Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
Batman
Transformers
Pirates
Potter
Lord of the Rings
all had great scores, but... no single hummable iconic theme. Doesn't stand in line with the likes of
Raiders
Jaws
Back to the Future
Terminator
Star Wars
Try to hum the Spider-Man or Pirates theme. Even if you make it, it won't be recognized.
Really? Because I thought Cap was a really big presence in the movie, second only to Stark.
Some group of people somewhere in this thread were mentioning it. I read the whole thing before posting.
I can hum them all!
If I hummed them to an average person on the street, I'll bet they'd get Potter and Pirates.
I do wonder if people would recognize the Back to the Future theme correctly though.
Yeah, LOTR (and to a lesser extent Pirates) might not be John Williams level iconic, but they are certainly recognizable to a large segment of the public.
This is just turning into a 'scores were better in my day" old-man-a-thon.
LOTR and Harry Potter not iconic? No decent scores from a decade that gave us the likes of Jerry Goldsmiths 13th Warrior, Joe Hisaishis Spirited Away, Iva Davies Master & Commander, Clint Mansells The Fountain and Zimmers Inception just to name whats off the top of my head?? Not even mentioning the rise of video game scores as serious players in the world of modern composing or TV series soundtracks such as Deadwood and Game Of Thrones????
You guys are frikkin nuts.
I don't think the sentiment is "there's no good work being done," it's that many modern blockbusters--especially superhero movies--are chalk full of forgettable, monotonous scores, of which Silvestri has sadly fallen into. It sticks out more because usually summer movies, especially superhero variety, are generally THE places to expect, nay, demand a big, sweeping, iconic theme.
I don't think the sentiment is "there's no good work being done," it's that many modern blockbusters--especially superhero movies--are chalk full of forgettable, monotonous scores, of which Silvestri has sadly fallen into. It sticks out more because usually summer movies, especially superhero variety, are generally THE places to expect, nay, demand a big, sweeping, iconic theme.
Oh totally, but thats simply symptomatic of the blandification of the modern blockbuster in general. Even the guys that were creating some of my favorite scores like Silvestri and Elfman now seem to pump out a lot of forgettable crap.
Maybe its Trainspottings "we all get old and cannae hack it anymore and that's it" rockstar logic as applied to film composers, but then guys like Williams and Goldsmith were and are still pulling out the odd gem even at the ends of their careers.
But yeah, Rings and Potter say there's still some truly classic music being attached to blockbuster cinema these days.
Yeah, Williams' score for WAR HORSE is very, very good. Good work still is being done.
And I'd argue that, while not memorably like, say, the score for RAIDERS, much of the work done for Nolan's Batman films is far from generic action score crap. TDK, especially, is far from the usual bombast. It has some of it, to be sure, but a lot of it is damn quiet and creepy, and not at all like - for instance - the score for IRON MAN.
Zimmer is quite guilty of the generic BIG score, but I think his work with TNH on the Batman films is much better than folks give it credit for, especially since they resisted the pull to "top" or compete with Elfman's iconic scores from the Burton films.
I think the style of scoring in general has changed. There's good work being done, but there's not a lot of the leit motif going on that seemed to dominate the 80s. LOTR had it, but it seems like they're going more for ambiance rather than standing out.
This is just turning into a 'scores were better in my day" old-man-a-thon.
LOTR and Harry Potter not iconic? No decent scores from a decade that gave us the likes of Jerry Goldsmiths 13th Warrior, Joe Hisaishis Spirited Away, Iva Davies Master & Commander, Clint Mansells The Fountain and Zimmers Inception just to name whats off the top of my head?? Not even mentioning the rise of video game scores as serious players in the world of modern composing or TV series soundtracks such as Deadwood and Game Of Thrones????
This isn't get-off-my-lawn-ism here...there are definitely fewer great scores being done these days, I'm not letting nostalgia blind me, it's a pretty definitive argument. And I never said there weren't any good or even great scores in the last decade, I said there were, but nowhere near the magnitude of the 80s and 90s, and in most cases not on the same level craft wise.
