THE AVENGERS (2012) Post-Release - Page 24

Hulk smashes, bashes, and crushes everything he encounters with economy and without thinking twice about it. He gives Loki the business, though. Maybe Loki needs more of a sound thrashing to be forced into submission, but nothing Hulk does in the entire movie comes anywhere near the Bam-Bam moment in terms of sheer ferocity. Feels like Hulk had more going on in that scene apart from "smashing"; the way he disdains Loki's self-aggrandizing puts an exclamation point on that for me.

"Motherfuckers always skate uphill! Uphill skating make Hulk angry!"

Nothing pisses Hulk off more than pretentious self-glorification!

I like this guy's take on why Marvel's Heroes are more accesible than DC's.

 

All right-- now that's given me the best laugh I've had in days. It's been so long since I've seen "Blade", I'd forgotten that glorious non-sequitur of a line. Coming out of the Hulk's mouth it's priceless.

 

He certainly has a point about nitpicking being a luxury at this point, though I'm not sure it's one just for the young-- I'm old enough to remember crappy TV adaptations of some of these characters, and I've still picked my share of nits on this thread. I feel like such an ingrate.

 

I've actually been thinking a little about this kind of thing lately as I watch EMH, or "Wolverine and the X-Men", or even "G.I. Joe: Renegades" on Netflix. The sophistication and quality of the writing and animation are so far beyond what my generation got from Sunbow/Marvel, Hanna-Barbara or Filmation when we were coming up. And despite a lot a shit that's been made, we've really gotten some quality superhero films since Singer's "X-Men" came out. 

 

Kids today, man-- they'll probably never know how good they have it. (Now I really do sound old.)

 

I had more of a Droopy vibe from the Loki beatdown than Bam-Bam.

Slim, Sure, the animation is better than earlier generations cartoons and anime, but there are negatives.  No...Saturday Morning Cartoons, buffetted with Godzilla Movies, and...Kung Fu Theater. Saturday Night resulted in...Buck Rogers In The 25th Century followed by my friends and I playing...S.W.A.T.- 4 Heroes and 1 EEEEEEEvil Terrorist, that also was the only one that could climb a tree.  During the commercials for Buck Rogers we had a...3 way intergalactic war featuring a...Lego Space Fleet, Shogun Warriors, and the Earth Defense Force! Sunday Morning meant...TARZAN starring...Johnny Weissmuller!  G and PG films had...Awesome...R...Rated Action Movies advertised.  Today's kids have their 24 hour animation stations, but I have no regrets growing up in the...70's-80's!

Yes. I first saw 5 Deadly Venoms on a Saturday afternoon after a morning of cartoons... shit changed my life. Plus Schoolhouse Rock, some of those songs I still remember. Though, I should admit that I still know all the words to The Alligator King and his Seven Sons, so, you know...

They called it "Fortune Cookie Theater" where I hail, Duke (and try pulling that title off nowadays). And maybe you left out attempts at 3D broadcasts of "Creature from the Black Lagoon" (special glasses available at your neighborhood 7-11!), or local-circuit professional wrestling, before the dominance of the WWF...

 

Still, I'm pretty sure having all this great content at your fingertips now beats the hell out of hoping "Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends" wouldn't be pre-empted by NBC tennis, and that it would be the episode with Cap and the Sub-Mariner:

 

"That's not water! It's al...co...hol--"

Slim, There are positives in both eras.  There are alot of older cartoons, anime and series I prefer, from the 60's Through the 80's that I prefer.  The 60's series, I watched in...Syndication.  I am not complaining about anything today.  However, I will point out that of all the...Spider-Man series, I would place Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends...2nd after the 1967 Spider-Man Cartoon.  I of course also watched the...Live Action series regularly!  I was so excited watching Spider-Man Cartoons my mom was worried I might become a real...Swinger!  I am grateful though for...Today's The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes...THE, Superhero Cartoon of any Era.  I of course...Loved, seeing...The Avengers Film too!

akutagawa, I also remember Schoolhouse Rock.  It was entertaining, and...Gasp...Educational!

How successful is "The Avengers"? Whedon has written a movie that's so good I can't decide which I like more - the actual movie or the crazy childhood memories it's spurred in all you guys!

 

When I was a kid I had a sticker set of Avenger's characters on the bedside table I used to own. When I got too big for 'em I tried to peal them off and today you can still see little half-pieces of Thor and Iron Man and Luke Cage here and there. Love it.

