Avengers Age of Ultron trailer leaked early for those who havent seen it yet.




Epic Epicness is Epic

I see this trailer. It looks like it's for a serious film. But, how much do you want to bet it will be a comedy? The trailers for the first avengers film were just as epic serious as this one and we were given a movie that was largely a comedy. Jokes in pretty much every scene, except for some of the action ones. Some of the action scenes were written as jokes. And just like the first one, Whedon is in charge of this film.

As much as the trailer makes the film seem interesting, I'd fear the script is gonna come off as something for Saturday mornings...again.

This is supposed to be the Empire Strikes Back of the Avengers movie, and as such I expect it will be much much darker than the first. But let us not forget that even Empire, as dark as it is, has some comedy in it as well.

rileyV Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see this trailer. It looks like it's for a
> serious film. But, how much do you want to bet it
> will be a comedy? The trailers for the first
> avengers film were just as epic serious as this
> one and we were given a movie that was largely a
> comedy. Jokes in pretty much every scene, except
> for some of the action ones. Some of the action
> scenes were written as jokes. And just like the
> first one, Whedon is in charge of this film.
>
> As much as the trailer makes the film seem
> interesting, I'd fear the script is gonna come off
> as something for Saturday mornings...again.

People being snarky to one another with the occasional joke doesn't make a movie a comedy it makes it realistic because people aren't deadly serious all the time and some people deal with serious situations by NOT being serious (like Stark, plus some if his attitude comes from issues with authority so he's 'tugging at Superman's cape' when he's sniping at Fury or Cap). Once things WERE serious though everyone got serious.

The preview makes the movie look action-packed, but I think the name is out of place. This isn't the Age of Ultron JUST because Ultron is the bad guy of the movie. Its a cheap hype tactic to tie in to the big Age of Ultron comics crossover. I'm reserving judgement on this one for now, but I don't have a lot confidence.

To me, there was so much comedy in the film, the script was a joke. These days, Whedon relies on overloading the audience with jokes that he hopes people will think are so bad they're good (how many times did this kind of crap show up in S1 of agents of shield? I lost count because it happened in every episode), as well as having someone say something during a scene that just makes the scene weird, like when Cap was written to mention he got the flying monkeys reference. Everything aside from the reference for that scene was delivered to the audience, so they'd feel a particular way and what happens? Cap just has to bring it up, make the scene weird...for a joke. Because it'd be cool to make the scene weird.

Thor's apparent schizophrenia when it came to Loki is another. Ooooooo. Romanov gives Thor her mean look when she says Loki killed 80 people. Something that happened after Loki already let the frost giants into asgard in a screwed up attempt to wipe them out and show he was good enough of a son to odin. An event that caused more death and destruction than just the 80 earthlings and Thor runs scared from her glare by saying "he's adopted". But, when he's by himself with Loki, he's all "I love you like my own flesh and blood". The "he's adopted" was purely written as a sarcastic joke of someone running away with their tail between their legs. Of someone embarrassed.

This, and many other parts of the script, is horrible writing to me. To me, Avengers 1 was a comedy that was peppered with action and BS drama for the sake of BS drama. To me, any potential Whedon had at writing well has been smothered to death over the years by whatever style you'd call him having now.

I haven't seen the winter soldier. All I've seen are the trailers, but I get the feeling that it is a more serious film than Avengers 1. Am I right in that thinking?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2014 03:50AM by rileyV.

rileyV Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

[snip]
> I haven't seen the winter soldier. All I've seen
> are the trailers, but I get the feeling that it is
> a more serious film than Avengers 1. Am I right in
> that thinking?


I only recently watched it myself - Its the best of the crop so far - there is a major plot element that is far too heavily signposted and lazily executed; but if you can overlook one or two minor flaws in a film, the excellent far outweighs the bad in Winter Soldier. It is definitely more serious / gritty than the other films, though its still a family Hollywood blockbuster of course, so dont go in expecting it to be 'The Piano'

rileyV Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To me, there was so much comedy in the film, the
> script was a joke. These days, Whedon relies on
> overloading the audience with jokes that he hopes
> people will think are so bad they're good (how
> many times did this kind of crap show up in S1 of
> agents of shield? I lost count because it happened
> in every episode), as well as having someone say
> something during a scene that just makes the scene
> weird, like when Cap was written to mention he got
> the flying monkeys reference. Everything aside
> from the reference for that scene was delivered to
> the audience, so they'd feel a particular way and
> what happens? Cap just has to bring it up, make
> the scene weird...for a joke. Because it'd be cool
> to make the scene weird.

