This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"I used to be a highly respected Watcher. Now I'm a wounded dwarf with the mystical strength of a doily."
11978 members | you are not logged in | 13 December 2018


May 07 2012

(SPOILER) What worked/didn't work in "The Avengers?". The Playlist's Gabe Toro and Oliver Lyttelton voice their take(s) on what worked and what didn't work in "The Avengers."

I dont get why people keep saying there wasnt a plot.


There was. It was just really simple. Loki was going to give Thanos the Cube in return for an army to take over earth. So Cube for Earth.

Am i wrong on this?
I agree on what worked, but don't really care much for their didn't work examples. I'm not saying they were wrong all the time, I'm saying it didn't bother me. For example, yes, some characters were a bit wasted, but you can only focus on so many characters in one movie. And one of the reasons Hawkeye was sent off and Maria Hill was in the background was because we didn't care about them as much due to us not "knowing them" very well from other movies, so the focus was on the other characters that we did know and care more about. I don't think there was time for anything else, without letting fan favorites take a back seat.

A thing I thought was flat out on the list wrong was saying the plotlessness was bad. Instead of a lot of stuff going on, we got to see the characters interact, which to me was really great. The time spent on the ship, when I guess one could say the plot stood still, was terrific. of course, that's my preference. I also liked the opening, thought the villains were good enough. Loki was creepy and scary, the army was just that, and army, that didn't have to be more scary than their numbers made them. And I think the ending was good enough, a way to tie up lose ends and show everyone going off in different directions. If we had to see more people on the news saying "OMG aliens! OMG portals! OMG Gods!" that might have been too much.

Btw, what are "Don Cheadle's War Machine"?
FrellaC, you're not wrong. It was a pretty clear plot. Loki wants to rule Earth because he wants to: a) spite his brother and father b) because he can c) presumably, he wants a shiny new Australia and d) because Thanos would give him an entire army to use for conquering.

And I disagree with everything that "didn't work." I thought Jeremy Renner was used very well. The movie strikes a good balance between all of the characters. Because he spends a good portion of the movie with Loki, you're not going to get nearly so much character development. But you get a lot of it through Black Widow because she cares for him and it's through her that you see he's the kind of person she would want to repay a debt to and help rather than just defeat as an enemy.

As for glossing over the fact that hundreds of thousands might have died - do we really watch a movie like Avengers wanting to end the movie with "and hundreds of thousands died"? Why was that question not asked of Nolan's Batman, the destruction in Transformers, or any other superhero type action movie in which there are casualties? At least in Avengers, it is actually noted that Loki killed 80 people in 2 days (prompting one of the best lines in the film).

Skytteflickan88, in Iron Man 2, Don Cheadle plays James Rhodes, who wears the War Machine suit designed by Tony Stark.

[ edited by the ninja report on 2012-05-07 21:34 ]
Can't counter all the "cons", but I was pleased by the ending at least addressing the media and world's response to what happened. It could have ended with shots of everyone going their separate ways. Arguing the plot was too weak to merit 2.5 hours, but wishing there was a scene tacked on with Captain America fumbling with an iPod? Those straws aren't very graspy are they?
Yup, there was a plot, it was simple, but how would there have been room for something big and complex in a film like this.
The Opening part of the film was not bad at all, I thought it was an epic, buffy homagey opening. I loved it.
I also definitively don't think the end was rushed, I think the third act flowed out brilliantly and was pure awesome.
Now, Hawkeye. I think if he had spent all that time on the ship with everyone he would've just felt like an extension of Natasha, an afterthought in comparison to her. But by making him evil, it managed to make him much more relevant to the plot of the movie's beginning.
As for Loki, I thought he was a great villain, I don't care what they say about him. And at the end of the day the Avengers is one of the best movies I've ever seen.
Nathan, I too, got "Chosen" vibes as the SHIELD base got all Hellmouthy on us.
I like the way the action kicks off, and their criticisms of the ending are all pretty stupid, with the possible exception of the scene where Thor and Loki go back to Asgard. That was a little clunky. I guess Joss should have cut together a five minute sequence of various holy men burning their texts or looking with confusion into the sky just to cover the whole world religion angle. That would have been pacing gold, and highly appropriate to the film itself. Mm Hm. Now, I do think there are some valid criticisms to be made of The Avengers, but I didn't see too many in this article's closing paragraphs.
I agree on what worked, but don't really care much for their didn't work examples. I'm not saying they were wrong all the time, I'm saying it didn't bother me.

