The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by DarthTheDominat
But that is the thing. People don't seem to be able to give subjective reasons for it. I acknowledge that it is opinion that the storytelling in the films is incredibly poor and almost nonexistant. But even the people who liked the film will agree. What they liked is the action, but people have not provided reasons for why they enjoyed watching objects crashing into other objects, some living, some inanimate, for over an hour. This isn't like a boxing scene where there is real artistry behind the choreography. The action in Avengers was purely loud noises and big visuals in the form of crashes and explosions and the like. When it gets down to it people are unable to provide reasons for liking such mindless action. And it's probably because of the use of hypnotism and subconscious seeds that trick you into thinking that you are enjoying it that many shady filmmakers employ in their productions.

Originally posted by Nephthys
The characters are fun and well developed. If there's something Whedon can do, it's write a group of fun characters and make them all interesting, relevent and enjoyable to watch. Furthermore, Avengers is just an extremely well executed film. It's well directed, well acted and theres a true energy on the screen. It just has that Awesome factor to it.

I already said in one of the threads that the dialogue was consistently funny and entertaining, but I definitely disagree with well developed. Most of the characters' development they had in the other films, the vast majority of this film didn't really add much to them at all. It added nothing to The Hulk, Iron Man, The Thor, Nick Fury or Captain America. A little bit to Black Widow and Hawkeye maybe, nothing crazy, and a bit to Loki, but in general I thought not only the development but the entire character of Loki in general was actually handled really poorly in the film. His motivations weren't really portrayed very realistically or given very good justification, and when he says "I am a God blah blah blah" to Hulk at the end and Hulk ragdolls him and Loki makes this sort of whimpeirng sound, that kind of sums up the film pretty well: it was quite funny, but any drama that the film had was both shallow, cheap and superficial and the main villain was relegated to almost a laughing stock/clown type, someone you would mock, almost pathetic in a theatrical kind of way.

And given that the humerous dialogue was far too periodic for me to really judge the film for its comedic elements, I can;t help but just see the film for what it is as a straight up action popcorn flick.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
That's because you're not asking them what they like the movie, you're asking them to justify it, which, again, is anathema to a subjective decision. Asking "why do people like action movies" isn't something you can answer in a paragraph. There's decades of research conducted by psychologists/sociologists on why exactly on-screen violence appeals to people. It's an innate feeling, not a conscious decision. People don't consciously decide to enjoy violent movies.

I liked the movie because I thought it was funny and I like how Whedon handled the main cast.

Summarisation of that research please. Fact of the matter is that mindless action is something you should realistically get over after having seen it enough. But regardless, you may claim to find action in movies appealing, but nobody has really explained what set Avengers apart in that catagory. What's so great about it that you don't get in other action films, about the action?

I thought the film was funny as well, periodically. Still I just can;t see how you can justify trying to claim that a "fun" film can ever truly be considered a great one.

Perhaps developed wasn't the right word. I meant more that they were well characterised. All of the characters were brought out on to the screen in entertaining ways. All of them were characters, and very fun ones.

This is what elevates it above something like the Expendables. Who the **** cares about the characters in the Expendables? Or the Transformers? For a Team movie you don't actually care about the team. In the Avengers, all the team have interesting and cool personalities, distinct looks and fighting styles etc and we end up caring about what happens in the movie because we care about the team.

Its also very well written and slick.

Tony Stark maybe thanks to RDJ's great charisma and energy and the way the character is written. I thought the rest were pretty dull. Chris Hemsworth was truly the perfect guy to play Thor, but the character in general just doesn't really have a lot of personality. Loki was like a pantomime villain. Captain America was boring, had a good origin story and tragic romance in his movie but in this he was plain dull. Banner was boring, Hulk was what you would expect. SLJ is always badass but if anything being surrounded by these superheroes nullified that in this film. Hawkeye had no personality, Blakc Widow was okay I guess, pretty badass as a chick.

But yeah, I'd say only Tony Stark really actually had an interesting personality/character.

Originally posted by DarthTheDominat
I thought the film was funny as well, periodically. Still I just can;t see how you can justify trying to claim that a "fun" film can ever truly be considered a great one.

Why not?

For a film or piece of fiction to be worth-while it needs to do one or more of 3 things: Entertain, Inform or Inspire. Now it is better for a film to do more of those things, but not all the time. If something can do just one of them exceedingly well, such as the Avengers, then it can be just if not more great than a film that even does all 3 like say, the Kings Speech.

Not every truly great film needs to be more than 'fun.' Star Wars itself is merely a series of 'fun' movies.

But it's moments of funny one-liners and scenarios forms about 1% of the entire film. I agree that say, something that is more of a comedy could be great, but I just don't see how it's 95% action makes it so great.

Edit - Not true Star wars also has a great story, and imaginative visuals and setting and a bunch of other stuff going for it. When I look at the OT what stands out is the story of redemption and the story of the lone soldier fighting an impossible battle and a story of heroes coming together and friendship etc than say, the lightsaber duels. Star Wars OT tells a very meaningful, heartfelt story full of drama and romance and unlike the Avengers its action was interestingly choreographed and the visuals were much more unique and out of this world.

Because it is very well done action that is supported by the great cast and clever writing.

What's so great about the action? It's not like a choreographed scene where thought is put into every motion and how they communicate visually to the audience. The action consists of big explosions or crashes, and superpowers colliding, nothing more. I agree that there were high production values, and there were moments or one liners that were funny and entertaining. And I maintain that Tony Stark was the only character who really stood out for his personality.

BTW I didn't even like TDKR that much, but I really don't why people are trying to suggest that Avengers is the better film.

It's a superhero movie. We want to see superpowers colliding. Not everything has to be a choreographed dance-fight. In fact, those kinds of fights can be just as shit as colorful explosions can be, look at the Prequels. A bunch of soulless fights with the characters performing choreographed fights that you know they've practiced hundreds of times. They're not 'real.'

And just as a choreographed fight can be visually exciting, so too can the bombastic superhero fights seen in Avengers. Neither is innately superior. The fights in Avengers were awesome.

And I maintain that you're wrong about the characters.

You honestly thought Banner, Captain America, Thor or Hawkeye had interesting personalities?

I will give you Ironman for sure, Nick Fury if only because he's basically SLJ, maybe Black Widow and that Shield Agent who dies lol. Loki had a character but it was that of a theatrical clownish villain who was plain idiotic.

Pretty much agree with Neph. Perhaps it's not a "great' movie and it certainly won't win any major awards other than for things like special effect, but the movie was pure fun. Probably, the best popcorn flick in a long while.

Originally posted by DarthTheDominat
You honestly thought Banner, Captain America, Thor or Hawkeye had interesting personalities?

Yes. At least likable ones.

Hawkeye sucked. And that's a fact. He had almost no personality in the film which is a shame.

You suck.

Originally posted by DarthTheDominat
Summarisation of that research please

As for the rest of your post, you're proving my point. You don't want to know why people liked the Avengers, you want to argue with them about why people liked the Avengers.

I already explained why you might have found it fun watching the movie. Should the movie and the people who made it be rewarded for filling the film with subconscious triggers and indicators that trick you into thinking the film is good? This has existed in movies, tv and videogames for years now. You can usually tell which by seeing which ones don't quite hold up upon closer examination and analysis.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Here

😂 😂

There's no such thing as "tricking someone into thinking something is good". If you think that something is good than it's good. Good is entirely subjective.