Or Thor's instinct led him to defend his brother until he was reminded that he is in fact crazy and he made a joke as a way of saying yeah you have a point and I shouldnt have gotten all pissy just cause he's my brother.

And Cap said that because he hasnt been thawed out that long and the vast majority of references he doesnt get at all. This he gets and pointing that out is a way to remind the viewer that he is a man out of time without it being about awww poor guy lets feel bad for him again like we've already done in the gym scene. I didnt find his statement about getting it any wierder than Thor saying I dont it get it.

And btw Joss has no writing credits post episode one in the first season of Shield. Yes he helped create and plot out the overall story arc of season one but he wasnt writing out any of the actual lines. Thus I find it hard to see how he had anything to do with any jokes in the show.

Warlock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or Thor's instinct led him to defend his brother
> until he was reminded that he is in fact crazy and
> he made a joke as a way of saying yeah you have a
> point and I shouldnt have gotten all pissy just
> cause he's my brother.

And that's what bothers me. They spent a considerable amount of screen time trying to get the audience to understand how deeply loving he felt for Loki, but when he's with the avengers, he's written as if he's the unpopular kid wanting to be liked by the popular ones. It feels like the forest talk was a waste of time.

> And Cap said that because he hasnt been thawed out
> that long and the vast majority of references he
> doesnt get at all. This he gets and pointing that
> out is a way to remind the viewer that he is a man
> out of time without it being about awww poor guy
> lets feel bad for him again like we've already
> done in the gym scene. I didnt find his statement
> about getting it any wierder than Thor saying I
> dont it get it.

Why would the audience need to be reminded he's a man out of time? Unless the expectation is that the audience isn't remembering all the references about cap being from the past they kept throwing in at that point, it serves no purpose other than "look, we did something funny by making the scene weird". It's another joke of the "we hope you find it so bad, that you find it good" category.

> And btw Joss has no writing credits post episode
> one in the first season of Shield. Yes he helped
> create and plot out the overall story arc of
> season one but he wasnt writing out any of the
> actual lines. Thus I find it hard to see how he
> had anything to do with any jokes in the show.

The people that have been running the show kept the same style and feel of avengers 1. That includes jokes that are hoped to be seen as so bad they're good, making scenes weird, schizophrenic character reactions. It's not good to me.

I'm looking forward to Age of Ultron. Just taking it one day at a time

rileyV Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And that's what bothers me. They spent a
> considerable amount of screen time trying to get
> the audience to understand how deeply loving he
> felt for Loki, but when he's with the avengers,
> he's written as if he's the unpopular kid wanting
> to be liked by the popular ones. It feels like the
> forest talk was a waste of time.

Because its called a story arc. The talk on the mountain top was the first words he'd spoken to Loki since he saw him falling off the Bifrost and into supposed oblivion, so what else is he going to say to the brother he loves and hopes will see the errors of his way. During the talk Loki doesnt even begin to repent so Thor is starting to see that maybe he cant be redeemed and he may have to take him down instead of just take him home. The quip about being adopted is, I believe, a joking way to reference that . As I said before his instinct is to defend his brother but when reminded of the shit he has done he steps back from his angry response and makes a joke as a way to say ya you have a point. The final straw comes when he confronts Loki on the balconey of Stark tower and he realizes nothing will turn him around and it times to just take him out. Which leads directly to how Thor sees and treats Loki in the begining of Dark World. He gave his brother a chance to do the right thing and instead he started a war that not only devastated New York but also spilled over into the other realms and took him years to end.


> Why would the audience need to be reminded he's a
> man out of time? Unless the expectation is that
> the audience isn't remembering all the references
> about cap being from the past they kept throwing
> in at that point, it serves no purpose other than
> "look, we did something funny by making the scene
> weird". It's another joke of the "we hope you find
> it so bad, that you find it good" category.

