Avengers movie discussion (news/etc.)

**** YES. Helluva trailer, and that's saying something; Marvel's trailers have tended to sell their respective films somewhat short.

I have a couple niggling complaints, though. I am absolutely not sold on Ruffalo as Bruce Banner, and while Stark's exchange with Cap is amazing, the Hulk comment he makes comes off as the writers trying to hard to make him snarky and "clever". I know that's Tony's character, but compare both aforementioned exchanges to see it done believably and not-as-much-so (respectively. Also, that whole "if we can't save the Earth" line doesn't seem like something that would come out of Stark's mouth. Maybe Cap's, but it just doesn't feel like a Stark line, y'know?

Other than that, **** YEAH!
 
I agree that the 'avenge it' line should probably come from Cap or Fury, but since Stark is clearly the "pov" character for the trailer (which makes sense as he's the most popular one of them) he gets all the lines.

And I am already sold on Ruffalo as Banner. :)
 
Bass said:
The only thing that annoyed me is Captain America's mask-allergies (I assume he has allergies and that is why he never wears it).
Click to expand...

There are a couple of action shots with him wearing the mask (When Thor and he are fighting and there's another one of him jumping over a car). I'm assuming he'l wear the mask in the movie, but in the big action sequence it will get damaged and he'll take it off so we can see Chris Evans' face. And this is a trailer, so they want the audience to know who the actors are, so they used mostly shots of him not wearing his mask.
 
Last edited:
Bass said:
I agree that the 'avenge it' line should probably come from Cap or Fury, but since Stark is clearly the "pov" character for the trailer (which makes sense as he's the most popular one of them) he gets all the lines.

And I am already sold on Ruffalo as Banner. :)
Click to expand...

MEH! When I hear Ruffalo, I get a sudden itch for potato chips. I was having thos conversation yesterday. We decided to copy/paste Norton's face over all of Ruffalo's scenes. Even Hulk's face.
 
I agree that Stark's exchange with Banner at the end seemed a bit off. It seems as though they are trying too hard to make him all witty and cool. Hopefully in contrast to the trailer, Stark isn't focused on almost exclusively in the film.

That said, I like the trailer.
 
DARKKNIGHT said:
I agree that Stark's exchange with Banner at the end seemed a bit off. It seems as though they are trying too hard to make him all witty and cool. Hopefully in contrast to the trailer, Stark isn't focused on almost exclusively in the film.

That said, I like the trailer.
Click to expand...

Well, it only seems that their using his established popularity, as opposed to the other hero movies, to sell the film to moviegoers.
 
Oh, that's absolutely the case. Already looking at the trailer, Thor will drive a lot of the story because of Loki. We're just getting lots of Iron Man now because Downey is not only the biggest star of everyone acting (except for Sam Jackson - and he gets almost as much screen time as Downey) but also because IRON MAN is clearly the most popular film of all the preceding Marvel films, and the one that started all of this.
 
Still really looking forward to this.

Also, Nick Fury can fire guns accurately without depth perception. Because he's played by Sam Jackson.

DIrishB said:
Nice.

Marvel Studios is on a roll, it seems.

I've watched that trailer a half a dozen times... I think I'm gonna go back and make it an even dozen.


Also, this is interesting: (SPOILERS)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, so...The other big villain we will see is THANOS. Latino Review broke that news in May but since then it has been pretty quiet regarding that. Well, according to my source, he is indeed in the film and the mysterious aliens everyone is talking about, is his army. As for the plot details, well, it will be very interesting...Basically Thanos makes a deal with Loki (like Hiddleston said in one interview that Loki makes some shady deals) to get him the Infinity Gauntlet. He trades his army for the Gauntlet. And that's about it. No word on what 'Leviathan' is though.

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

If this is true, I wonder if its to set up some of the Space stuff movies Marvel's been talking about -- Guardians of the Galaxy, etc
Click to expand...

OK, so much for avoiding spoilers. Lord, I'm fickle.

About this...I'm split on it. On one hand,
Thanos
! On the other hand,
Loki, you got horribly gyped there, Thanos is like the galaxy's deadliest used car salesman
.
 
Wait. Why would you need depth perception for a gun?

For a bow & arrow yes, because the arrow will arc through the air, so you need to know how far the target is to compensate your aim. But for guns, it's a straight line. That's why snipers don't use both eyes, no?
 