I'm not a fan of LOTR, and while I did see the films, I don't remember the scores much beside the main hook, but I can give in there...the first Potter's score I liked, and the sequels are okay music wise, but Williams has done better work (not sure if he scored all of them). Again, I'm not saying these suck, don't misunderstand me. 13th Warrior's score was forgettable IMO, but that's just me. Same with Inception, which had a great hook, but I'm talking about full scores...Inception's score as a whole is not memorable, it's incredibly repetitive like most of Zimmer's work and doesn't feel cohesive. The Fountain I forgot about, the score is pretty good, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it amazing. I mean I wouldn't put it in the same room as something like even Explorers from Goldsmith which is pretty full on virtuoso in craft...like most newer composers, I find Mansell is good with hooks and themes, but as far as 90-120 minutes of delivering exceptional scoring? These guys don't have the stamina IMO. Even the great ones seem to have lost some of that bite.
Like I said, there are good scores still being done, but the recent output being on the same level of the plethora of classics from the old(er) era? No, not in my opinion...with a few exceptions here and there.
And I'm specifically referring to cinema scores, not TV.
This all seems very confused, unless I'm missing something important. Now we're personally evaluating each new score? That's a far more subjective rendering of opinion than "How many people can hum it?" or "How recognizable is the score to people in general?".
This all seems very confused, unless I'm missing something important. Now we're personally evaluating each new score? That's a far more subjective rendering of opinion than "How many people can hum it?" or "How recognizable is the score to people in general?".
Yeah but Ambler personally didn't like Lord Of The Rings Draco, therefore Howard Shores score must have been bland and forgettable. Like, objectively and stuff.
Yeah but Ambler personally didn't like Lord Of The Rings Draco, therefore Howard Shores score must have been bland and forgettable. Like, objectively and stuff.
I said I didn't like LOTR as a side note, meaning I didn't pay much attention to the score, but LIKE I SAID, I recognize it's popularity and concede that it's probably great.
Fair enough, I was being a bit of an asshole above - apologies.
Not that I'm under-appreciative of the incredible work that these composers accomplished in the 80s to define the sound of a blockbuster, but can these stylistic changes - generally seen as downgrades - actually be somewhat of a more organic evolution too? Or is that an invalid way to look at this more objectively? There's nothing wrong with some of these "big films" having scores that are not as recognizable yet still effective in ambiance, other than such a stylistic shift diverging from what's been down before. Doubtlessly some of these differences are in fact due to a lowering quality, but should every big movie score be held to a rigid standard in whether ten Joes on the street will recognize silly old me humming it? History might just look more fondly down on the scores that don't always make a splash immediately and effect the culture of event cinema.
Not that I'm under-appreciative of the incredible work that these composers accomplished in the 80s to define the sound of a blockbuster, but can these stylistic changes - generally seen as downgrades - actually be somewhat of a more organic evolution too? Or is that an invalid way to look at this more objectively? There's nothing wrong with some of these "big films" having scores that are not as recognizable yet still effective in ambiance, other than such a stylistic shift diverging from what's been down before. Doubtlessly some of these differences are in fact due to a lowering quality, but should every big movie score be held to a rigid standard in whether ten Joes on the street will recognize silly old me humming it? History might just look more fondly down on the scores that don't always make a splash immediately and effect the culture of event cinema.
You don't need to hum a score or have it be super recognizable for it to be great. Most people wouldn't recognize those scores I listed from the 80s and 90s if I hummed them, but they are still great scores.
Music is the only element of a film that can operate and work independently of that film, as the scores of the 80s and 90s showed, which is I why I am so vehement about it.
But I do fully acknowledge this new style of scoring is possibly there to try and blend more into the ambiance of the soundtrack, letting the visuals take a front seat, and it's a perfectly valid way to make a movie if the filmmakers wish to do so. BUT...it has to work in supporting the film and making it better, which is the point of adding an element. But honestly, stripping these movies of these generic scores wouldn't make much of a difference...kind of proving it's a failed experiment...if it makes little difference to the overall film, doesn't that mean this is not an evolution, but a devolution?
Now, strip the scores from those older films and they immediately stop working as well as they do, proving that the lifeblood of a film, more often than not, is tied to the score...giving movie scoring much more importance than the producers and studios today seem to be willing to do for their newer films.
You don't need to hum a score or have it be super recognizable for it to be great. Most people wouldn't recognize those scores I listed from the 80s and 90s if I hummed them, but they are still great scores.
Music is the only element of a film that can operate and work independently of that film, as the scores of the 80s and 90s showed, which is I why I am so vehement about it.