Because good story telling involves the characters going thru arcs. He was fairly angry and bitter in the gym about being a man out of time and this is him starting to try to fit in, hey they said some cultural reference and I actually understood it even if Thor didnt. Its human nature to want to at least try to fit into the group. How shitty a movie would it have been if they were all these ultra cool polished marble gods spouting one liners and just instantly forming a cohesive team cause thats what team movies are all about. They are heroes yes but they are people first and people are people and will act like it regardless of how much power they wield. And while I am on the subject of people acting like actual people who exactly do you hang out with in real life where things never get awkward, ie wierd, like you keep saying over and over? Even moreso when its people who dont really know each other and have just recently met and are still trying to figure each other out and where they fit in the social pecking order. Someone is bound to say or do something thats going to make everyone else pause and think how should I react to that.

> The people that have been running the show kept
> the same style and feel of avengers 1. That
> includes jokes that are hoped to be seen as so bad
> they're good, making scenes weird, schizophrenic
> character reactions. It's not good to me.

I dont believe for a second that any writer worth the name is going to do episode after episode trying to simply imitate another writer who had a had a single co-writer credit during one episode of one season. I may be wrong but is seems to me that you have a hard on for hating Whedon and are reading into it some stuff that simply isnt there. I get you dont like the show, and thats cool, but Whedons influence was mostly in overall story and character direction and not so much the ongoing presentation.




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2014 03:51PM by Warlock.

Warlock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont believe for a second that any writer worth
> the name is going to do episode after episode
> trying to simply imitate another writer who had a
> had a single co-writer credit during one episode
> of one season. I may be wrong but is seems to me
> that you have a hard on for hating Whedon and are
> reading into it some stuff that simply isnt there.
> I get you dont like the show, and thats cool, but
> Whedons influence was mostly in overall story and
> character direction and not so much the ongoing
> presentation.

Oh, in the early 2000s, there was show after show and writer after writer that wanted to "be like Joss", to get some of that "Buffy magic". "If I can be like Buffy, if I can write like Joss, I can be famous, too". Buffy was a bad example of "girl power" when the show was on the air and then, people tried to imitate that (because of its growing success, which happens with anything, especially in Hollywood) and morphed it further and we saw this big push for what makes a good female role model today: being a dominatrix, being willing to both beat up and torture people at the drop of a hat. It's helped morph this idea that a strong female character can only be the kind where not only are you able to take no crap from anyone, you also are justified to be a bully...just because you're a girl trying to do what's right.

The modern faux girl power thing is not Whedon's fault, but it did come about because people imitated others, including Whedon. Then, things got more sexualized and violence-ized or whatever you want to call it. Where modern faux girl power is based on looks and muscles than morals.

rileyV Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warlock Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I dont believe for a second that any writer
> worth
> > the name is going to do episode after episode
> > trying to simply imitate another writer who had
> a
> > had a single co-writer credit during one
> episode
> > of one season. I may be wrong but is seems to
> me
> > that you have a hard on for hating Whedon and
> are
> > reading into it some stuff that simply isnt
> there.
> > I get you dont like the show, and thats cool,
> but
> > Whedons influence was mostly in overall story
> and
> > character direction and not so much the ongoing
> > presentation.
>
> Oh, in the early 2000s, there was show after show
> and writer after writer that wanted to "be like
> Joss", to get some of that "Buffy magic". "If I
> can be like Buffy, if I can write like Joss, I can
> be famous, too". Buffy was a bad example of "girl
> power" when the show was on the air and then,
> people tried to imitate that (because of its
> growing success, which happens with anything,
> especially in Hollywood) and morphed it further
> and we saw this big push for what makes a good
> female role model today: being a dominatrix, being
> willing to both beat up and torture people at the
> drop of a hat. It's helped morph this idea that a
> strong female character can only be the kind where
> not only are you able to take no crap from anyone,
> you also are justified to be a bully...just
> because you're a girl trying to do what's right.
>
> The modern faux girl power thing is not Whedon's
> fault, but it did come about because people
> imitated others, including Whedon. Then, things
> got more sexualized and violence-ized or whatever
> you want to call it. Where modern faux girl power
> is based on looks and muscles than morals.