 

Plus, does anyone remember the comic where the "Avengers" fought Ultron and he wiped them out? It ends with a character panel of Thor transforming into Donald Blake and starting to apply emergency medical care with (what seemed) hundreds of dead heroes lying scattered across the page. I swear that image is just burned into my childhood brain tissue!

 

I 

 

I think it's pretty simple.  The DC stable is largely a product of very archetypal super heroes, villains, and themes that were created in the golden age of comics in the 30s and 40s, and as a result are much more dated and difficult to modernize.  I would argue this isn't limited to comics, but most forms of literature, film, etc.  In contrast, Marvel has the luxury of drawing from their defining content produced in the 60s through the 80s which already is essentially "modern" and more or less directly adaptable to film.  Batman is probably the only major DC property that's been flexible enough to be modernized in the 70s and 80s to allow for a modern looking character that's still recognizable to mainstream audiences.  Warners has a serious problem here, imo, as they're going to have to pick their poison between having a familiar, but dated property, or an unfamiliar, yet modern property.  Superman may still be able to work, simply due to being Superman, but I'll be surprised if they manage to get anything else rolling successfully.

Gotta say this flick wasn't near my top most anticipated flicks. I never paid much attention to the build up before release and everytime someone brought up "hey, can't wait for the AVENGERS" I'd get annoyed because I was barely interested as it was. Still I went out and watched it anyway cuz Joss Whedon has for the most part always delivered (though I never saw DOLLHOUSE).

This was a hell of a flick. Probably not the greatest but it reminded me if the spirit of what comic book flicks should feel like. It's very straightforward, it's not too serious or too jokey. Great balance between character and spectacle. It reminded me a lot what it felt like being a kid watching the first two Superman flicks for the first time. With this flick, I've grown a new found respect for MARVEL STUDIOS. I was never crazy about the IRON MAN flicks though they were still watchable, but I really dug CAPTAIN AMERICA and even THOR to my surprise (I really thought that was gonna be a turkey). I always thought THE INCREDIBLE HULK was simply a solid flick, didn't understand the stink. After THE AVENGERS, I gotta say MARVEL STUDIOS is starting to establish itself as the PIXAR of the superhero genre because for the most part they seem to have a good handle on quality control while elsewhere it seems like the wilderness and DC doesn't seem to have any solid direction beyond BATMAN.

So yeah, bravo. I hope Whedon comes back for another adventure.

Those are some good points. The difference is pretty simple when it comes to the story-telling possibilities that a Marvel hero presents when compared to a DC hero.

 

A superhero is first defined by some kind of gimmick, of course, his power. The Flash runs fast, Green Lantern has a magic ring, Green Arrow is Batman with a bow, etc. The Silver Age revival may have given a sci-fi gloss to these characters, but otherwise they're pretty indistinguishable from their 1940s counterparts, and each other. They each have a secret identity, some lady-love and a couple of rogues, and that's it.

 

The genius of Lee, Kirby, Ditko, et al, was to give the Marvel characters a secondary gimmick, beyond their various powers. Spidey's also an everyman. The Fantastic Four are also a family. The X-Men are outcasts. Captain America is the most generically heroic of them-- no surprise since he was a Golden Age character-- but once he was revived by Lee and Kirby he had the bonus character trait of being a man out of time. Marvel easily got as much story mileage out of those secondary qualities as they did from whatever foe the heroes were battling for the umpteenth time.

 

Now, I'm not exactly an expert on the DC heroes, but any of their unique character traits always seemed  added after the fact to me-- not woven into their essential fabric. Just from a character and story standpoint, I'm not sure whether you even can make a compelling movie about the Hal Jordan Green Lantern, for instance.

 

Of course, Superman and Batman are exceptions-- Superman by virtue of being the first superhero and his primal origin story, and Batman by the pathos that his origin gives him.  

That was Korvac, a cyborg who was given omnipotence. He basically slaughtered the Avengers, but in seeing his mate hesitant, despaired and basically gave up the rest of his life force to resurrect them.

Believe I read an interview with Whedon where he said that the Korvac Saga was his formative exposure to the Avengers. So if Joss sticks with the franchise, maybe we'll see something like that somewhere down the line.