But I do fully acknowledge this new style of scoring is possibly there to try and blend more into the ambiance of the soundtrack, letting the visuals take a front seat, and it's a perfectly valid way to make a movie if the filmmakers wish to do so. BUT...it has to work in supporting the film and making it better, which is the point of adding an element. But honestly, stripping these movies of these generic scores wouldn't make much of a difference...kind of proving it's a failed experiment...if it makes little difference to the overall film, doesn't that mean this is not an evolution, but a devolution?
Now, strip the scores from those older films and they immediately stop working as well as they do, proving that the lifeblood of a film, more often than not, is tied to the score...giving movie scoring much more importance than the producers and studios today seem to be willing to do for their newer films.
Yeah but most modern blockbusters simply don't work as good films, period. You seem to be singling out scores but I'd argue you're missing the bigger picture - we could swap out "scores" for "scripts" and be having an almost identical conversation.
Ambler, I don't mean any offense, but using words like "prove" and "objectively" a lot doesn't make your liking 80s scores more than 00s scores not an opinion. And I do mostly agree with you that superhero scores have not lived up to their rousing potential. Even if I don't agree with you that stuff like LOTR and The Fountain are not fantastic scores that work as complete pieces independently of that.
Also, I think there's plenty of great scoring going on in recent years that is outside of the Williams adventure mold. The Assassination of Jesse James and The Social Network most prominently.
It's not about the score being "hummable" as much as it is about the score making a strong contribution to the film's personality.
But, honestly, we have precious little of interest in the way of film scores these days. The members of the old guard are past their prime, and the vast majority of the members of the new guard are too dependent on the compositional short-cuts that computers provide (which is encouraged/demanded by Hollywood, which increasingly seeks synth mock-ups of cues from working composers).
The difference is a script is the foundation for the entire film, a score is not, it's just an element. There can be no movie without a script, but there can definitely be a movie without a score.
I don't have an agenda with singling out scores, it's just something that came up out of the discussion and I expanded it a bit. Movie making taking a turn for the overwhelmingly mediocre is another topic. The scores getting worse is part of that, I agree there, and I think it's part of the whole agenda by studios to make every element as bland as possible to offend the least amount of people...turning movies into fast food hamburgers. This was done in the 80s, but they were premium fast food burgers, like Five Guys or In And Out...mass produced, but still distinctive and appetizing. Now it's just McDonald's...utterly below average in every way possible.
Man, howabout that Avengers film, amiriteguys?
Man, howabout that Avengers film, amiriteguys?
Beat me to it...
I feel bad. I brought hummability and my own tone deafness when it comes to recognizing good scores from middling scores and appear to have launched a conversation which I can't even contribute to.
Well... This thread got.....strange.
I agree that The Avengers has a rather generic, forgettable score. But to claim that "they just don't score them like they used to" is erroneous on many levels. Many great scores have already been namedropped. And people keep talking about the Pirates of the Caribbean theme while completely ignoring that IT'S THE SAME EXACT THEME FROM GLADIATOR.
Someone who hasn't been mentioned much is James Newton Howard. The man does consistently great work. And I know most of you hate hearing his name but M. Night Shyamalan seems to bring out the best in him. Whatever you may think of the films, they have all had terrific scores. Hell... Even I thought The Last Airbender was a load of cunts, but the score was terrific.
And now back to The Avengers...
"He's A Pirate" can't be found in GLADIATOR anywhere. That is some rousing, swashbuckling stuff right there.
"He's A Pirate" can't be found in GLADIATOR anywhere.
Not note for note, but there's certainly echoes there.
Just saw this yesterday. I probably have nothing to add really, but I had a great time. The theatre was packed, and the audience was really great for once, laughing at all the right parts (and turning their phones off). For all that I enjoyed this movie, though, I have to admit that it kind of pisses me off that Hawkeye and Thanos have been in a good movie before Green Arrow and Darkseid.
Just saw this yesterday. I probably have nothing to add really, but I had a great time. The theatre was packed, and the audience was really great for once, laughing at all the right parts (and turning their phones off).
One of the most impressive things about Whedon is that, for a guy whose directing background is so steeped in the pacing of TV, he nails the necessary rhythm for a crowd-pleasing "audience movie."
All this talk about the movies' score and no one mentions the Soundgarden theme? Man, I thought that shit rocked!