I agree with Ninjareport. There are a couple of spots where I wonder if there was more to a particular scene here or there, but I know that Joss said in one of the Avengers' interviews that there was a scene between Iron Man and Captain America that goes deeper into the issues Iron Man had with his dad (somewhat) idolizing Cap and comparing him to Cap--- but that on the day of shooting, both actors didn't feel 100% comfortable with it, so Joss dropped it.

I hope that (1) there's an extended director's cut when it comes to dvd, and (2) there's a Joss Whedon solo(in addition to cast) commentary discussing things that HE was happy unhappy with, too, or would have done more with, if time/resources weren't an issue...
Me too, Nathan and CaptainB.

I had a great time seeing the movie and would gladly watch it again and again. I think there are some valuable points made here, and don't disagree with all of the What Didn't Work points.

But I agree that complaints of a lack of plot are misplaced. Not because the movie had a strong narrative thread (how can you, when you've got A-B-C-D-and-E stories all going at once?) but because it's a character-driven piece. The whole point of the thing, in my mind, was that there are all of these heroes who "work alone" - and each of them powerfully has his or her own thing going on, as evidenced by the fact that so many of them have had their own movies - but sometimes they need to come together, both for the greater good and it looked to me, in the end, for the pleasure of being part of an awesome team.

And awesome really is the actual point of the movie, isn't it?

I really like the point they make here about how much this feels like a COMIC BOOK movie as opposed to a comic book MOVIE. Good work, Joss.
I think some parties are not clued into the fact that not being overly complicated (and the movie is not overly complicated) is not the same as being merely superficial (and the movie is not merely superficial). Cue the self-promotional linking of what I wrote up last night.

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2012-05-07 22:51 ]
I think the sad thing about the article is that it really doesn't acknowledge all the difficulties that HAD to be inherent in crafting a story with so many demands automatically put on it.

There was an interview with the writer of "Iron Man 2" that talked about how there was a GENERAL plan, but nothing too elaborate regarding the buildup to the Avengers from all the different writers/directors of Hulk, Thor, Captain America, and Iron Man--- and that with each film, a writer might add a sliver or two for this big story at the end that wasn't really pre-planned that solidly to begin with, so Joss had to pick up ALL the threads of the different films and transition there- doesn't sound like it was an easy task by any stretch of the imagination...

And... I can only imagine the number of treatments and script drafts that had to go into making this script acceptable to all the powers that be (and to all the actors). There was a great 'free' book draft on the making of "Star Trek: Insurrection"" that talked from a screenwriter's point of view how difficult it was to draft and redraft a script to make the necessary parties happy on that film- (actors, studio, etc.)--- but compare that to the pressures on that, to the expectations on that project to this one- I just wish that Joss were the 'showrunner' for the individual movies at Marvel as well as being the top man for Avengers.

Still, even though doors that were slightly closed before might open wide if this makes a gabillion dollars for Joss--- I do hope that he wants to do additional Avengers films (and that they let him do so without restraint), at the very least.

[ edited by harvey chin on 2012-05-07 23:05 ]
I agree, on all counts. (To preface - I LOVED it. And any criticisms I may just come from my personal bias and expectations. I'm familiar with Joss' earlier works but I know nothing of the Avengers comics and origin stories. The fans who do may be better suited to judge the legitimacy of the article.)

The beginning felt awkward and dragged a bit, the ending felt rushed, like we hadn't given each Avenger their due.

One thing in particular that bothered me was that there wasn't a sense of "here's the team" before the battle. I had expected Fury to assemble the group in entirety by the first act, but they aren't even all in one place at one time until the end. You could make a case for that being a reasonable plot choice, but it threw me off. Fury's speech about the Avengers was only delivered to Tony and Cap. The in-fighting was strongest between those two (but trimmed from the original design so they weren't headlining the film), mediocre between anyone else. The forest battle was about misunderstandings more than a power struggle, and the Natasha/Bruce tension was neatly resolved in the wake of the alien army. Aside from the 20 seconds in that one scene where Bruce grabs the scepter, there was never any team fighting. I expected more build-up, more arguments, more conflict to beg the question if these people even COULD operate as a team. I thought that was Joss' mission statement, but it wasn't fully actualized here.

Also, the lack of Hawkeye made him an underwhelming presence on the team. Thor was a bit cheated out of relevance as well. I expected Iron Man and Captain America to get the time and importance they ended up with, and both of those characters were satisfying. Obviously, The Hulk and Black Widow were the fresh inventions, the real surprise characters.