Is that what helped motivate that awful attempt at a new Wonder Woman TV series, where she goes around assaulting people on pretty much a whim and killing people was okay for her due to Protagonist Centered Morality?

rileyV Wrote:
> Oh, in the early 2000s, there was show after show
> and writer after writer that wanted to "be like
> Joss", to get some of that "Buffy magic". "If I
> can be like Buffy, if I can write like Joss, I can
> be famous, too". Buffy was a bad example of "girl
> power" when the show was on the air and then,
> people tried to imitate that (because of its
> growing success, which happens with anything,
> especially in Hollywood) and morphed it further
> and we saw this big push for what makes a good
> female role model today: being a dominatrix, being
> willing to both beat up and torture people at the
> drop of a hat. It's helped morph this idea that a
> strong female character can only be the kind where
> not only are you able to take no crap from anyone,
> you also are justified to be a bully...just
> because you're a girl trying to do what's right.
>
> The modern faux girl power thing is not Whedon's
> fault, but it did come about because people
> imitated others, including Whedon. Then, things
> got more sexualized and violence-ized or whatever
> you want to call it. Where modern faux girl power
> is based on looks and muscles than morals.

Ok...but what does that have to do with The Avengers and Agents of Shield? It went from Whedon ruining Shield and Avengers by making scenes wierd to Buffy torturing people. Not that I agree one iota with anything you said in that post but how does it relate to anything? Melinda May isn't torturing people and Skye hardly even is involved in physical altercations period.

Like I said sounds like you just hate Whedon.

Ok rereading it there is just a few specifics I cant let go.

> Where modern faux girl power is based on looks and muscles than morals.

Since when do women have different morals than men. Women arent pure bastions of light and goodness. Morals are morals and have nothing to do with gender. And I think Whedons' point wasn't to say to be a strong women you have to do X, Y and Z but more women aren't limited to X or Y, they can run the full gamut of strengths and flaws just like anyone else. Women can do everything man can including be flawed in the exact same ways. I am far from a huge fan of Buffy, but I watched enough to see she was strong because when it came time to do what needed to be done, good or bad, she handled it instead of looking for a man to step in and save the day. Pre-Buffy how many women on tv were the center of action shows that involved kicking ass and taking names? Women were, for the most part, the side kicks and love interests and more often than not the damsel in distress that needed the big strong man to save her. And even Buffy needed some saving every now and then because nobody regardless of gender can do it all alone, everyone needs help at some point in their lives.

Warlock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok...but what does that have to do with The
> Avengers and Agents of Shield? It went from Whedon
> ruining Shield and Avengers by making scenes wierd
> to Buffy torturing people. Not that I agree one
> iota with anything you said in that post but how
> does it relate to anything? Melinda May isn't
> torturing people and Skye hardly even is involved
> in physical altercations period.

First, you said no one would imitate someone else, so this wouldn't happen with agents of shield. The phrase "there are no more ideas left in Hollywood" has been around for some time. The people in charge of shield had continued the feel of avengers 1. I can't speak on season 2, since I haven't watched any of it.

> Like I said sounds like you just hate Whedon.

I used to be an enormous fan of Whedon when Buffy, Angel and Firefly were on the air. Over time, I made choices about what I felt was good writing. These days, I don't like Whedon's style back when he wrote for Buffy, Angel and Firefly and the ideas he helped usher into the shows. But, I find his style back then more palatable than the way his style is now.

> Ok rereading it there is just a few specifics I
> cant let go.
>
> > Where modern faux girl power is based on looks> and muscles than morals.
>
> Since when do women have different morals than
> men.

What I wrote was modern faux girl power has been morphed into a willingness to beat up and torture others and have it be morally justified in many cases. I also said this faux girl power-ness has been equated with being a dominatrix. I lost track of how many times I came across episodes on tv where they reference being a strong, empowered woman with either the visual of being a dominatrix, the dialogue of being a dominatrix or even both.

You missed my point.

For what it's worth, I think rileyV is entitled to his opinion.