Jim Starlin, creator of Thanos, talks about seeing his creation in The Avengers:

 

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2012/05/11/avengers-spoiler-special-mystery-villains-creator-speaks-out/#/0

 

 

While I certainly don't think it's impossible to create compelling versions of the DC characters (I love me some JLU), ironically I think DC has hindered itself somewhat by in certain cases being way more progressive in terms of it's mainstream characters. Sure, Supes is Supes and Bats is Bats, but for a while there some of DC's most compelling characters were new protagonists taking up an older mantle. Guys like Wally West, Bart Allen, Kyle Rayner and John Stewart were interesting not just because they were more complex characters, but because they were struggling to find their own identity in a shared legacy. Of course that was all retconned away to keep nerd nostalgia boners fully erect (and with the reboot I don't know wtf is going on), but it's unfortunate were never going to see what would probably be a much more interesting Rayner Green Lantern because it's dependent on a narrative legacy that can't really be translated to the screen effectively, and thus we're stuck with the more traditional, two-dimensional versions.

 

And for the record, yes I know Marvel's switched up some identities as well, but I don't think you can really compare the literal clone of Peter Parker to someone like Guy Gardner.

 

I said elsewhere, possibly in this very thread, that the advantage of the DC heroes (and the reason I actually tend to prefer DC to Marvel when done properly) is that the DC universe is more about big ideas--SF stuff, fantasy, and deconstructing the nature of the superhero. I actually think Superman and Wonder Woman have tons of material inherent in their concepts, and yes, a lot of it ties into character (how does Superman cope with a world that doesn't believe a man that powerful could also be that good? How does Wonder Woman interact with a world so alien to what she's used to, in which the gender dynamics are so different?) But I do agree the later Flashes and Green Lanterns are way more interesting, and DC is fairly stupid for constantly wanting to revert to Bary Allen and Hal Jordan just because they're the classic model.

DC can be done properly. Bruce Timm has been proving that for twenty years especially with the conclusion of the second season of JUSTICE LEAGUE, which THE AVENGERS really reminded me of in many ways. Timm makes it look so easy, it's hard to understand why WB seems so hesitant with their property. Then again with that studio being so eager to make Superman dark and gritty like THE DARK KNIGHT, that's enough to tell me they haven't a fucking clue what they're doing. It would be nice to have different company hold DC, one that actually has confidence in it.

 

When done properly, I agree. I'm a giant fan of JLU, which I still consider the best representation of superheroes in just about any medium, period. But I disagree a bit with your angle on Superman. One of the best Superman stories I ever read was in "Hitman" by notorious superhero-hater Garth Ennis. His take on Superman seemed to be: yes, here is a man who can do anything, but he can't do everything. And Superman feels badly about it.

 

And that seemed like a genuinely Marvel-style portrayal of Superman to me-- giving him guilt. Marvel heroes run on guilt, I believe-- either over taking things too far, or not doing enough. Stark, Richards and Banner are all paying for hubris in one way or another. Peter Parker didn't act when he could have. And Cap probably couldn't have saved his partner, but feels responsible anyway. 

 

It's that idea of trying to be better, but falling short, and then trying again, that has always been a hallmark of the Marvel characters for me. I don't know that I ever got that from the DC side, even from Bruce Wayne.

 

But, screw it. Could be this is all just the fallen Catholic in me talking...

Thanks for the update! I swear he must have looked a lot like Ultron since that's the memory I have - of course I was probably around 10 at the time so....

Holy shit, I just figured out that the Asian guy on the mysterious "Council" is the guy that played "Eddie" in "Big Trouble in Little China".

 

I didn't mean that mine was the definitive take on Superman, that was just one example of something interesting you can do with his character. There are dozens of different interpretations, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

 

I haven't read the Hitman comic you're talking about, though I have heard people speak very well of it. But I think you have to be careful about the "running on guilt" thing, even in the Marvel U. That kind of thing is one of the reasons superhero comics have frequently devolved into soap opera emo-fests. What's more, when you make everything about the characters resolving their personal issues, or interpersonal drama, the "heroic" aspect tends to fall by the wayside. When Marvel introduced the idea of superheroes fighting each other in the 60s, it was thrilling, but it's frequently been overplayed, to the point where people often complain superheroes spend all their time fighting each other and not the villains.

 

To me about the ideal balance is to have well-meaning, heroic characters who nevertheless disagree on the specifics, or even on basic philosophical terms. Bringing everything around to the Avengers, I think the Cap/Iron Man conflict is a great source for drama, but again, I wish it had been clearer that there was a fundamental clash of worldviews there, not that they just rubbed each other the wrong way for no reason. But of course, the way they put that aside and came together is a great lesson that the comics need to learn.

