Did it age well?

Did it age well?

It didn't even age well from the theater to the tv screens.

'S alright, although after seeing TWS and CW, it's clear Wheadon doesn't know jack-shit to use Cap at his full potential, though

I still can't believe they went with the cloth / spandex Cap outfit. Shit sucked.

I think its good for what it is and honestly its impressive that they took all these characters that shouldn't interact with each other and made it work.

But as a movie on its own, it's alright. Loki's plan literally makes zero sense. As far as technical stuff goes, it has some of the worst cinematography I've ever seen in a major blockbuster.

I'd give it a 7/10, but it's honestly pretty forgettable minus the Invasion scenes.

>Loki's plan literally makes zero sense

I blame The Dark Knight for jumpstarting the trend of having a larger-than-life villain with ridiculously complex schemes relying entirely on coincidences and all of the planets alligning.

>blaming Nolan for shitty directors/writers for stealing things from a good movie without understanding why it worked in that movie
ok

I rewatched this recently with someone who didn't know MCU. It's pretty good and does what its set out to do really well... better than what AoU did, so contextually it did age well.

The movie did so many things so right at the right time, that most it's faults (cinematography and shitty costumes) kind of make it endearing.

Like it's own self-contained golden-age adventure in a way.

Sure, context-less it's not that great, but they moved past it and improved for the next instalments, and no movie exists without context.

You've just watched it so many times you wore it out, but you sure as fuck loved it the first 10 times you watched it, and you're being disingenuous to think it sucks because it doesn't hold on the 11th, even if you still can't help but smile at the circle shot and the 'Hulk Smash' line.

It wore out a lot of its charm for me by the third time I saw it.


Still got some good moments, there's just nothing new you get from re-watching it.

I think that's just you being cynical, honestly.

If you had enjoyed it even just once, it'd be a perfectly good movie. But you enjoyed it more than once, and it forged it's own legacy, so it became great.

It's not even my favourite movie of the series or anything, but it entertained me once, it did it's job. Same goes for stuff like Thor 2 or MoS. It's not great, but it entertained me for the first time I watched it, so it's not bad.

The fact that everything that came after it being slightly better (like TWS, GotG, CW, maybe even AoU in some aspects) just meants that they are trying to improve or at least change enough to keep it interesting. It doesn't make it retroactively bad if you came from the theatre with your friends/family with a smile on your face.

I like it way more than all the ones he's worn since, personally.

I recognize your right to an opinon user but geez

Man, what trick of fabric is it that causes Evans' neck to go full Pencil in the Avengers suit?

I wish I knew

It holds up for a variety of reasons. It's not perfect, but it never could be.

The literal worst part of the entire movie is Cap's uniform. It's like they pulled a Cap costume off a rack at Walmart and did it up.

Everything else is a nitpick at best.

Some production flaws make it to film, jarring some scenes.
The old Jew speech felt like a self congratulatory pat on the back.

Your points,
>muh cinematography
Examples? I can't think of a scene that was soo jarring as to take me out of the film.

>Loki's not as smart as I am!
I don't count poor character logic or motivations as negatives to any story unless they combine with some glaring plot hole.

Considering the feat they had to undertake in combining all the actors, sets, plot elements, background lore, pacing, stunts, effects... It's an absolute miracle it worked as well as it did.

It's a solid 8.5/10 in terms of Superhero films.

Ehh, it's okay.
This one was special because it was the first team up, but that's all.
Civil War is a better Avengers movie.

It feels like a TV movie, it's so cheap-looking and bland

best to worst
6357124

I'm so glad i'll never understand a thing about cinematography.

It didn't really work in that movie; people just overlooked it for some reason

>It wore out a lot of its charm for me by the third time I saw it.
Ah, but it got you to see it three times.

'Sup Wally.

AoU Cap costume is almost perfect, although I prefer the ears out option.

It gets worse every time you rewatch it. It's one of those movies that had nothing but hype going for it and you were so hyped that you choose to look past the flaws on the first time watching.

Just watched it again last week. I still think it is a strong movie, especially how many ways there were to turn into a disaster. The only disaster is poor Captain America's outfit.

Very.

It will remain the first movie to bridge a cinematic universe, thats not a Godzilla movie, and the best ensemble superhero movie since Xmen 2

>mfw Avengers is 4 years-old now
>mfw

>Age
What, are people in this thread 14 or something?

Is Begins some hoary old classic from the silent era?

Avengers was and is a solid action yarn. The fact that the drama queens around here built up a bunch of contrarian drama around it doesn't change a thing.