Bass said:
Wait. Why would you need depth perception for a gun?

For a bow & arrow yes, because the arrow will arc through the air, so you need to know how far the target is to compensate your aim. But for guns, it's a straight line. That's why snipers don't use both eyes, no?
Click to expand...

It depends on the distance. If a gun could shoot completely straight, then my glock would have a ballistic scope. A pistol generally gets a dip after 50 yards or so. if you know your depth, you can aim slightly higher or lower to hit your target.
 
Bass said:
Already looking at the trailer, Thor will drive a lot of the story because of Loki.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Chris Hemsworth has said that there will be an interesting dynamic with Thor b/c Loki's his brother:
I think [Thor's] motivation is much more of a personal one, in the sense that it's his brother that is stirring things up. Whereas everyone else, it's some bad guy who they've gotta take down. It's a different approach for me, or for Thor... I've been frustrated with my brothers at times, or family, but I'm the only one who is allowed to be angry at them. There's a bit of that.
Click to expand...
 
J. Agamemnon said:
It depends on the distance. If a gun could shoot completely straight, then my glock would have a ballistic scope. A pistol generally gets a dip after 50 yards or so. if you know your depth, you can aim slightly higher or lower to hit your target.
Click to expand...

I would think that kind of depth perception - 50 yards - is somewhat doable with one eye because two eyes really only help depth perception at close range. The further something is away, the smaller the difference between the angles of your two eyes becomes and so it's less important. If you take your 3D glasses off in the cinema, some sections of the screen are more blurred than others; that's how depth works. So I would think, for long distances, a one-eyed person would be fine, and thus, shooting a gun would be fine too. Plus, I'm sure with practice (as Fury would clearly have), you'd overcome the probable loss in accuracy one eye would give.
 
Bass said:
I would think that kind of depth perception - 50 yards - is somewhat doable with one eye because two eyes really only help depth perception at close range. The further something is away, the smaller the difference between the angles of your two eyes becomes and so it's less important. If you take your 3D glasses off in the cinema, some sections of the screen are more blurred than others; that's how depth works. So I would think, for long distances, a one-eyed person would be fine, and thus, shooting a gun would be fine too. Plus, I'm sure with practice (as Fury would clearly have), you'd overcome the probable loss in accuracy one eye would give.
Click to expand...

Oh, well in that aspect yes, you're right. You can't use two eyes for a scope. That's what the little lines are for, in order to get a good grasp on how far you're shooting. but the bullet still arcs the farther the range. Also, weather conditions are a huge factor, as even the slightest wind can redirect a bullets velocity, range or speed the further the bullet travels. At short distances, it doesn't really matter. But even from a 50 yard distance, with a basic handgun, if you aim for the forehead, you'll probably hit the chin. I think I'm getting carried away though.

No matter the distance, iron sights are there for a reason, and they aren't made for use of both your eyes, just your strong one. As long as you have the direction you intend the bullet to travel, your target in sight, all you have to do is look at the iron sights, line them up and make sure they destroy your target. Breathing, steadiness and stance play a huge factor, but there's always exceptions.

Depth perception is more valuable in cqc whereas you're more likely to miss a target throwing a jab with one eye open as opposed to throwing the same jab with both eyes on the opponent. Again, there's always exceptions and many professional fighters are used to making compensations on the spot.
 
So yes. AVENGERS.

tumblr_lt2c5sCT2N1qbvj0oo1_500.png
 
So I read today that Feige and Marvel's plan for psot-AVENGERS is to have IRON MAN 3, DOCTOR STRANGE and other movies set up AVENGERS 2.

I know I give Marvel Studios a lot of ****, but I actually like this idea. I like the idea that each AVENGERS movie is a big pay-off to the previous movies and will change the next group of films, rotating characters in and out. It's a really nice approach to the franchise. I just hope that they keep the intercontinuity down to a minimum since constant teasing of THE AVENGERS was a problem in IRON MAN 2, and will become less cool after the first film comes out and the novelty is gone.

But it's a good idea. I hope they execute it well.
 
Doctor Strange in the Avengers?
hmmm...

(i mean i know he's been in the New Avengers recently, but it's a strange (HA!) move for the Avengers film franchise.)
 
Last edited:
I'd rather see Quick Silver and Scarlet Witch, with cameos by Wolverine, Spider-Man, and Venom. Then they could base it off Ultimates 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top