It's a trope that can be overplayed, no doubt, just like anything else. The main reason I wasn't a particular fan of the Raimi Spider-Man films was that we got too much of Peter moping, and not enough of his humor and heroism. Guilt is only a common underlying thread I've seen in the Marvel characters, and that has driven a lot of story lines over the years.

 

I just think it works for Superman too, because self-doubt is one of the few vulnerabilities he can actually have.

 

I don't really recall that Cap and Iron Man had fundamental differences in worldview, traditionally. That's notwithstanding "Civil War", which was a series that badly mistreated both characters in order to serve its premise. Most of the "heroes fight/heroes team up" dynamic always seemed about either differences of personality or specific methodology to me. In the early Avengers anyway, it was mostly Hawkeye causing friction, challenging Cap's authority. It appears Tony has taken taken on that aspect in the film.

Just saw it. It was good. But I guess I now know what it felt like for those who weren't exactly taken in by all the hype for The Dark Knight in 2008. It took an awfully long time to get going and I feel the pacing between the exposition and the action was off. But by the end of it I had a good time. The last half was great (and Hulk made me cheer inside a few times)! I would still rank Iron Man above it in the recent Marvel franchise of movies but it certainly is above the others.

 

Also wish it had a more compelling score. I love me some Alan Silvestri (I think his score to Back to the Future is one of the best scores... ever) but the music here just didn't grab me the way the visuals did.

Drags like crazy in the first half, but after that it's great.  I liked it.

 

Aw, come on. Hawkeye was a circus acrobat. He could at least get around as well the Widow. Jeez-- Poor Hawkeye's really getting a rep for being the Zeppo of this group, isn't he?

 

That's a perfectly understandable reaction. I'm not sure any movie could live up to the love "The Avengers" has gotten over the last two weeks. I may still rank Iron Man ahead of this too, which I've considered to be the best superhero movie made till now. But at this point, it may be a 1-A/1-B kind of deal.

 

Also agree on the music-- if any movie was crying out for a bold, distinctive, iconic theme, it was this one. And Silvestri did not deliver on that score. (pun!) 

Loved every minute of this. I think Hulk stole the show...but every member had their awesome moments. I spent almost the entire movie laughing giddily like a schoolgirl.

 

I haven't actually read a lot of Avengers comics, and I know Civil War blew, but right from the beginning, Cap has been a FDR-era neoliberal who's often taken a stance against the government when he felt it was doing wrong, and Iron Man has been a pseudo-Objectivist anti-Commie weapons manufacturer (during the Vietnam War, no less). Iron Man's politics were made pretty explicit in his movies, even as they were largely marginalized, and Cap's are pretty implicit for anyone who knows the historical context. Their worldviews almost couldn't be further apart, at least within the context of American politics, and it seems like a gimme to have the two of them butt heads a little over it, even if Civil War did it terribly.

The main thing I hope is that the success of "Avengers" makes Marvel aim higher in the choice of directors for follow-up films. Shane Black is great for "Iron Man 3". Alan Taylor really seems bargain basement for "Thor 2". And the one I'm most worried about is the list of mediocrity that was floating around a couple months back for "Cap 2". Especially since Whedon cut so much of the 'man out of time' aspect for time's sake, there's a chance for someone to really do something interesting with Cap in his sequel. 

I'm not so sure about your read on this. 

 

For starters, you've neglected the fact that the Commie-fighting Cap published in the '50s was only later ret-conned not to be the same Golden Age Steve Rogers, after Lee and Kirby reintroduced Cap as a man-out-of-time in the Marvel Age. Which is fine-- as I wrote above, having been in suspended animation for x number of years is his secondary defining characteristic, and drives a great deal of Cap's stories. But all that is to say that Cap hasn't had a specific political position "right from the beginning".

 

Conversely, Tony Stark has often been portrayed as having the kind of adversarial relation to the government that you attribute to Rogers, when Stark felt "it was doing wrong". When Stark took it upon himself to dismantle armor (a lot of it employed by the government) based on his technology in the "Armor Wars", for instance, Cap tried to stop him... And I certainly don't remember any story line that presented Stark as an Objectivist, even of the "pseudo" variety.

