one-liners and spectacle)

If I may add another caveat to that list: Pressure and standards.

A key component of the success of an Avengers approach to franchises, is for the component films to all be good, or at least not embarrassing disasters. Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor were all well-regarded and successful, and The Incredible Hulk ... wasn't the other Hulk film. Since Hulk had been first, they had time to release a new version that retconned it into oblivion, but imagine if it hadn't been. Or imagine if DC were in the middle of trying to set up a Justice League film franchise when last year's Green Lantern came out. Would they be stuck claiming that was canon to an otherwise good series? Would they have to order a do-over and lose precious time they were planning to spend making and promoting another character's intro film?

And it gets thornier the more heavily invested the studio is in the idea. The Avengers, I assume, wasn't officially greenlit or maybe even planned until the series of films that lead into it was well under way. So if something had gone horribly wrong before that point, there'd be nothing really lost as far as anyone would be aware. But any future attempt at cashing in on that model would be planned out from the beginning and probably heavily invested in.

Crimson_Dragoon:
I know its a bit off topic, but I'm glad to see someone else that likes the changes made to the Starship Troopers movie. I mean, I do like the book and all, but the movie was so much more fun and memorable than it ever could have been if it was more faithful to the book.

Overall, I think everyone needs to get off the whole "perfect adaptation" thing. It should go without saying, but movies are not books or comic books. Each medium has its own strengths and weaknesses, and in moving a story from one medium to another, things will have to change to account for this.

I don't think people are saying that Hollywood should never change anything under any circumstances. I think what people want is for Hollywood to make something better if they are going to change things.

Take League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Huge changes, but the end result was something that was not as satisfying as the original comic book. No big pay off for the changes so no one won with the changes. American Godzilla is the same way, lots of change but nothing as good as the Japanese Godzilla movies.

But then take the first Total Recall film. Doesn't follow the book, but it finds something so interesting and fun that people loved it.

Or the Dark Knight Joker. Not who you'd expect to play the Joker and not like we've seen the Joker before, but people loved it because Hollywood gave people something good in exchange for them dealing with a bit of change.

sailor_960:
It may be cynic in me, but I'm sure that The Avengers will end up creating a few net negatives. The big one that I'm worried about is the creation of a "it worked for the Avengers" axiom when it comes to the creation of future super hero movies.

One of the negatives it's already reinforcing is the idea that if a movie made for geeks tosses out enough subtle geek-references, geeks will overlook all the glaring flaws of a movie and glomp all over it.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Look, I hate to be the party pooper, but could it just be that the Avengers won't have a positive net effect on Hollywood because it's just not that great a movie.

It is what it is: it's shallow entertainment, and it succeeds at that. But honestly, the biggest problem with the film is that its fans, Bob included, are holding it up not just as one of the year's better action flicks, but one of the best films of the past decade. I'm sorry, but it ain't that special. Witty one liners do not a genre-buster make, especially when so much of the rest of the film revolves around the same tropes that have been pervading superhero films for the past fifteen years. The Avengers won't have a massive positive effect on Hollywood, because there is nothing innovative or different enough about it to cause such an effect. Yes, it has some good banter. Films have have had good banter and one liners ever since the talkies first came out.

Other than snarky one liners, all the Avengers has is spectacle. Like Transformers 3, along with practically every other blockbuster of the last few years, the Avengers will simply convince Hollywood to pour money into expensive CGI tech demos that show yet another city being destroyed by yet another extraterrestrial threat, probably by some sort of machiney looking enemy.

Here's the thing: the comics industry is an inherently shallow medium. When something great comes along, it's always the least important elements that are taken and copied by everyone else. When The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen were released, did the comics industry then put out more stories focused on deconstructing the superhero genre, including multiple levels of symbolism, thematic subtext and psychological characterisation? No. They assumed that people dug violent, moody comics, and we got over a decade of comic book characters trying to outdo each other in the unpleasant, sociopathic violence stakes. When Nolan released Batman Begins, did the film industry focus on releasing intricate, deep stories that use superheroes as a tool to explore big ideas? No, they just assumed people really dug origin stories, and set about rebooting every property they could to get another origin story out there for people to see.

What the industry is likely to learn from the Avengers (beyond what I posted already about tossing out subtle geek references - not overt, just things that only geeks who knew the subject matter inside and out would get) is that they already know what the formula is to make a billion dollar movie - lots of spectacle and lots of quotable material. As long as people can go quote lines like "Puny God." or "I've got an army." "We've got a Hulk." and have some awesome visual, the story doesn't matter. Movies like the Avengers are quite capable of making Hollywood dumb itself down even more than it already is.

That's where movies like the Batman Trilogy are so important; yes, Dark Knight Rises is a weak movie, with many glaring, obvious and given the writing team, baffling flaws. But Nolan made the attempt to make a smarter trilogy, and that needs to be rewarded. When it fails - like TDKR did - it needs to be pointed out and analyzed by writers and producers in Hollywood, not just by fans. Hollywood needs to find out why the movie failed so that it can try to do better next time.

(I'm also going to toss away alot of my own (meagre) credibility here and say that movies like Sucker Punch need to be made, even if they end up falling flat on their face. Sucker Punch was a movie that tried to do something interesting but failed. Hollywood needs to learn from those kinds of failures that reaching higher is a good thing, even if it ends up failing.)

Captcha: "my bleeding heart". How appropriate, given that you're saying almost exactly what I've been saying since I watched the Avengers and came out going "This is what has so many geeks splooging about? Seriously? Am I being punked?".

Flatfrog:
(tl;dr: They're really, really *good* snarky one-liners and spectacle)

I has started to type out a far larger reply, complete with multiple quote blocks and individual responses to your points, but I'll sum it up in a very small statement instead.