Anyway, one thing about the Avengers that really impressed me was the compositing (that's the right word for it, isn't it?). In most FX-heavy movies - even the biggest, most technically proficient like Titanic or Avatar - there are always a couple of shots in which the seams are pretty visible, and not all the shot elements look like they're happening in the same space. I can't think of any shot in the Avengers that had that problem, which I think is fairly incredible given the sort of sequences that it involved. I think maybe the only one that was iffy was the one with Loki and the Other on the Spectral Plane or whatever.
Chris Cornell looks like Christian Bale made up as Hobo Bruce Wayne in this Soundgarden video, by the way.
That article was interesting reading. This part caught my eye:
"I think the anti-Avengers movement was partly about a target market shooting back, resentful of the notion that they can be bought off with 3-D flash, the hiring of a geek-demigod writer/director, and a few nods to beloved threads of old-school continuity. I think it was about actual comics readers (a demographic that overlaps less and less with comic-book moviegoers) objecting to an emerging paradigm in which comics act as an IP farm for the movies, to the way the medium increasingly contorts itself to catch Hollywood's eye, and to the notion that movie interest somehow validates the art form."
A part of me is saddened that kids don't read comics anymore, and that none of the recent cinematic success of comic book properties have translated into higher comic book sales. On the other hand, I'm glad that characters I loved as kid are being embraced in this way. And if today's kids think of Batman, Captain America, Hulk, et al, as movie heroes and not comic book heroes, well, I'd much rather have that than have them fade away. Frankly I feel a bit validated to see the things I've always loved, historically so marginalized, come to dominate pop culture, at least for the time being.
As for Marvel's treatment of Kirby, well, that does suck, but you may as well try boycotting the Sun. It would have about the same effect. Kirby didn't get enough credit, but neither did Bill Finger, or hundreds of other people across entertainment. Should we also credit ancient viking storytellers for creating the myths of Thor and Odin? Besides, it's not as if all this money is being made on reprinted Kirby books. The Avengers film is the result of thousands of dedicated artists, as well as hundreds of different comics book artists who helped keep the characters popular for decades. There's not much that can be done at this point.
I thought the guys actual interview with Mr. Lee was very well handled. Lee talks about how 'other people' got wealthy off of Marvel properties because they were executives and owned pieces of the company, and he seemed to be implying that guys like him and Kirby (grouping himself together with the common employees) were just guns for hire. Which, on the one hand, sounds like bullshit because Lee is pulling in a million-dollar salary. But on the other hand, it kind of makes you think about it, since Lee is goddamn near ninety years old or something and still working for a salary. You gotta wonder how much of his (admittedly generous) salary is spoken for before its spent, and how much money he actually has in the bank, so to speak.
As for Marvel's treatment of Kirby, well, that does suck, but you may as well try boycotting the Sun. It would have about the same effect. Kirby didn't get enough credit, but neither did Bill Finger, or hundreds of other people across entertainment. Should we also credit ancient viking storytellers for creating the myths of Thor and Odin? Besides, it's not as if all this money is being made on reprinted Kirby books. The Avengers film is the result of thousands of dedicated artists, as well as hundreds of different comics book artists who helped keep the characters popular for decades. There's not much that can be done at this point.
The best suggestion I've heard, mentioned in one of that article's footnotes, is the suggestion that you donate the price of your ticket to the Hero Initiative .
And I'm sorry, but there's an awful lot of rationalization in this post. "Everyone got screwed" is not a defense (especially since Stan Lee didn't really get screwed). And as much as Finger and others may deserve credit, Kirby is one of the pillars of Marvel; the company literally wouldn't exist without him. Nor would huge swathes of the DCU (and DC has historically been much better at giving Kirby credit than Marvel), the genre of romance comics, or half the stuff we associate with superhero comics, including most of its visual vocabulary. And saying "the money's not being made on reprinted Kirby books" is really, really splitting hairs. Kirby created these damn characters, he and his family ought to benefit from them.
I accept that a boycott of the movie isn't going to do much at this point, I've been saying so for a while, but that doesn't mean we can adopt a shrugging, "whaddayagonnado" pose. The article basically calls out that attitude. Boycotting the comics might be a good place to start, that might actually have an effect on things. But even if you don't alter your behaviour one bit, don't blow off how badly Marvel has behaved in this manner or how much Kirby was mistreated.
Who's blowing it off? Marvel's treatment of Kirby sucks. I'm with you there.