 

I suppose I'm saying that it's folly to view these characters in the context of time-specific American politics-- that's all changeable. And for the most part, I'd say that Marvel's writers have done a good job of not digging into those particular weeds. These are nigh-mythic characters dealing individually with issues of humanity, heroism and responsibility that are much bigger than all that. Politics, especially partisan politics, are a crude diminishment of the larger themes.

Cap did give up being Cap during the Watergate years.  But that was the Nomad era and I don't think anyone really wants to remember that.

 

This is something I missed. I understand why there wasn't much of it (would've liked to have seen Cap actually be in awe of what his hometown NYC has become in 70 years) but completely agree that Cap 2 could be great with someone who can handle that aspect nicely and not brush it off in the first 10 minutes.

Well, I'd also like to think Cap was able to prioritize:  "Okay, Batron, I need you on -- wow, look at the size of all these building!" (Everyone dies as Cap gawks up at the skyline).

It's pretty sad, isn't? Cute, but sad. Hawkeye's a great character. Those cartoons are funny but sort of miss the point.

I thought there was more "man from a different era" than "man out of time" in the Avengers. I think we're led to expect that a good deal of Cap going, "Tiny songstress, reveal yourself!" happened while he was living in an apartment in Brooklyn. While it would have been fun to see it, the important thing for this film is that his values and character are from a different time (ma'aming and sirring everybody, "there's only one god," demonstrating actual humility).

 

For his own full length film, yeah, bring on the whole shebang.

Also, about ten pages ago people were wondering about how Cap learned karate. Clearly, they did not recognize Cap's sweet kicks as having been learned fighting his adversary:

 

 

Rogers also gave up the Captain America identity during the Gruenwald run on the book-- because the government told him to. But then, the whole point of that story line was that Captain America was more than the uniform, it was the man who wore it. Just like a suit of armor is not Tony Stark. 

Yeah, it'll be tough to avoid easy "Austin Powers" gags when they do tackle this head-on. I love how Whedon managed to subtly background it with stuff like "flying monkeys". 

I must be one of the last people on Earth to see it, but I finally did. I really liked it. 

 

First, my background - Not a comic geek. But I like superheroes, Hulk most of all.

 

From read the thread I see that some think the first 20 mins of the film are the weak link. I disagree. I really liked the introductions, and the action scenes on the heli-carrier was IMO the high point of the film.

 

I actually thought that the film was darn near perfect UNTIL the 'final battle' in NYC. Once the final battle begins and the faceless generic alien horde invades, it looses something. (Plus Banner just shows up on a motorcycle. How did he know where to go?) Anyway, the alien horde are weak. Easily defeated in close combat by even BW and Hawkeye. The sheer spectacle is very impressive, but it doesn't hold together as nicely. Also, Captain America gets short-changed in the fight. He is my least favorite among the 'big 4' of the Avengers, but I really think that the film would have improved by having the Cap deliver the final blow to the aliens.

 

Shorter observations - best bits:

 + Hulk/Banner ('nuff said) - I liked how Banner talked about the 'other guy'.

 + Thor

 + Hulk/Thor battle

 + Loki was a great villain (unlike his alien sidekicks)

 

Cons:

 - The Chitari were WEAK

 - Captain America less effective than Hawkeye or BW in the final battle

 - No memorable score (Unlike Thor)

 

Banner was the only one to see where the Tesseract (on his search algorithm) was taken before everything on the Helicarrier went to shit.  He knew everything would go down near Stark Tower.

The Chitauri being weak is not really an argument as their strength was their overwhelming numbers. And those numbers were, if I recall, beginning to wear down the Avengers before the closing of the portal. Forcing Hawkeye to jump off a building to escape, swarming Hulk, Cap getting knocked on his ass, even Thor was looking a little winded towards the end. The Avengers were taking their licks. 

 

The point of them was not to be individually difficult to defeat for a superhero, though one would likely be pretty tough for a non-powered, untrained mook. It's that they were an army and they kept coming.

 

Cap's merits to the non-powered Avengers in the movie have already been discussed. I think he was portrayed as right in line with his abilities.

 

ETA: Also, it was a mo-ped!

Had my second viewing tonight. Enjoyed it immensely, and the packed theater did, too. Was able to actually hear Hulk's "PUNY GOD" line, as well as Iron Man's "Clench up, Legolas" quip. Hulk's beatdown of Loki is so, so perfect.

 

The film held up very well on a second viewing. I'm almost tempted to say the middle part dragged a bit, but I think I'll wait to decide that on home viewing. 