There is literally no point that you made in this post that I agree with in the least up to the last line, and then I only agree to a very, very slight degree - they were decent one liners and spectacle.

(edit to remove ambiguity over who I was quoting, as I left both opening quote commands in)

Oh Bob come on now. We all know that The Amazing Spider-Man was great. It's okay to admit it.

So, let me get this straight: The Dark Knight Rises and Prometheus failed because they weren't utterly flawless masterpieces and didn't reach their lofty ambitions, while The Avengers was a success because it met its own shallow ambitions and altogether managed to exist without raising a stench to high heaven?

Great article. Hopefully Bob, and other comic geek commentators, can remember these lessons.

I'm thinking in particular of the recent attempt to launch a "Wonder Woman" tv show, which ended in disaster and cancellation. When the first stills came out to promote it, everyone (including here on The Escapist) painstakingly criticised every stitch on the costume, and threw such rage at it that it was redesigned at least twice. Then the pilot of the actual show came out and everyone said it was rubbish. Well, if the pilot had been torn apart and restiched as many times as the costume had to be, I'm not surprised it was bad. But if everyone had just shut up about the costume and waited to see what they pulled together for the actual show, we might have gotten something special out of it.

This obsessive nit-picking and resultant redesign based on people on the internet saying, "waaa, they used wrong shade of red on her boots!" does not help to put together a coherent story. Fortunately "Batman Begins" came out as an entire movie without redsigns based on "OMG his suit is too bulky and we hate it!", so we could all actually see the entire work of art.

TL;DR - If the movie execs are inclined to pander to the fans, then the fans obsessing over tiny details will only HURT the artistic integrity of the final product.

I'm the complete opposite of Bob. Avengers was the most disappointing movie this year after Prometheus for me since the first 2 hours were so dull with badly done action scenes, dull cinematography and dialogue, to only be saved by the last 30 min where suddenly the action didn't resort to confused nonsense, group dynamics were more present, and Hulk finally got to shine. Other than that, I didn't give a shit about these characters as no one was in any true danger, not even Black Widow (her running away from Hulk was more a money-shot than "oh no, she'll get crushed!"). Loki being the main villain was odd, since he doesn't work in that role and wasn't as menacing as Bane if we're comparing both films. I left the cinema with the assessment that it was another forgettable superhero blockbuster movie. It didn't leave much to think about.

The Dark Knight Rises was the only blockbuster to go way past my expectations and have me ending up crying as the perfect ending to a trilogy and to really end Batman/Bruce Wayne's journey that could NEVER happen in the comics. Anne Hathaway as Catwoman was a wonderful surprise, every word Michael Caine said had me close to welling up, Blake was likeable and a good fit to take up the mantle, and Scarecrow finally had his day.

That last point is interesting to me, especially in regards to The Dark Knight Rises.

I can see a lot of Nolan in the Dark Knight Trilogy and it has been one of the things that put me off it. When I thought about it I realised I'd actually rather watch Batman, Batman Returns and Batman Forever as a trilogy than the DK Trilogy. Not to say that I don't like Nolan's work, I just think that the older films are better adaptations of the character.

Which is the big difference between something like the Avengers or Batman and something like (I've just spent the last five minutes searching for a recent memorable action blockbuster that wasn't an adaptation or remake and have found nothing, so just insert something appropriate here). If you make an original character, it'll be judged solely on the strength of the movie/story/actors/director of that movie. If you make an adaptation, you throw in the addition of 'and how well does it compare to the source material.

Of course Joss Whedon's film is a better adaptation of a comic book property that The Amazing Spider Man or The Dark Knight. The man lives and breaths comic book nerdery, that is his style. In the same way the Christopher Nolan's style is 'Pretentious: The Movie' or Shyamalan is 'watch my mental breakdown as I convince myself of my own genius and convince everyone else of my insanity' Joss Whedon's is 'watch while I try and make a comic book come to life.'

My point is that Bob's final point is about finding director's who will try and put their own spin onto something, and why that isn't a bad thing, but I would argue that the far better choice is to match the right director to the right project. You wouldn't want Francis Ford Coppola directing a movie about a boy who grows up too fast, but when he's directing a gritty war drama it's perfect. In the same vein, you don't want a romantic comedy director making a comic book film, because they don't match, but a guy who's spent all his life basically making comic book adaptations might just be the guy you need.

MelasZepheos:

I can see a lot of Nolan in the Dark Knight Trilogy and it has been one of the things that put me off it. When I thought about it I realised I'd actually rather watch Batman, Batman Returns and Batman Forever as a trilogy than the DK Trilogy. Not to say that I don't like Nolan's work, I just think that the older films are better adaptations of the character.

I'm sorry, what?! WHAT?!

The Nolan films are the ones that have taken more from the comics than the old trilogy. Long Halloween, Year One, Knightfall, No Man's Land, all have showed up in some way in Nolan's trilogy.

The old trilogy had Penguin as some black goo "thing", Catwoman was revived from death by magic cats, Joker killed Batman's parents instead of Joe Chill, Two Face was just Jack Nicholson's Joker performance rehash instead of a tortured soul, and dozens of other points that were nothing like the comics.

still talking about avengers bob?

Is this how your going to review every film in comparison to the avengers now? think ill stop paying attention to your reviews.

I enjoyed Avengers but ultimately it was just a straight forward action film with witty one liners, the storyline felt so infantile and trivial. There is still better films out there from the superhero genre, has everyone forgot about watchmen?

Siberian Relic:
So, let me get this straight: The Dark Knight Rises and Prometheus failed because they weren't utterly flawless masterpieces and didn't reach their lofty ambitions, while The Avengers was a success because it met its own shallow ambitions and altogether managed to exist without raising a stench to high heaven?

how do i rep this guy

 Pages 1 2 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
Registered for a free account here