I know this wouldn't have served the structural purposes of introducing each Avenger, but when Tony hacked S.H.I.E.L.D.'s system to play rock music with "Agent miss me?" Hot. Damn. I wish that was the first moment we saw Iron Man. That first underwater shot shorted him of the "rockstar moment" I expected for his return to the screen. But that's just me.

[ edited by WhatsAStevedore on 2012-05-07 23:30 ]

[ edited by WhatsAStevedore on 2012-05-07 23:33 ]
b!X, if you hadn't promoted your post, I was going to.
What worked for me? Timing. Pacing. Managed correctly they make good jokes even funnier. Managed badly, everything falls apart and goes flat.

So many movies these days have a lousy sense of timing and pacing, even good jokes die on the vine, but this film gets it right.

The wonderful scene with the champagne? Loved every bit of that, and if it hadn't been timed well, it wouldn't have worked at all.

Also, in some of the promos, I think the Black Widow line, something about 'that's not a party' got chopped up/re-edited and threw off the timing. In the promo, it doesn't work as well as it does in the film.
I only felt the alien voices were the one cringworthy part of the whole thing. I almost did again at Natascha vs Loki but Joss prove me wrong.
I only saw one flaw with the movie and that was the opening scene in the Shield facility. It was just really slow and oddly paced until the title card came on the screen but it didn't ruin the movie for me at all.
The major flaw was the "puny god" line. It needed to be a second or two later, because the audience was still laughing too loud to hear that line.
I absolutely loved the movie, and I have no major complaints, but while we're discussing their "what works and what doesn't" points. . . one thing that I felt didn't work was the deus-ex-machina feel of coming out from under Loki's thrall. They show Hawkeye's perspective coming out of the ice-thrall in that cool blue tint effect, and then Romanoff later explains that she hit him hard on the head. Then, in the big climactic scene, Selvig seems to come out of it just kind of on his own. I'm sure you could explain that a number of ways but I wanted some consistent rules as to how, exactly, you get someone out from under ice-thrall. Inconsistent thrall-emerging seems a little convenient to the plot (which, ahem people who wrote this thing, points to there indeed being a plot!).

(is there an appropriate term for what I'm calling ice-thrall? Fans who know the comics, help me out!)
Selvig got un-thralled when he was knocked out when Tony tried to blast the cube & triggered some kind of explosion off of its forcefield.
Well, there we go! My guess is that, like with all of Whedon's art, what seems not to work at first means you (well, me) probably just missed something and need to see it again...
Mare, I think you're right on. My take on the plotlessness thing is that Loki's second-act plan could have been clearer. When I go see the movie a second time it's definitely one of the things I'll be looking for. I think all of the information we need to put it together is in the film (Fury's "he's the only person that wants to be here", the use of the staff as a tracking beacon, counting on Banner to Hulk out, etc.), but I'm still a little unclear on the exact details. And if someone doesn't even get that Loki had a plan, which I think is a real possibility for the unattentive, that section of the movie does in fact seem rather plotless. Just flying around and bickering. Bickering wonderfully, of course, but still. :)
The groundwork for Loki having a plan is laid early on. Rogers says right after Loki's capture that it doesn't feel right.
I really disagree with saying Loki wasn't a good villain. I think he was amazing and worked perfectly for the film's purpose. Loki's goal is to rule the world, but his plan in fighting the Avengers is to goad them into tearing themselves apart. I'm not sure how much clearer it could possibly be, except for the fact that the story shows this through his character and through visual cues (the shot on Loki's spear glowing; Loki within the Hulk's cage = metaphor for stirring up the inner monster). I'm not really a fan of the stories that tell me what's what. That's one of the reasons I love Joss' work: he doesn't talk down to me as I'm watching the story, but gives me enough to let me figure it out.
Loki needed some kind of mineral or metal or something to make the cube open the portal. Hawkeye said he could get the mineral but needed a distraction--which is why Loki staged the whole Stuttgart "kneel to me" thing, to draw the attention of SHIELD/the Avengers. Sure, he enjoyed it, but he was primarily trying to draw attention.

Once captured, he planned on sowing discord among the Avengers, getting them to distrust Fury, and getting the Hulk to smash, causing yet *another* distraction while Hawkeye followed the signal from his spear and came to rescue him.

All this enabled him to (a) get what he needed to open the portal without anyone noticing, and (b) demoralize the Avengers and turn them against each other, thus neutralizing the only group with a real chance of stopping him.