For my part, I felt the movie perfectly captured the style and tone of the comics I read as a kid (granted, this was back during the 80's), which was four-color action, combined with a healthy dose of melaodrama and cheeky one-liners. So, being a fan of that style, I was deliriously happy with the movie we were given.

People have different preferences/expectations about their entertainment, however, and so you'll never please all of the people all of the time (and those evaluating their entertainment are under no obligation to be pleased by it).

Thanks for the link to the new movie, btw. Really looking forward to seeing this one!

rileyV Wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------
> You missed my point.

Which one? Your "point" is all over the place.



FASERIPPER Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the link to the new movie, btw. Really
> looking forward to seeing this one!

Me too. It certainly looks like a much darker movie with tougher choices that lead to bigger consequences.

I thought Avengers was easily the best superhero movie ever made. I liked the humor. Millions of moviegoers liked the humor. You obviously didn't. That's cool. Different strokes and all that. Your opinion of the movie seems to be in the minority, though... thus Whedon obviously did right by the majority. It's an incredibly popular movie. To be honest, if they got rid of all the humor in future films, I probably wouldn't enjoy them as much.

/disjointed thoughts

Warlock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rileyV Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ---
> > You missed my point.
>
> Which one? Your "point" is all over the place.

SMH. You know, I already accepted long ago that my opinion of the film was in the minority, but I can't figure out how you went "all over the place" with what I wrote. So, let me break it down for you:

1. I think Whedon's writing style sucks. It was easier to take in late 90s/ early 2000s and far less these days.
2. People imitate others writing styles and ideas to save their jobs, especially in Hollywood.
3. There is a fake girl power thing that's been going on for years where being a strong female involves willing to beat the crap out of people and being a dominatrix.

How you got the thoughts you got from what I wrote is beyond me. I'm done.

rileyV Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SMH. You know, I already accepted long ago that my
> opinion of the film was in the minority, but I
> can't figure out how you went "all over the place"
> with what I wrote. So, let me break it down for
> you:
>
> 1. I think Whedon's writing style sucks. It was
> easier to take in late 90s/ early 2000s and far
> less these days.
> 2. People imitate others writing styles and ideas
> to save their jobs, especially in Hollywood.
> 3. There is a fake girl power thing that's been
> going on for years where being a strong female
> involves willing to beat the crap out of people
> and being a dominatrix.
>
> How you got the thoughts you got from what I wrote
> is beyond me. I'm done.

Writing style is about when and how you use comedy, action, drama etc. Themes are the overall meanings behind the words and what exactly is the point of it all. You make an argument about how they copy his style and then next post talk about how everyone copies the theme of his work.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2014 03:02PM by Warlock.

Part of the problem, I think, is that when we (and, yes, I would include place myself in this category) really like a particular thing (be that a book, movie, type of cuisine, or what have you) it really rankles when we read something that we percieve as denigrating or attacking the thing we admire.

I don't agree with most of rileyV's feelings on the comic book movies (or movies generally, or on how strong females are depicted in film, etc.) but I try to keep it firmly in mind that his opinions are directed at the film and not at me personally.

I find that keeping that frame of mind is about the only thing that will prevent nerd rage from rapidly devolving into a rancorous flame-war.

Are you worthy? The Avenger's see if they've got what it takes.




Whosoever holds this hammer...

Looks as good as the first Avengers movie... meaning, I'm disappointed that Hank Pym and Wasp still aren't part of the line up, especially since its Pym who created Ultron and now it looks like Ultron is just an accidental creation of Stark's. Also disappointed that the Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch can't be called mutants (maybe they'll just avoid classifying them or simply say they were born different rather than changing what they are) and that Magneto can't be referred to as their father because they licensed out the X-Men rights. I get Magneto, but mutant is a term used in other movies to describe people born different, and genetic mutation is a scientific term. If they dance around it because of legal issues, it'll be more than a little annoying and screw the X-Men movies... they all suck anyhow.

I would also like to have seen Captain America do more than budge Mjolnir while they're fooling around with it. He's proven in the comics more than once to be worthy, but hopefully that scene is just leading up to a later scene where he actually does pick it up either to return it to Thor whose been separated from it or perhaps to use it in a moment of desperation.

Thrudjelmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also disappointed that the Quicksilver & Scarlet
> Witch can't be called mutants (maybe they'll just
> avoid classifying them...