>and the best ensemble superhero movie since Xmen 2
>X-Men 2
>ensemble
It remains "Wolverine and his supporting cast of buddies who have strong feelings about Wolverine but really need him".

It does hold up. It's a good movie with solid structure. I don't see how you could execute it better. Everyone had something to do. There were many memorable scenes. Most of the Avengers had an arc.

>"it worked" in the movie because Joker

Nah. People just overlook that shit because "It's the Joker, everybody", Heath Ledger, and good acting.

Yes.

It's not the best marvel film, but does many things right and even now remains a good film, with an exellent pace and a good balance between the characters.
I find hard to watch again Age of Ultron, but the first Avengers always with pleasure even with all its flaws.
There are also a couple of good scenes. The first flight of Helicarrier. The arrival of Iron man in Germany with the music in background. The Hulk fist against the alien dragon.

And last, it's the first film that manages to do such a thing, so it's historically important. The haters can hate it , but Avengers has redefined a part of cinema. This is a fact.

What can I say? I'm a sucker for more traditional looking superhero costumes.

Don't worry, most people who post about it don't either, they just say "it looks like TV" without saying why they think that.

Ranks up with The Godfather, Ocean's 11, Ghostbusters and LoTR as one of the great Ensemble films.

To be fair some things age really fast, but it usually has to do with special effects.

This is the feeling I got during my second viewing. I can't really explain it, but the inside of the helicarrier was so flat and boring to me.

I don't think the aspect ratio was a good choice. It gave a feeling of things being tight like during the invasion or helicarrier fights. Ant-Man has the same aspect ratio, but you don't have so many things and key people fighting for space in the same shot. Nor was the setting on as big a scale as Avengers.

In general it felt more like TV scenes with how close things were shot. And it was just more obvious how things were on man-made sets.

I think it's good fun anytime, but the other movies since then look a lot better.

Only if you were merely enjoying the special effects to begin with.
Character-driven films never really age that way.

Aside from the CGI and the costume work, it actually holds up pretty well.

Frankly, they did a good job to make credible the Cap Costume. Yes, Avengers costume was horrible, but Coulson did it inspired by the theater spandex version, because he was a fan of comic Cap.

My favorites are the second and the last, but even the stealth version is an excellent alternative. Cap , Iron Man, Black Panther and Ant man are really the best MCU heroes for design, at last for now. IMHO

>Only if you were merely enjoying the special effects to begin with.
Not really, something looking jarring can take you out of the movie, making a scene that's supposed to be dramatic look ridiculous.
>Character-driven films never really age that way.
Because they usually don't have tons of special effects. Duh.

Avengers Hulk was brilliant, they abandoned the forlorn child Hulk from the Lee film and the frightening "Fist of the North Star" Hulk from Norton's film and just made him a loveably dim, easily triggered man-beast, like a gigantic toddler with a temper.

I never watched the Hulk movies, is any of them good?

Yeah, you right. i'm hyped for Ragnarok, but not for Thor... for Ruffalo Hulk.

The 2008 one is watchable. The 2004 one is weird. I have not seen it in years.

>Because they usually don't have tons of special effects. Duh.
Not to harp on Spieldberg, but Close Encounters and Poltergeist disagree with you.
Both are effects-heavy films with incredible characterization. Fuck, the SFX and Jaws is literally as old as the Summer movie, and scarcely holds up at all. But the characters make it a timeless classic.

Hemsworth is a good Thor, but he's had shit material besides a couple of one liners.
Trust the Taika.

Ruffalo/Hulk is seriously gonna steal that movie.

Good thing I said "usually" and not "never. not even from one of the best filmmakers ever".

If you see it the Ang movie for the first time, you can appreciate it. See it a second time, make you want shoot yourself in the head.

I could cite examples all night. Good directors realize that even with a ton of fantastical nonsense going on, the audience needs to connect with the characters.
Even cheapie stuff like Pitch Black really gets this.

Whereas this is crippled by being laden with characters no one could be expected to give a single fuck about, the SFX have little to do with it's shitty reception.

>like a gigantic toddler with a temper.
This is why I fill almost the opposite about Avengers Hulk. The more "loveable" the Hulk is the more absurd it is that Bruce has such a hard time with the fact that he has to turn into him. I think the Hulk should always be serious threat on some level. This possibility of total loss of control and the damage that comes with that. You either go with that or the smarter version of Hulk that can maintain its form through will or some kind of inner fight with Banner. But that middle ground of "aww, Hulk just misunderstood" makes the struggle between the two pointless.

