Hurt Locker was good. I don't see why it was odious.

It was La Signora's bookclub at our place the other night, so I sloped off to see this. I knew I would eventually, just like I've seen all the other Marvel movies I think (except Daredevil.) I have to say I was mildly disappointed, partly because several people had enthused so much about it on here. Yes, the third iteration of The Hulk was a cut above the other two, and RDjr is given some natty quips — but no more so than in the Iron Man movies. It wasn't a bad film, just very predictable.

Maybe I'm jaded but whether it's Harry Potter, or the LOTR franchise, or comic-book movies, every blockbuster these days has a story arc that's as rote as an episode of Law & Order. They're all FX portfolios driven by the latest innovations in CGI. Interesting characters and story-telling, and therefore genuine drama are overwhelmed by noise, speed, and the certainty that everything is going to end with armies of orcs, aliens or wizards causing mayhem and destruction until the good guys save the world and live happily ever after.

So far as comic book movies go there are only two I've seen that transcend the established genre: Dramatically The Dark Knight, is head and shoulders above the rest, largely — but not entirely — because of Heath Ledger's performance. And Sin City because it explicitly plays with the shared conventions of comic books and film and does so in a predominantly visual, rather than narrative, way. Ultimately it fails, but in an interesting and laudable fashion.

Still there's (yet another) Spiderman flick to look forward too... oh goodie.

I'm completely out of touch with the world of comics, graphic novels and superheroes, these days. Are there any adaptations (or even completely original films) in the pipeline that might be a bit of a break from the formula that Amor describes, above?

Reed John wrote:


For a "serious" film which won Oscars it was less realistic than Avatar, basically it was "Lethal Weapon 5 - This time it's Baghdad!", one of the few films neither my wife nor I managed to watch till the end.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest. I don't think a film has ever quite made me as angry as "The Hurt Locker".

It was a very powerful film, brilliant tension in the editing of the bomb sequences etc but it had the same attitude to the 'other' as The Green Berets .

And the same token 'nice' native child.

I didn't think that of Hurt Locker. I thought it showed the conflict from the perspective of the Americans because it wasn't really about the war, it was about the bomb squad guys and what their jobs are like, their addiction to the adrenaline, etc.

Yeah, it showed them being very suspicious of every local, but if you were in their situation, you'd be suspicious of every local too because you never know which one is going to try to blow you up. That's how that war is. That's part of the insurgent's strategy. That's why it's awful (among other reasons). The token nice kid had to be there just so the film could show that the characters weren't just racists.


As for superhero films:
There are tons in the pipeline. (www.superherohype.com/) Other than the upcoming Batman film, which should be excellent, most are going to follow the pattern of The Avengers or the recent Green Lantern - origin of hero, origin of major villain, threat to earth, hero stops threat, credits. It's a hard pattern to break. The Batman films break the pattern partially because the character is very different, and partially because of Warner's faith that Nolan and Bale could do it so well that the film could make money without appealing to kids. (Well, the Dark Knight films would appeal to kids, but their parents probably wouldn't want them to see them, especially the last one with The Joker).

The new Spider-Man reboot should be interesting. Odd that they'd reboot a series that was so well liked and so soon after the other one, but this will tell a somewhat different version of the story. It will be more about Peter Parker's relationship with his dead father, etc, who barely got a mention in the Raimi series. And "the girl" will be Gwen Stacy instead of Mary Jane. Not sure what difference that really makes. Still, what makes Spider-Man Spider-Man is the swinging around New York bits, so it will mostly focus on that, I guess.

There's going to be a new Superman effort with Henry Cavill in the lead. Not sure how that will go. The last one was ok, but really an imaginative flop in my view for lots of reasons. It was too in love with the Christopher Reeve/Donner films and stuck to that formula. It even had the same music. Those were good in their time, but to do Superman properly, they need a more interesting Lex Luthor like the one in the comics where he becomes President, etc. And they need to make Kal-El a bit more conflicted over his dual identities/adopted status, which relates directly to the Jewish origins of the character in the 30s. Smallville, the TV show, was actually way better at developing the characters because it covered all of that (along with a lot of tedious teenage shlock, and it went on for 10 years so got a bit encumbered by side plots, but it got the basics right).

I thought Green Lantern was ok. I think it's something you either buy into or don't. The sequel will get all into Sinestro and his betrayal so that could be interesting, but it won't be ground-breaking.

X-Men First Class will get a sequel.

Apparently Marvel is thinking of trying again with Daredevil, and it should. Daredevil is one of Marvel's two or three best characters - albeit a bit derivative of Batman - and the film they made out of it was very weak. Poor casting, poor script.

There have been a few attempts to get a Wonder Woman film or TV show off the ground. Joss Whedon was going to do it, and then they had a TV pilot either done or about to be done and the plug got pulled.

Aquaman had a pilot too, with the title character played by the guy who played Green Arrow on Smallville and, oddly, not the guy who played Aquaman on Smallville. It was going to be a lot like Smallville. Didn't get picked up. I think there's some potential there for a film especially if they can do a lot of interesting underwater stuff. Aquaman gets a lot of shit on South Park and Family Guy, but he's actually a cool character who just has never been given much chance. The fact that Green Arrow, Cyborg, Black Canary, Aquaman, Martian Manhunter, and the Flash appeared on Smallville suggest DC has no greater plans for them, because the writers were constantly asked if Bruce Wayne would ever appear on Smallville and they said no because DC didn't want to "dilute" or "interfere" with all the other Batman stuff they had going.