That's what the Avengers comics have done more often than not, unless they are fighting other mutants over something mutanty its generally a non-issue. How often does someone being a mutant surface outside of the X books and their standalones anyway?

Warlock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thrudjelmer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Also disappointed that the Quicksilver &
> Scarlet
> > Witch can't be called mutants (maybe they'll
> just
> > avoid classifying them...
>
> That's what the Avengers comics have done more
> often than not, unless they are fighting other
> mutants over something mutanty its generally a
> non-issue. How often does someone being a mutant
> surface outside of the X books and their
> standalones anyway?

Not very, the only reason it showed up in Secret Wars was to divide up the heroes and put them at odds and give the villains a chance. But that's because of Marvel's 'divided toyboxes' mindset, where mutants and mutant issues are mainly in the X-titles and non-mutant stuff is elsewhere. If it comes up it generally doesn't get much mention before being dropped for other things.

Thrudjelmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks as good as the first Avengers movie...
> meaning, I'm disappointed that Hank Pym and Wasp
> still aren't part of the line up, especially since
> its Pym who created Ultron and now it looks like
> Ultron is just an accidental creation of Stark's.
> Also disappointed that the Quicksilver & Scarlet
> Witch can't be called mutants (maybe they'll just
> avoid classifying them or simply say they were
> born different rather than changing what they are)
> and that Magneto can't be referred to as their
> father because they licensed out the X-Men rights.
> I get Magneto, but mutant is a term used in other
> movies to describe people born different, and
> genetic mutation is a scientific term. If they
> dance around it because of legal issues, it'll be
> more than a little annoying and screw the X-Men
> movies... they all suck anyhow.
>
> I would also like to have seen Captain America do
> more than budge Mjolnir while they're fooling
> around with it. He's proven in the comics more
> than once to be worthy, but hopefully that scene
> is just leading up to a later scene where he
> actually does pick it up either to return it to
> Thor whose been separated from it or perhaps to
> use it in a moment of desperation.

The way I've dealt with the annoyance I sometimes feel when they change something about the characters in the movies, is to keep firmly in mind that these aren't Earth 616 characters, but alternate universe versions of the same characters. As such, some details may vary wildly, or even be completely absent. When I finally managed to strong-arm myself into this mindset, the differences and ambiguities with the cannon yarns hardly bothered me at all. In fact, I'm somewhat glad that I'm not seeing a simple rehash of stories that I've already read before. I can be treated to something familiar, but with a few pleasant surprises thrown in to maintain suspense.

On the other hand, I have to agree wholeheartedly with you on the Captain America issue. The cinematic universes Cap seems to be as brave, honorable, noble and just as the comic book version of Steve Rogers, who has been shown in the past to be worthy of lifting Thor's Hammer. But, on the other hand, as this is an alternate earth, perhaps the criteria by which the hammer judges you are more Norse/Asgardian in nature, and it values primarily strength and battle prowess (which Cap, as awesome as he may be, just doesn't have on the level of a super-powered god such as Thor) over nobility of spirit and, as you say, we haven't seen the entire movie, so there may be more going on there.

FASERIPPER Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the other hand, I have to agree wholeheartedly
> with you on the Captain America issue. The
> cinematic universes Cap seems to be as brave,
> honorable, noble and just as the comic book
> version of Steve Rogers, who has been shown in the
> past to be worthy of lifting Thor's Hammer. But,
> on the other hand, as this is an alternate earth,
> perhaps the criteria by which the hammer judges
> you are more Norse/Asgardian in nature, and it
> values primarily strength and battle prowess
> (which Cap, as awesome as he may be, just doesn't
> have on the level of a super-powered god such as
> Thor) over nobility of spirit and, as you say, we
> haven't seen the entire movie, so there may be
> more going on there.

While I agree that Cap is just as worthy in the movies as he is in the comics look at it from a storytelling viewpoint. Why waste Cap hefting the hammer on a throw away scene like this? In the comics he wasn't lifting the hammer to pound in a nail or crunch walnuts, he lifted it when shit was hitting the fan and it was now or never.