>I could cite examples all night
Good for you, that wouldn't prove shit besides "good movies are good".

Also the Hellboy practical effects were neat.

correct, however it is still cinema. The best films are the ones that manage to combine great characters with iconic moments. The Raiders of the Lost Ark has not aged very well, but has some epic moments and Indana Jones is an immense character.

Proof?

Other people's toddlers are hard enough to like, when they can throw your car through the roof of your house they become incredibly terrifying. Banner is frightened of him because it's his primal self unleashed with no restraint and unlimited power, the most terrifying aspect of himself.

I find it to be an effective Hulk.

Yeah, I've seen people putting on a similar pedestal than the first Rami's Spiderman.
Coulson's a fanboy.

>Also the Hellboy practical effects were neat.

Fine, here's an example of a classic that's well-loved, it was SFX heavy, and the effects were dated before the thing even hit theaters.

It's fun, it has fun characters without any huge stars, it's a very character-performance driven adventure film.

>you sure as fuck loved it the first 10 times you watched it
Get the fuck out of here, user.

That poster sure didnt

It became outdated once you walked out of theater.

People will love this film for a long time, and not for the mediocre and heavily used SFX.

>I'm a sucker
You sure are.

If the rumors are real, the Ragnarok Hulk will be smarter. Even in Thanos original gems quest, Hulk was in his smart phase.

The first time I saw it in theaters I got a really weird feeling from the opening scene in the SHIELD headquarters. I felt like a I was watching a TV movie and I didn't shake that feeling til that whole scene was over. But watching it now I get that feeling from the whole movie. Whedon really isn't suited to direct for anything other than TV and it comes across hard in his movies, with dull shots and boring framing.

The whole scale of the big final battle is kind of underwhelming too. The Chitauri aren't a particularly threatening invasion force, and despite how Civil War wants you to remember it, they didn't get much done. A couple neighborhoods were roughed up and a few people died, but the whole thing feels weak. You could argue that's how it should be that they don't get anything done because the Avengers are doing their job. But it doesn't make the Avengers look competent, it just makes the villains look like pushovers who are bad at what they do.

And now we've heard from the Anti-Whedonites.
Again.
for the umpteen zillionth time.

>without any huge stars,

But user, BRIAN BLESSED makes up for any level of mid-tier celebrity with SHEER SPEAKING VOLUME.

It's almost like this is a thread about opinions.

>Loki's plan literally makes zero sense.
You mean the part where he lets himself get captured and fuck up the Avengers from the inside? That was to get them to face him in the middle of downtown Manhattan. Everything else he does makes obvious sense.

"I didn't understand it" is not an argument that something doesn't actually make sense.

>A couple neighborhoods were roughed up and a few people died, but the whole thing feels weak

Yes, it certainly wasn't a black whirlwind of CGI debris with a pounding Zimmer soundtrack, that's for sure. Not every battle has to be a biblically cataclysmic set-piece where the continental plates are threatening to rip asunder Zack.

I think the moments when he's in full rage. The Wakanda/vs hulkbuster scene and parts in the first avengers on the Hellicarrier when he's a rampaging monster threat. Are his best the rest, to me is ranging from comic relief to wtf is this, I guess it's OK. Unlike Incredible Hulk where even when he wasn't raging there was still this crazy tension with his anger. Like even when he was with Betty if she fucked up he might hurt her on accident as opposed to Widow who had this weird key phrase hypnotizing thing going on.

Avengers is a truly awful movie and its terribly overrated.

1. It's filled with quips. It's one thing if Ironman is quipping, because its pretty much what he does. BUT EVERY CHARACTEr QUIPS. There isn't one scene of characters talking where someone doesn't resort to a quip or say something cringy that no one would say in real life.

2. There are no stakes. From the beginning the Avengers are kicking Loki's ass. There is always suppose to be a point where the hero/heroes seem like they are going to lose to add tension. This doesn't happen in the Avengers. You are essentially watching them blow shit up for 2 hours with no resistance.

3. Loki's characterization is dumb. He's suppose to be clever and conniving. Instead he's dumb and just wants to destroy shit for no reason.

4. The action is Transformers tier. I never understood why people shit on michael bay transformers movies yet love this when its essentially the same garbage. EXPLOSIONS. LETS GET A SHOT OF OUR HEROES ROTATING. Boring cinematography.

>Like even when he was with Betty if she fucked up he might hurt her
Too Zack Snyder for me, honestly. The Hulk shouldn't terrify the shit out of his close friends and allies.

You don't have to leave a city looking like a smoking crater to feel like a threat, but a super destructive invasion force that just leaves New York looking like Detroit for a while doesn't really justify bringing out the nukes.