Where we disagree is the 'splitting hairs' part. Kirby co-created (in many cases solely created) many of the characters now making Hollywood gobs of cash. But superhero comics are a complicated animal. Hundreds of different artists have kept these characters viable over the decades.
I became an X-Men fan when Chris Claremont was writing it, not Lee and Kirby. Modern X-Men comics barely resemble the early issues. To take just one example, how much of anything in 'X-Men: First Class' is due to Kirby?
Or The Avengers - the movie is making millions because of Robert Downey Jr, Jon Favreau, Joss Whedon, Kevin Feige, etc. etc, not because of anything Kirby did.
Did Kirby helped create this world? Absolutely. (His kids did jack by the way.) But who has kept these characters popular over the decades? Are they all due money? The protest movement (and that word is generous) makes it seem that Kirby, and Kirby alone, made every Avengers comic ever all by himself until the year 2012 when an Avengers movie was a huge success and he got screwed.
I know - all those different artists wouldn't have done a thing if Kirby hadn't initially created the properties. I get it. And for the third time, Marvel's treatment of him sucks. But things are better now - Lee says as much. And there's no shortage of people willing to work on these characters despite how things still work. Captain America 2 will (hopefully) adapt the Winter Soldier storyline - Ed Brubaker won't see a dime of the film's profits, and he's still a Marvel employee, and there are many who would love to be in his place.
Anyway, one thing about the Avengers that really impressed me was the compositing (that's the right word for it, isn't it?). In most FX-heavy movies - even the biggest, most technically proficient like Titanic or Avatar - there are always a couple of shots in which the seams are pretty visible, and not all the shot elements look like they're happening in the same space. I can't think of any shot in the Avengers that had that problem, which I think is fairly incredible given the sort of sequences that it involved. I think maybe the only one that was iffy was the one with Loki and the Other on the Spectral Plane or whatever.
Any shot of live-action people (Hiddleston and Johansson) flying around on speeders (the ones that the Chitauris use) never looked quite right. Doesn't seem like it's gotten anymore convincing than it was in Return of the Jedi. But that just seems to be a hard one to get 'right' in general.
It's not the Kirby estate's job to get credit for everyone who ever worked on the characters, just Kirby. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
The multi-authorship aspect of comics is problematic (and it's part and parcel of the problem--the fact that the corporations have always de-emphasized the creators) but I don't see how you can argue that the creator doesn't loom larger than other, later writers and artists. Even with something like the X-Men, which are Claremont's as much as they are Lee and Kirby's, they bloomed out of what the creators planted. Meanwhile, no one argues that, say, Bela Lugosi and Hammer studios ought to get money that rightfully belongs to the Bram Stoker estate, or Johnny Weismuller needs to be acknowledged everytime Edgar Rice Burroughs' heirs collect a payment. These things are taken for granted in other media, but in comics it's fudge, fudge, fudge. The creators didn't (and still, to an extent, don't) get respect or financial compensation they deserved, and then people nitpick their contributions to death after the fact.
I realize you're with me about Kirby's treatment, but some of the arguments you're using are the kinds of things fans tend to spout to justify why it's still cool for them to keep buying Spider-Man, and it's a little depressing. Ethically there's a bit of a morass here that affects everyone.
I'm not a fan of LOTR, and while I did see the films, I don't remember the scores much beside the main hook
Well sir, the public outcry and success for the LOTR symphony and record sales speaks for itself. Survey says: Most iconic score in film history since Star Wars.
I'm not the biggest fan either (read as: I wouldn't buy any memorabilia based on the films), but I can easily recall music from a whole lot of scenes throughout the series. Off the top of my head (and it's been well over a year since I've seen any of these movies) these come to mine:
1. Like, the entire first hour of the movie from the backstory to Bilbo's bday and him leaving the Shire
2. Ringwraiths on Weathertop (seriously if you can't remember this you're reaching really fucking far to hate these movies, period, shit was downright seared in my head since the first time I saw it)
3. The Fellowship setting out from Rivendell
4. Gandalf fighting the Balrog in FOTR
5. Aragon, Legolas, Gimli and Gandalf coming to Edoras in TTT
6. Gandalf and Rohirim showing up at Helm's Deep at the end of TTT
6. Any time Hobbits (or other characters) were singing
7. Gandalf/Pippin arriving/exploring Minas Tirith
8. Mother fucking eagles coming to get the Hobbits at the end of ROTK that
I'm not even really trying here to be honest. The music was good. You always know exactly what kind of characters/locations/cultures you're dealing with immediately from the music queues without those queues being repetitive, just simply adhering to the proper themes. Not even really disputable that LOTR as a whole had a fantastic score, that's also independent of having anything to do with it being a score for these films. It's just good music.
