*spoilers*

tesserect was explained more in "Captain America" and being as this is effectively a culmination of all the previous movies, it shouldn't be detrimental to expect people to have seen the previous movies.

2 Asian extras killed in a row? I guess that's there for comedies sake, but I hardly see how that's against the movie again.

The little girl can find banner because he's helping cure the native population of some plague, and it even says in the movie "You found me?" "We never lost you".

The "Second pissing contest" was the exact reason loki wanted to be captured in the first place. He wanted to turn the Avengers against each other so they'd never work together, crossing two points off right there.

The entire alien invasion is a threat because it's demolishing the city. Just because we never actively see anybodies head explode in a family movie, doesn't mean that people aren't getting killed. The city is in flames, and buildings are being destroyed. Kinda doubt everybody is totally okay in that.

I could go on, but I really feel that if I do my nerd muscle will explode. Seriously, I saw the movie twice, both times when it was in theatres months ago, and I still managed to explain 6 of his points away with ease.

I would love to see that. I think most writers/directors had no clue what the philosophical/ethical questions are that a character with the power of superman has to confront. It's basically not the bad guy/ Kryptonite / magic which could destroy superman, that makes superman interesting. What the hell, NO superhero movie should be interesting because of the part where the hero could get hurt. In the end there is one thing we all know when we go to a superhero movie, the hero survives in the end, maybe we're cheering for the bad guy or hope the world will get what it deserves but deep down we know that the hero will find a way to stop the crisis. It's just the way these movies work. On the other hand what I find interesting, is to see what the hero has to sacrifice in order to save the world. Sure Superman will still be super tomorrow, but what about the rest of the world?

Did you see Watchmen? Great movie (ok against what i said earlier, in the end one of the heroes dies) but besides that, it shows brilliantly how to work with a unstoppable superhuman being and how to create a crisis that doesn't need something like Kryptonite/Magic to work as a movie. You don't even know/see the bad guy until the last quarter of the movie. And one of the Heroes (Dr. Manhatten) is literally unstoppable, I mean he can change reality with his will as far as I know. But even he is of no help at all in the given circumstances. You can say the biggest enemy of Dr. Manhatten is himself, I would also say this applies to superman. And I think that is what makes it great.

On the other side you can make a movie like "The Avengers" which is great as a action movie but I don't think it's a good superhero movie. I mean when i watched this movie, all i did was waiting for the grand finale. The final super fight where the avengers fight together. And what was it? Just a group of super dudes/dudesses killing one exchangeable alien thingy after another... wow great tension you achieved there... I mean in the end what is the great crisis they fight? That their own Bosses try to nuke them, because everything else was under control at that moment.

It does make great action material, but what I want to see (and sadly that doesn't seem what "the people" want to see) is a superhero movie (especially speaking of superman) where the hero has to fight more than just interchangeable aliens in a big CGI fuckfest.

Ugh. Another "with great power, comes great responsibility", preachy, overly oppressive, dark but "cool" superhero movie trailer. If it's indicative of what the full movie will bring, I'll pass. When did comic book movies lose their sense of fun? Why SO serious? (pun intended)

Want to know why Iron Man (1) was such a hit? Because it was fun. Same with Superman (1978). Or The Avengers. Emulate those movies and not the heaviness of Batman all the time.

Oh, and don't swing the other way too far either. The world only needs one Superman III.

Boy this instantly made me think of The Avengers trailer.

And "For I have returned to have my vengeance". Really? That's a line someone wrote?

I'm really not sure what it is about this movie that inspires such pedantic nitpickery. Any big blockbuster can be nitpicked to death if you really want to. There are just as many plot holes in The Avengers, and everyone treated that like it was the second coming of Jesus.

>> ^chingalera:

uuuuggghh.......:((


Not funny?

I hope after the gigantic success of The Avengers, Whedon'd have more weight to his desires and maybe actually be able to bring it back

>> ^meggymoo:

Did everyone forget that Disney also did the avengers movie (which was awesome) and own pixar too. They cannot do a worse job than Lucas did on phantom menace and they might actually use fans of the franchise to direct and write for it. It MIGHT be good


I think the "it MIGHT be good" mentality is why we continued to watch the prequels in the first place.

Did everyone forget that Disney also did the avengers movie (which was awesome) and own pixar too. They cannot do a worse job than Lucas did on phantom menace and they might actually use fans of the franchise to direct and write for it. It MIGHT be good

>> ^sixshot:

Too many visuals! Should have been split into... I dunno... 5 parts?
And I spotted Miyazaki's Spirited Away at 2:16-2:17.
Agreed that Avengers shouldn't be in there. Too soon.
Has anyone spotted Rocky (Balboa)?


What's wrong with Spirited Away, or am I misinterpreting your statement?

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Too much time spent on Tarantino and The Big Lebowski considering we had less than a second for each film to make an appearance.
And, I'm sorry, The Avengers doesn't belong on the same list as 12 Angry Men and Star Wars.


Well considering this is largerly based on the IMDB's Top 250 I don't see the problem with the Avengers. One could argue 12 Angry Men is too old to belong on it

I agree on the Tarantino part. But I guess the focus was there because of all the "classical" themes he uses in his movies.

Too many visuals! Should have been split into... I dunno... 5 parts?

And I spotted Miyazaki's Spirited Away at 2:16-2:17.

Agreed that Avengers shouldn't be in there. Too soon.

Has anyone spotted Rocky (Balboa)?

Too much time spent on Tarantino and The Big Lebowski considering we had less than a second for each film to make an appearance.

And, I'm sorry, The Avengers doesn't belong on the same list as 12 Angry Men and Star Wars.

Seems pretty plain to me. Joss didn't say vote for Obama, he's just having some fun with Romney. Free country, he's allowed to have an opinion and if that turns off a few of his fans, then I don't think he's going to lose sleep over it. He wrote the fucking Avengers script! I think he'll survive somehow.

That said, the election system in this country sucks, and changing it is going to require a monumental effort on the part of a hell of a lot of people. Congress will fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo, because it serves them best. Until we get a system that isn't designed to result in a 2-party system, we will always have this situation of choosing between Asshole #1 and Asshole #2.

It's kind of sad that the one thing that Congress will show true bipartisan support on is saving their own asses.

For those complaining, did you dislike the recent Avengers movie? If not, give this a chance before claiming it all goes downhill from here