It's actually a pretty good plan.

And FWIW that's my take on it after one viewing, so I don't think it was terrifically hard to follow--certainly should have made sense to folks who are paid to write about movies.
Well, I said that I was pretty sure it was in fact all there in the film! But I don't remember a line from Rogers about it at all; for me Fury's line, above, basically functioned as a reveal. Now is this partly, possibly mostly, a failure in me as an audience member? Yep, pretty clearly. Which is why I need to go see it again! But I will say that I doubt I'm alone in missing it.

I will, though, remind people that I did in fact cotton on to most of the plan, thank you. :) I just didn't get it in as much detail as erendis did, with the two separate distractions for two separate purposes both of which were also tied to separating/demoralizing/defeating the team. That last bit was the really clear bit to me; the first bit, not so much.

...and, just to address Emmie's point a little, I'm fine with being given visual information (a la the spear glowing), but if we are supposed to be getting vital plot information through visual METAPHOR (Loki in the Hulk's cage=letting loose the beast)? That cannot be considered a valid form of storytelling for a mass audience. Luckily I don't think that's what Joss intended; that part of Loki's plan was explained very well in the Black Widow scene and those following. Even for me. :)
I loved the movie and will see it again in the theater, but I basically agreed with the list of things that didn't work, with the exception of Loki. I thought Loki worked well, although I suppose he could have been scarier.

I thought that Black Widow's discovery of Loki's plot was a great dramatic moment, although the surprise attack on an aircraft carrier seems somewhat improbable, in retrospect. I guess that's the problem with an airborne aircraft carrier. Attackers can sneak in under your radar... literally. ;)
I don't think the writer said there was 'no plot' but that the plot was too thin to sustain interest in a two hour and twenty minute long movie. And of course that it true: the bulk of the film is the introduction of each of the individual Avengers and the bringing of them together into the group, which needed the time.

I also agree that on second viewing the beginning of the film is slow, and dark (particularly when wearing 3D glasses). The first time viewing I didn't know where we were going, and of course the movie grows so quickly into brilliantly lit, colorful action and comedy that that is how I remembered the movie. It was only the second time I watched that I felt it was starting in the darker more serious film styles of a Batman or X-men, and then turned into the brilliant Joss film that I adored. Like almost a style shift....

And I agree that Maria Hill was under utilized; I had never read the comics, so I didn't know or care who she was, but so many of my friends care about this character that I ended up feeling that she was not given anything worthwhile to do.

Basically I don't disagree with this (mostly positive) article, I think there are fair points to be made. The movie didn't have to be perfect to be the most entertaining movie I've seen in years.
If talking about things that might have been stronger, I think the only section that I know I felt a little 'flat' was the opening section with Fury, arrival of Loki, the introduction/abduction of Hawkeye/ car chase by Maria Hill/ explosion of the Shield base. (And even writing that out- it sounds dynamic and incredible, and a helluva lot for five minutes, but it looks like I'm not alone in feeling it was a little slow, so maybe it is worth discussion)

Now- we've just become so accustomed nowadays to fx work of giant devastation and of big budget car chases, that I think we become a little numb to action openers where no character that we have any attachment to dies & also has to compete with 20+ Bond films with a similar opening, not to mention "2012", "Independence Day" shots and the like.

(If it was Agent Coulson or Sam Jackson or any of the characters we had more contact with died in the beginning section, the action would have felt more character based and maybe added the 'OOMPH'- never seen it before' factor. Without it, it's mainly a functional scene with big budget elements that we've sort of seen just lacked a bit of suprise and a sense of 'real' danger.

Also--- if Nick Fury or Maria Hill never sweats or is nervous in the first scene, why should the audience? Maybe the first section needed something a little more that the AUDIENCE wanted to Avenge & have the heroes be summoned ASAP.At least, maybe an assistant to Fury freaking out over the goings on to help the audience feel more freaked out over the place falling apart--- If Fury was stalling for time, then maybe even bits of the ceiling falling earlier around them might have emphasized the danger more. Not sure.)

EDIT: Well- there actually are two more TINY moments that didn't work for me (and this is all nit-picking)... the "It works on a form of electricity!"- Made Captain America seem a little stupider than maybe he needed to be. I know that they wanted to save the major character stuff for their own sequels, but sometimes a joke or two that was funny diffused a mood that I was a little annoyed didn't get a chance to play out.


"So that's what it does" gets a big laugh, but I thought there, too--- it kind of took away from Coulson's death.