Sorry to yank the conversation back to The Avengers' score but I missed the juicy discussion. Apologies in advance: This will contain some fanwank
In an alternative universe John Murphy provided the score to the film. Imagine if you will this piece (from Kick-Ass) beginning as the camera pans back to reveal Stark Tower, now with just the 'A'.
The music builds and at 0.54 the screen cuts to 'THE AVENGERS' followed by some animated titles. An illustrated Captain America - Chris Evans. An illustrated Iron Man - Robert Downey Jr etc.
Like I said fanwank of the highest order
Beautiful.
Not note for note, but there's certainly echoes there.
Indeed, I can't imagine how anyone could miss that, not even same composer, but they're both friends and work for Media Ventures (or w.e the company is), coincidence? I don't think so.
Indeed, I can't imagine how anyone could miss that, not even same composer, but they're both friends and work for Media Ventures (or w.e the company is), coincidence? I don't think so.
I can't find the article anywhere, but I remember reading Zimmer wrote the score (or at least laid the template) for Pirates, but left it to Bladelt to finish because he was working on something else at the time. That being said, Zimmer's scores for Pirates 2 and 3 (and parts of 4) are incredible. Actually, Zimmer has been on a tear recently, both Sherlocks were great, Pirates, Dark Knight, Inception, and The DaVinci code movies have been really strong scores. Shame about the movies, in most instances.
I think John Powell should have come on board for this flick. He can do contemporary action scoring (the Bourne scores have informed every action flick since it came out), and his X-Men 3 score was the only good thing about that flick. A proper superhero score that manages to weave in ideas from the first 2 films and still stand on its own. That's what I was hoping for from the Avengers score.
As far as Thor being given the short end of the stick character wise...that's actually not all that different from the Avengers comics, where Thor often has a tendency to be somewhat sidelined until it's time for him to show up and do something awesome. While I loved the Hulk stuff, traditionally it's Thor that's the Avengers "big gun." That and he tends to get the "big sideline jobs." "Thor, go hold off that army over there while the rest of us fight this army over here." or "Thor, go pound on the big bad guy while the rest of us go sabotage his McGuffin."
I actually wasn't a big fan of that scene but this....this shit scared the shit out of me when I was 15 seeing this for the first time.
Everything about the scene is just perfect, the way the music follows the ringwraiths sort of "dance" as they approach the hobbits, and to think it was shot kind of on the fly after they fired Stewart Townsend from the film and replaced him with Viggo.
Ok, quick question.
first some filler for the unwashed masses who haven't seen it yet..
blalhba
anyway. Its been a couple of weeks so I must have glazed this over, but I keep seeing this brought up everywhere and I'm curious as to where it was that i missed. I see people comparing TDKs Cell phone tapper and how it happens in The Avengers, but I must have spontaneously blacked out because I don't remember any part where peoples phones were tapped or something....anyone help a chudder out?
Ok, quick question.
first some filler for the unwashed masses who haven't seen it yet..
blalhba
anyway. Its been a couple of weeks so I must have glazed this over, but I keep seeing this brought up everywhere and I'm curious as to where it was that i missed. I see people comparing TDKs Cell phone tapper and how it happens in The Avengers, but I must have spontaneously blacked out because I don't remember any part where peoples phones were tapped or something....anyone help a chudder out?
It's how SHEILD found Loki in Berlin.
Ok, quick question.
first some filler for the unwashed masses who haven't seen it yet..
blalhba
anyway. Its been a couple of weeks so I must have glazed this over, but I keep seeing this brought up everywhere and I'm curious as to where it was that i missed. I see people comparing TDKs Cell phone tapper and how it happens in The Avengers, but I must have spontaneously blacked out because I don't remember any part where peoples phones were tapped or something....anyone help a chudder out?
It's basically a casual comment from Nick Fury right after Banner and Rogers are brought to the Helicarrier. He explains how SHIELD can tap into any cell phone, security camera, satellite, etc... that they want (and orders his agents to do just that at the same time).