 

Banner really shone on a second viewing. I picked up on a lot nice nuances in the writing and Ruffalo's performance I missed the first time. And, thanks to this thread and just a bit of familiarity with the story, I was able to pick up more on the character arcs and moments throughout the film. I think Thor was sort of short-shrifted, though - that scene in the field with Mjolnir hints at a cut arc, of which we're only seeing a small part.

 

My main problems with the film, in no particular order, after a second viewing:

 

- The score. Yes, it's been harped on before. Here, the film really dropped the ball. The score is mostly easily screened out background noise, and when heard at the end, it's very, very generic.

 

- Loki in the back of a truck. LOKI in the back of a truck. Actually this is both a problem and a win; it's so ridiculous that it sort of works, while still be ridiculous.

 

- Cap's suit - especially the helmet - just is bad. Shoulda kept the WWII uniform, or something more like it.

 

 

I'm going to venture into some comparison territory here, but not really of two films, but reactions to those films. TDK was a seminal film for a lot of folks, a dark thunderbolt of cinematic heft and satisfication. Not so much for others. AVENGERS seems to be in a similar position. Now, I think it would be relatively easy to start nitpicking AVENGERS - the attack on NYC itself seems rife for "Why didn't they just..." sort of speculation and remarks, leading to "It was a dumb thing to show/not show...", and calling things plotholes and oversights by the filmmakers. But to do so would be to misserve the film and look at the branches when the really miracle is the forest itself. I think both films accomplish some really tremendous things - imperfectly, to be sure, but nevertheless with power, sure direction, and an amazing cohesion of elements from acting to effects to writing, working with source material that has proven to be incredibly problematic for major studios to do well. 

 

I'm also reading here, and on Facebook, of folks seeing AVENGERS three or more times. with no one calling names or mocking their excitement. How about we remember this tolerance come late July, in case people happen to see a certain film then multiple times in a short time frame, instead of just lambasting them and painting them with a broad, mean brush? (For the record, I really, really doubt I'll see TDKR more than twice, assuming it's actually good. I'd like to see in at a normal theater, and in true IMAX, if possible.)

 

I'm probably making this call for civility and empathetic fandom in vain, but thought it was worth doing.

Twice is above average, but normal for fans. Three times is maybe a little out there, but understandable if you really dug it or want to see it in different formats.

 

I withhold the right to mock any one that brags about seeing a movie four times or more in theatrical release. Be it Avengers or Batman or Prometheus or Django.

 

I thought a second viewing of Avengers helped it a lot for me... the stress of the first 20-30 minutes maybe not being terribly entertaining was lifted because I knew, like they videos say, that it would get better. But that's it for me during the theatrical release. The next time I give this movie money will be when the DVD is released.

 

(Full disclosure, I think I ended up seeing TDK 3x. The second time because I wanted to see it with a less obnoxious audience, the third because my nephew asked me to take him)

I forgot to mention this, but the 3D post conversion was seriously overhyped. Many scenes were really messed up if you paid attention. In one bridge shot in NYC, the eye separation made the bridge look like a tiny scale model. Also, another great example is when Loki appears the first time... His forehead looks like it goes through the screen, while his jaw looks FAR away. Those are the two most obvious examples that I can recall.

 

The problem with most 3D post conversions is that the stereographer tends to treat each shot they work on in isolation - so they tweak the 3D viewing effect (ocular distance) to maximum effect for that shot, but every cut there is potentially a jarring difference. When it is shot in natively in 3D more thought is usually put into the consistency, as the director and DOP have instant feedback. I love 3D when done well (like Pixar films, Avatar, Tron: Legacy), otherwise it is just a distraction. (or annoyance)

 

I want to see this again, but I will pick a 2D showing if it is an option.

 

And now I'm picturing the Avengers fighting alongside a robotic Batman.

 

Most of this movie is just Loki getting rides to various places!   What a piece of crap!

 

Superman Returns = Superman lifting things

 

The Avengers = Loki carpooling

Saw the movie this afternoon and had a blast with it. The 3D was pretty meh, but I was like a kid again seeing so many "VS" battles occurring in the film. I'm probably going to see it again, but I agree with the general consensus about it being a good old fashioned fun popcorn summer film, and it's definitely a great way to start the summer off.

 

Plus that first scene of the S.H.I.E.L.D. helicarrier lifting off was friggin' spectacular.