Speaking of which: the second nitpick--- we could have had music with Coulson or even a few seconds more of Fury reeling a bit more with Coulson's death. I know there's a danger of overplaying it, but it feels REALLY underplayed, and not given all the emotional juice it could have/should have had, imo-- as it's THE death in the film that counts & is at the heart of the Avengers.

The rather short reaction by Fury/truncated editing didn't help, I think. It could be argued that he's the ultimate soldier & is used to soldiers dying under him, but I felt a similar detachment (and didn't want to) when Joss made this choice in "Serenity"-- when Wash is killed and Zoe has no emotion to it 'because she's a soldier'--- and it felt like bad acting (or more a bad creative call)on that film for the character not to be more shaken/devastated by the death.

Fury's reaction isn't quite as bad (imo)as that one in Serenity....but it felt like there could have been a bit more on Fury's part if Coulson was that important to him. (Or even just a longer moment of Fury & Coulson with his death)

I'm not a giant fan of overusing music, (Silvestri I think rightfully is getting criticism for having an unmemorable title theme as an aside) but if there's a type of movie that I think is the right place for bigger and more operatic bits, the death of Coulson definitely seemed to be the right place for it. Joss says that he wanted this to be a war movie, but I think that in both cases he underrated the emotional connection had with both characters, and should have let us (the audience) have a chance to mourn onscreen for the characters that die a little more by letting the characters who were supposedly close to them shed a tear or two (or not even that, could Zoe have looked horrified for a moment? Could Fury have had a few more seconds to react to his death). It is again a small quibble in a movie full of so many riches, but I think it's worth mentioning when "The Phantom Menace"- (as horrible as it is)- has a better death moment onfilm than "Avengers" for one of its key players.

[ edited by harvey chin on 2012-05-08 15:56 ]
the only thing that didn't work for me was the end. I was very disappointed by it.
I never wanted it to end.
I actually admired the Joss made it clear that emotions, more than ambition, were driving the plot.

Rogers and Stark talk explicitly about Loki's plan. They realized that the obvious plan (obtain mineral, distract SHIELD, etc.) was not important to him. Loki wants to torment others (revenge), and to be there in person to rub people's noses in it. As Stark points out later, it isn't a rational plan ("there's no scenario where you come out on top"). Loki's ego causes him to rage his frustration ("I will not be bullied by the likes of you!") when he should have been fleeing in terror.
I was kind of under the impression that Fury and Maria arrived knowing that the cube was potentially going to cause the place to get Sunnydaled, it seemed as though they were already in process of evacuating people. Unless I'm way remembering wrong. I think Fury is too cool for nervousness, and Maria seemed pretty nervous when she saw Loki for the first time... And I was pretty concerned about Hawkeye being taken over even though I knew he'd have to come out of it eventually. Was sure he could do some pretty massive damage (and he did). I guess my point being, I seem to be one of the few who liked the opening. Thought it was a good set up, and didn't need anything new/different. Plus it had some of the best 3D shots for me, which got me really excited for the use of depth in the rest of the movie. It definitely could have used a funny line though...

I didn't really feel Hawkeye was too wasted. I certainly could have used more of him, but was surprised to find his time breakdown from that other post... But in a movie with that many huge players, someone had to suffer. I think he was great though.

Loki was entertaining, intelligent (though gullible)... I thought he was a great villain, albeit a childish one. (Re: Thor's comments to him on the mountain). I felt it was all true to what I saw in Thor.

This has already been discussed but... Plotless?

Rushed ending - Meh, I can agree with that... not the needing more news part, maybe 30 seconds more... but I would've liked a little more 'audible' character interaction, not just Fury voiceover. But, still loved it.

I'll come back later with the things that I didn't think worked though, because I did have a couple.

Random asides: Coulson and "So that's what it does" reminded me of Tank in the Matrix. Only with funny snark instead of angry snark. And then potentially actually dying. Still not convinced he is though (which would prove Fury's not-enough-emotionness).

Re: Zoe's lack of emotion (Look, I couldn't post back in the Serenity days) I think she showed plenty of emotion in the immediate moments, and then had to be emotionless as a soldier in order to get to a safe place. Otherwise she would have died before they got to their holding spot. Then, I feel she did start showing her emotion again the moment she started coming out from behind the barricade and that emotion caused her to get her back all torn up. I really like Joss' words on it in the commentaries, and what he says about what he discussed with Gina Torres...

