Ultimate Avengers discussion !!!SPOILERS!!!

Victor Von Doom said:
Oh yeah. But can you blame them for trying?
Yes. Yes I can.

One guy was doing Yoda, Shatner from Star Treck and someone else for Thor. And some other guy acting like a drunk Scottish as Fury.


So....terrible....
 
Ice said:
Yes. Yes I can.

One guy was doing Yoda, Shatner from Star Treck and someone else for Thor. And some other guy acting like a drunk Scottish as Fury.


So....terrible....


Could've been worse. Could've had Gilbert Godfrey as Fury. :lol:
 
Just finished watching this.

A tremendous disappointment, but I do think that --- as Bass has pointed out --- that it's problems have nothing to do with how 'faithful or not' it was to Millar & Hitch's original material, but the fact that it's just plagued with so many 'inconsistencies and nonsense'.

The first problem I had was when I started asking myself 'Why is this PG-13?' It's not even remotely as 'intense' as Batman Returns or Mask of the Phantasm, two superhero pictures that also received PG-13 ratings.

But everybody knows the ratings systems are complete bollocks anyway, so essentially the PG-13 comes from the number of on-screen deaths we get. A soldier gets stabbed in the chest and starts getting pumped with glowing blue-green goo as a Chitauri assimilates his form. And when The Big Fight happens, several SHIELD troops get disintegrated by Chitauri energy beams.

The problem is that these deaths come across as so inconsequential as to lack the 'scariness' of Batman receiving multiple injuries in Phantasm or the visceral intensity of any scene in Incredibles. I mean HOLY **** THAT GUY JUST GOT STABBED AND PUMPED FULL OF GREEN GOO but instead its like we're just watching a plot point in action.

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

A lot of the other problems of this film come from technical failings --- and I don't mean 'poor animation', I honestly found it unremarkably not-bad and unremarkably not-good --- such as how dialogue was paced or how scenes broke up other scenes.

The scene worst in this regard was when Banner talks about his aspirations to Cap. The lines were delivered with such bad rhythm that the scene started to fall apart because Cap and Banner sounded like they were talking AT each other rather than TO each other.

Then after that we have a series of cuts from Betty's perspective that show us a cut to Fury out the door, a cut to Banner gone from the floor and then a cut to the Rebirth Chamber. Bad tempo.

Also, at the height of the Chitauri attack we get three useless seconds of Widow running into the Triskelion bridge to hand Fury a gun when we would've been perfectly fine seeing them holding those guns later.

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

I LIKE the fact that Thor's characterization was that of a goofy little He-Man with a propensity for theatrics. And as 'popular' as Hank Pym's abusive husband personality is, I think a 'blame-averse scientist jock' is just fine. It's a personality archetype that has room to grow its own subtleties in future stories.

I can understand why Betty was made a scientist instead of the PR rep she was in Ultimates... it allows the writers to omit the public relations aspect and therefore cut down the number of elements they have to juggle into the script.

I don't care what anyone says, but Nick Fury was exactly the same as it was in the book only with all the political elements removed. If you look at Fury in Ultimates Vol. 1, most of his non-essential dialogue is just 'Post 9/11 Zeitgeist' talking and without it he's reduced to just being a smooth-talking bossman.

Except in Ultimate Avengers he's not very smooth, and gets bossed by holographically disembodied heads who must be important because they are holographic.

The story tries to give some attention to Cap, but it's total bull**** because most of it is Fury telling everyone what a great guy he is because he beat up aliens and therefore he must make a great leader. But never once do we see why he's a great leader at all until he gives a few strategized battle orders in the fight against Hulk. And because they win, after the battle everyone tells him he's a great leader... you know cause they won and stuff.

The Widow suffers mostly because she's got a **** vocal performance done by an actress named Olivia D'Abo.

As for Banner's voice actor. I LIKED it. He had a creepily worn out edge to him that I thought worked for the character, but it suffered simply because everyone around him was crap, so he ended up seeming off-key. It's like trying to cast Keith David (Spawn, Gargoyles) opposite Rob Paulsen (The Mask). Tony Stark was pretty decent too.

I have more to say, but it's 4 am, and I need to get rid of some shares on the HSX.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Had to edit your D'Abo comment because I like her (and because it was far too harsh and someone just got banned for calling a comic celebrity a 'douche' - and yours was much worse).

Regardless, I gotta say, some fine observations Chair o' Ours.
 
Had to edit your D'Abo comment because I like her (and because it was far too harsh and someone just got banned for calling a comic celebrity a 'douche' - and yours was much worse).
I cannot argue otherwise.

Bass said:
Regardless, I gotta say, some fine observations Chair o' Ours.
I still don't understand all the hate towards Banner's VO actor.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top