>In general it felt more like TV scenes with how close things were shot.
>I felt like a I was watching a TV movie and I didn't shake that feeling til that whole scene was over. But watching it now I get that feeling from the whole movie. Whedon really isn't suited to direct for anything other than TV and it comes across hard in his movies
Yeah, but you don't actually MEAN anything by that. That's just a thing that people say on Sup Forums. A meme that is passed around with no explanation as to what "looks like a TV show" means in practice.

Technically, there are plenty of cut scenes where the invasion is shown much more brutal and efficiently with victims killed and stores that burn with civilians inside. Cap has also a time of depression and despair.

all these scenes were cut because make the audience uncomfortable. It's the fault of the Mouse, yes, you're right to say that Whedon knows filmmaking like tv. You can have a stellar budget, but if the director thinks only like a TV show, can't help.

Joss Whedon makes good TV shows but all of his movies are complete shit.

>not getting that Avengers is a celebration of its own existence
>not getting that the whole movie has people delaying the inevitable and stating "THIS WONT WORK", despite you already knowing it will fucking work, and then it does, and keeps going

It's the whole fucking point that it was easy/shlocky. It's marvel's ultimate victory lap.

Now, you can argue that Whedon was the wrong call for the second one, and I'll honestly agree, but not seeing the meta-narrative of the first one says more about you than the movie.

Almost got all the buzzwords in on that one, 6/10.

Would have been an 8 if you used Pleb and normies.

No. Any scene with Loki and Thanos goon look like they would be more comfortable on a Masters of the Universe set

I don't think it's really a rewatchable film, due to its nature of just being quippy and trying to establish the team's chemistry. some cool things, great the first time around, not a rewatchable film to me. I like em complex I guess, just a matter of taste.

That can mean
Cramped sets that look artificial and fake
Bad lighting
Awkward angles and positioning of props and characters

They make a big deal out of the fact that the God of Thunder is holding them back at the gates, and that the rest of the team is just dealing with the ones that slip through.

>It's dumb on purpose!

wtf are you even talking about. Celebration of its own existence? what does that mean? what does that have to do with the movie being good or bad? At what point of the movie is that made clear?

Can;t you say the same thing about transformers? why do people hate those movies but love this garbage?

nice meme dude

>I like em complex

>The Hulk shouldn't terrify the shit out of his close friends and allies.

That was the entire reason for Planet Hulk. He can do good at times but ultimately he's a huge risk. Should we tolerate that risk knowing that if it gets bad none of us could stop it.

But now we're just talking preferences and that's yours. It's WRONG but that's OK.

It's not dumb on purpose, it's smart by being simple and having the characters do exactly what you expected them to do. It doesn't work twice, which is why AoU is kind of weak, but that time it did because it was self-aware.

Are you being dumb on purpose?

TDKR was narratively complex, I'll give it that. It was basically 2-3 different plots mashed into one.

Planet Hulk is mainly the Hulk helping out people who barely know him, or anything about him.
He's literally this green alien who drops out of the sky and starts fucking things up.

The idea that Betty and Rick Jones and the Avengers should be in fear of him is silly and nothing to do with the Hulk mythos, edgemeister.

He forgot "pandering," too.

>Planet Hulk is mainly the Hulk helping out people who barely know him, or anything about him.

It was John Carter with Hulk.

It was a rehash of the first movie with extra-dumb cops and an underwhelming "No I was the real mastermind the whole time!" reveal.

Which is why Disney is going to stay well away from it.

Just like the audiences.

>The movie knows its bad so it's good!

The term "self-aware" is the most autistic way of justifying why you like bad films. The movie is dumb with cringy lines. A retarded plot. And bad characterization. The characters don't do what I expect them to do because I don't give a shit about any of them.

How the fuck am i suppose to know what black Widow is suppose to do, if they don't develop her character whatsoever?

How is this movie better than Transformers 2? This is a serious question. Stop ignoring it.

Yes.
John Carter could have been a solid movie, had the leading character not been balls.

Why does Cap change his outfit so much? And story-wise Cap really should have kept the Avengers one to honor Coulson but I'm glad he didn't because it was one poorly made suit.

And hey for that matter why did Hawkeye have a brand new costume ready in Civil War when he was supposed to be retired?

TDK is what it is because Ledger died.

Now don't get me wrong it's great film, but the hype surrounding it was all Ledger.

Kind of like how Civil War was boosted because BVS was such a disappointment. To the point where it not being BVS was a positive point in reviews.