< / longwinded > (I had thoughts)

(Edited to make the fake html tag show up)

[ edited by DreamRose311 on 2012-05-08 17:31 ]
DreamRose311.... you make an excellent point- that maybe it's setup so that Coulson COULD be alive, and that's (one reason) why Fury was alone with Coulson at the end- no witnesses for the real truth (and why there's not SUCH a big reaction on Fury's part).

In regards to Fury and Maria's reactions in the beginning, I know either choice made had it's pluses and minuses- if both are too cool to be unnerved under pressure, then, yeah, it makes sense... but my counterargument would be that to see that Loki REALLY got to them would have helped elevate Loki's threat level at the opener.

It reminded me of a bit on the Fight Club commentary about a scene when one guy got punched- and there were reaction shots of bystanders reacting to it strongly- and just by adding the reaction shots, did the power of that punch get enhanced greatly. I guess if Maria Hill and Fury are/were considered superheroes as well (a fair argument), then there wouldn't be any agitation. But when I watched the scene the first time, I kept recalling the opening scene of "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", where an equally-cool Harrison Ford also sweats, shakes, and has human moments during his action bits that juice up the reality of his action scenes as well. (Far more so than any CGI)

I understand what Joss was going for in Serenity, but I think there are those creative choices that go for the sentiment and go for the realism. He always tries to achieve both, sometimes Joss adds comic moments at the expense of one or the other (though it also gives it its spice and fun.... I doubt a SHIELD agent would play Galaga on the bridge- and Galaga of all videogames is just hilarious, but we give it that)...

But- Serenity/Firefly to me was about (primarily) an extended family of lost people, and there also was a layer of romanticism to it. The choice Joss made meant Zoe was more soldier than human at the bottom line, and I think it was a bad call for a movie whose riches are the humanity and the love that the characters had for one another- it's like how Joss said that physics went out the window for Avengers once he realized the footage was too dull when they obeyed it. Similarly, I just thought it was a horrible call in Serenity.... and I agree with Gina Torres on that moment.

Back to Coulson "so that's what it does"- is funny- but I think if the editor was helping Joss do the dance between humor and tragedy--- then after that line, the editor could have held onto Coulson longer and let us swing from the laughter back to the sadness of it.... but then again, at 2 1/2 hours, I imagine there were probably trims EVERYWHERE in the film.

Speaking of which--- editingwise- is there a reason that Iron Man KNOWS Banner is coming back, and Captain America doesn't think so? Cap seems suprised to hear that Banner would return, and Iron Man has that answer right off the bat. I assume it's from the time spent in the lab, in that IM got to know him better than Cap, but that raised an eyebrow when seeing it at the theatres, as if maybe I missed a line.

Since it's ruminating on a film I'm going to see a fourth and fifth time soon, I also mention that another spot I thought might have been done a little different (again, nitpicking to death because there's too much time on my hands) was the argument, where everyone is a little stiff in their spots, when the BIG argument gets into play.

I LOVE the writing especially in that scene, because each character has such a strong (and true) point of view, it's not at all a false argument- but it's one of those scenes where I wish it was blocked a little looser for more impact, as this was THE argument where everything goes wild. Everyone is more/less standing in specific spots in a circle and not really moving from those spots--- which I know probably made it easier for shooting the bits before/after, but it also felt a little bit unnerving to me because it felt like the staging of a soap opera- everyone has enormous and rage in that scene, but their feet stay planted pretty firmly for easier coverage. I wonder if they rehearsed different approaches to this (if the heroes are too out of control, then they just look silly and out of character- if they don't lose it enough, it feels underacted) and we'd see the alternate takes to it on dvd- but, anyhow, I guess it's a thread on what worked/didn't work/what was great/ coulda been stronger... right place to bring it up, I suppose...
is there a reason that Iron Man KNOWS Banner is coming back, and Captain America doesn't think so?
Only in the sense that Stark sees himself in Banner, and believes that Banner will come through in the end.
"The choice Joss made meant Zoe was more soldier than human at the bottom line"

I guess the point I was trying to make, is I don't believe she's more solider than human at the bottom line, because if she were she would have stayed behind the barricade and saved all grief-leaking until after everything was done. I feel like it's the fact that she is more human than solider at the core that causes her grief to slowly shine through, though also get herself seriously injured. The slow sink in. The soldier part just had to take over for a bit to get them to a safe (...ish) point. Also shock could come into play.
I think that's a very fair analysis. I think it expresses why, when I finally saw it today, I enjoyed it very much but wasn't as blown away as I thought I'd be.

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home