A lot of films are based on comics but you wouldn't necessarily know that because they aren't promoted as such and don't have superheros. Wanted was very loosely based on Mark Millar's book, but bares little resemblance to it. The film is actually better, although nothing to write home about. He also did Kick-Ass, which is getting a film sequel.

Red, about old assassins coming out of retirement, was pretty good. That was based on a graphic novel, I think. The Losers wasn't a very good film. That's actually a comic from the 50s that was redone more recently. There's lots of stuff like that.

Very informative! Thanks, Reed and thank you for the link too - that's pretty much exactly what I was after.

Finally got round to watching it yesterday after spending last week watching Iron Man 1 and 2 (fantastic) as well as Thor (dull by comparison).
I'd seen Captain America at the cinema.

Have to say, any 12A film that gets 'you mewling quim' into the script gets my vote. Tremendous fun all in all, and very amusing in places. Naturally most of the amusement comes from Tony Stark and The Hulk.
Mark Ruffalo plays Banner brilliantly. Nervy, tense, always seemingly on the verge of getting upset. Superb casting.

Hawkeye is a weird one isn't he? I mean, I watched Thor last week and scarcely recall him in it. It was just a cameo role according to what I read, so all the back story between Black Widow and himself was a bit lost on me. Aside from that, it was largely excellent.

Saw this yesterday and loved it.

For someone whose memories of comics are largely stuck in the 1970s, the ideal Avengers movie would probably be a double headed chamber piece with the Vision and the Scarlet Witch discussing the impossibility of love in a cruel and godless universe. Directed by Ingmar Bergman.

But, failing that, AA is pretty awesome.

I saw this on a plane yesterday (well yesterdayish). As someone who never read comics (well not these kind of comics anyway), I found it enjoyable but deeply confusing. I got the feeling that there were supposed to be loads of information I ought to know in advance in order for it t make any kind of sense.

I know who the Hulk is, because I watched TV in the 70s. I know who Thor is because, well, people do don't they. I've heard of Captain America, but have no idea what he's supposed to be/do (and in fact this is still true). As for the Johansson and Downey Jr characters and the bloke with the arrows, I have no idea. Reading this thread it suggests that Johansson was called the Black Widow, but Downey? What's the black widow's power? Getting information from people?

On a wider point, are these characters all supposed to be so well known that we don't need back stories? I don't think I ever knew anyone growing up who read Marvel or DC comics, and I guess I imagined I wasn't unusual in this. Or is the idea that the people who go to watch films like this, do already know what's going on? (which then gets back to the question of whether that is enough people to make it worthwhile? I mean obviously these films tend to be successful blockbusters, so I guess there is a market)

I saw Green Lantern a while ago on another plane and thought it was bloody awful. But that's possibly because I think that actor from Two Guys and Pizza or whatever it was called, is absolutely crap.

ad hoc wrote:


You are Louis Theroux and I claim my ten credits.

I don't get that reference either. (Well, I get the reference of the sentence structure, but not the rest)

Most of them got their own back story films (except for Johansson and the archer chap, who instead appeared vaguely inexplicably in Thor's back story film).

In the case of this specific comic book movie, there was a whole series of largely very successful films about the backstories of most of the individual characters in the years leading up to its release. That was Marvel's entire business plan. So, yes, generally people watching it would be expected to know their backstories. Black Widow didn't get her own movie, but to the extent the backstory was relevant to the plot, it was revealed in Avengers Assemble.



In nominal dollars, the Avengers movie is the third highest grossing movie of all time, so I'd say there is a market.

I thought Green Lantern was ok. I think it's something you either buy into or don't. The sequel will get all into Sinestro and his betrayal so that could be interesting, but it won't be ground-breaking.

It passed the time and was made with the customary high values that you get these days with films of that kind, but it was easy to feel sorry for a coffee table than have any sympathy for the lead character. Peter Sarsgaard's evil mutant character was far more interesting.

Avengers Assemble was bloody good fun and smart, yet suffered from simply chucking too much into the mix, an embarrassment of shiny, noisy riches that somehow stood in the way of any engrossing storytelling. Loads of stuff to entertain, quite a few sharp one-liners, set-pieces and what-have-you, but a jumble nonetheless. That said, like Captain America and X-Men, it benefitted from Marvel's almost stranglehold-like production control that stops such movies from being shamble-standard box-office shite and renders them quite entertaining exercises in entertainment.

One question (of the many) that occurred: How come when Banner went Hulk in the spaceship thingy, he just was all rage and no control and he tried to kill everyone, and when he was on the ground in the ending scene, he knew who his friends were and would only attack the bad guys?

Having just seen this as well, the answer to that question is that in the former he changed against his will, in the latter, he chose to change.

(Oddly, I wasn't convinced by this either (and have seen loads of other complains on this as well) but Whedon says this was always the intention and didn't seem to think it clunky in the director's commentary.)

Still liked the movie though. And I have generally always hated the Marvel Universe. Kind of hope Ruffalo would be given the chance to carry a Hulk movie alone.

Well, Iron Man 3 looks set to be based on the Extremis graphic novel and the new Captain America film is "The Winter Soldier" so both look promising, but they need to up Cap's man out of time and man with incorruptible morals feel and keep emphasising his unwavering bravery, leadership skills etc. more as the first film couldn't do that very much given that it was a background film.

Haven't seen this, but I like that when I look at the list of forums on the main page, when this is at the top of Film & TV it appears as "Re: We All Think 'Avengers Ass"

Scarlett Johansson certainly was impressive.