And as was said before (by Thrud Ibelieve) I think it could quite possibly be a set up for later in the movie or even a later movie where he does heft it and saves the day.

FASERIPPER Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the other hand, I have to agree wholeheartedly
> with you on the Captain America issue. The
> cinematic universes Cap seems to be as brave,
> honorable, noble and just as the comic book
> version of Steve Rogers, who has been shown in the
> past to be worthy of lifting Thor's Hammer. But,
> on the other hand, as this is an alternate earth,
> perhaps the criteria by which the hammer judges
> you are more Norse/Asgardian in nature, and it
> values primarily strength and battle prowess
> (which Cap, as awesome as he may be, just doesn't
> have on the level of a super-powered god such as
> Thor) over nobility of spirit and, as you say, we
> haven't seen the entire movie, so there may be
> more going on there.

Except that's not supported by the original Thor movie, since Thor was clearly reduced to being a normal human and who could have had his backside kicked in a one-on-one with Cap and only regained his hammer when he sacrificed himself to the Destroyer for the sake of the townspeople thus proving himself worthy in spirit. So the Thor movie pretty much establishes that worthiness is based on their spirit and not simply on who was a great fighter/warrior (if that were the case then Hulk would have proven worthy since he clearly ranked equal or greater than thor in strength and battle prowess as we see in the Avengers).

I do think though he should have done more than budge it, but hopefully it is indeed a set-up for Cap to lift it at some vital point and going godly on top of his already impressive abilities to save the day or at least turn the tide enough to rally everyone else an lead them to victory.

Nightmask Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FASERIPPER Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > On the other hand, I have to agree
> wholeheartedly
> > with you on the Captain America issue. The
> > cinematic universes Cap seems to be as brave,
> > honorable, noble and just as the comic book
> > version of Steve Rogers, who has been shown in
> the
> > past to be worthy of lifting Thor's Hammer.
> But,
> > on the other hand, as this is an alternate
> earth,
> > perhaps the criteria by which the hammer judges
> > you are more Norse/Asgardian in nature, and it
> > values primarily strength and battle prowess
> > (which Cap, as awesome as he may be, just
> doesn't
> > have on the level of a super-powered god such
> as
> > Thor) over nobility of spirit and, as you say,
> we
> > haven't seen the entire movie, so there may be
> > more going on there.
>
> Except that's not supported by the original Thor
> movie, since Thor was clearly reduced to being a
> normal human and who could have had his backside
> kicked in a one-on-one with Cap and only regained
> his hammer when he sacrificed himself to the
> Destroyer for the sake of the townspeople thus
> proving himself worthy in spirit. So the Thor
> movie pretty much establishes that worthiness is
> based on their spirit and not simply on who was a
> great fighter/warrior (if that were the case then
> Hulk would have proven worthy since he clearly
> ranked equal or greater than thor in strength and
> battle prowess as we see in the Avengers).
>
> I do think though he should have done more than
> budge it, but hopefully it is indeed a set-up for
> Cap to lift it at some vital point and going godly
> on top of his already impressive abilities to save
> the day or at least turn the tide enough to rally
> everyone else an lead them to victory.

Both excellent points. We'll have to see how it all shakes out after watching the full length feature. Certainly, there have been a few annoying continuity errors and internal inconsistencies in the other Marvel movies. I recall my girlfriend pointing out in the 2nd (was it the 2nd- I can't remember, precisely?) X-men flick, when Magneto is levitating the brotherhood on the chunk of bridge, and the scene is filmed in bright daylight then, suddenly, once the bridge has spanned the gap to the other side, the sun has suddenly gone down and they're battling in the dark. Either someone has the mutant power to blot out the sun, or it took Magneto a reaaallly long time to levitate that bridge- lol

Some differences in the comics are okay. Continuity errors and inconsistencies within their own mythology are extremely irritating, though. 8/

Wow, this was weird (to say the least). I dreamed I ended up at a comic book convention (never been to one) where I bumped into Robin Williams and ended up asking for an autograph, on the autograph he writes a note that there's a Les Miserables reference in Avengers 2 and how far in to watch to catch it (sadly can't remember that part of the note). Now given the movie isn't even out yet an I've never read the book I really wonder if there is one now.