The Avengers (2 Viewers)

[Premier]

I really don't get why cgi is expensive. Isn't all done on a computer?

 

[NCCommish]

Ruffalo is signed to something like an 8 or 9 film deal, and Marvel is said to be looking hard at a new Hulk solo film given the great response to the character in The Avengers.

Didn't know he was signed up long term. Good I think he makes a very good Banner and given that the Hulk was him he did a good job with that as well. Looking forward to it.

Me too, but I'm concerned some of the same problems will plague a solo Hulk film regardless of the quality of the lead. Bana and Norton are both good actors, I think the quality of the writing and the nature of a supporting role really helped. A big issue is the amount of actual screen time you can give Hulk, given the cost involved in doing the CGI. If you have a 2 hour movie, and can only use Hulk in 20-30 minutes it's a lot of filler time.

Yeah Hulk can be tough to do solo. It's too bad Marvel doesn't own Wolverine. They could make a heck of movie out of that match up.

 

[NCCommish]

I really don't get why cgi is expensive. Isn't all done on a computer?

Man hours and computing costs mainly. I have read it can take over 200 people to do the CGI on a film. And you have to have a farm of computers to do the rendering. That isn't cheap no matter how you do it.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I really don't get why cgi is expensive. Isn't all done on a computer?

Yes, but there are a lot of animators involved in the finishing process to make it look realistic. If you ever sit through the credits of a CGI-heavy film you'll see roughly 50,000 Korean names of people who worked on the animation.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I really don't get why cgi is expensive. Isn't all done on a computer?

James Cameron didnt even think Avatar was possible until watching Fellowship of the Ring.Peter Jackson, meanwhile, had to create multiple business companies... in which one or two eventually created the CGI/software to make LOTR.As its propitiatory, its not something that is readily available for each movie company. Ever wonder why dreamworks stuff usually looks similar to other dreamworks offerings? Because they go off of their programs.It does get cheaper/easier if you own your own stuff from previous offerings, however.

 

[iamsmilin]

Saw it yesterday with my wife and three kids (step daughter-14, boys 10 and 8). We all enjoyed it. There's not many movies around we call all genuinely enjoy these days.

What was the cost for a family of 5?I took my daughter to the hunger games2 tickets- $102 drinks , 2 popcorns , 1 candy- $25 they get you in there and #### you

A good buddy of mine own's a theatre with great prices, and it helped we saw a matinee.Tickets - $4 each, $20.Large popcorn and 2 large drink combo (free refils on larges, so the kids share a pop, we all share the popcorn)-$10Twizzlers-$2.25Grand total-$32.25

I bought a snack pack for my 7 year old, very small soda, some popcorn and a cinnamon snack pack for $5.

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

I guess my kids are extremely sheltered.. Maybe its different for boys, but several of you have also mentioned taking your young girls to see this.

I cant fathom taking my 8 and 5 yr old daughters to see this. More a statement on me than on you guys.. I guess we are just behind the curve.

Any suggestions on a superhero movie to start with for my 8 yr old? I havent seen many of these films, but enjoyed Avengers.

Thanks.

 

[Disco Stu]

I guess my kids are extremely sheltered.. Maybe its different for boys, but several of you have also mentioned taking your young girls to see this.I cant fathom taking my 8 and 5 yr old daughters to see this. More a statement on me than on you guys.. I guess we are just behind the curve.Any suggestions on a superhero movie to start with for my 8 yr old? I havent seen many of these films, but enjoyed Avengers.Thanks.

I took my son to Revenge of the Sith in 2005. He was three. So I'm probably not the best person to ask, but I'd definitely start them at home. Much less intense than the big screen. Have they seen The Incredibles? Good way to get them initiated on the concept of superheroes. The original Superman is pretty tame. Captain America isn't very dark either. Well, other than the whole Nazi thing...

 

[Bull Dozier]

I guess my kids are extremely sheltered.. Maybe its different for boys, but several of you have also mentioned taking your young girls to see this.I cant fathom taking my 8 and 5 yr old daughters to see this. More a statement on me than on you guys.. I guess we are just behind the curve.Any suggestions on a superhero movie to start with for my 8 yr old? I havent seen many of these films, but enjoyed Avengers.Thanks.

I wouldn't say you're behind the curve. This was the first movie of this genre I brought either of my boys to (10 and 8). I was a little hesitant with my 8 year old, but we've seen a few of the Iron Man, and other action movies at home first, and we didn't see it affect them negatively. They both loved it though.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Ruffalo is signed to something like an 8 or 9 film deal, and Marvel is said to be looking hard at a new Hulk solo film given the great response to the character in The Avengers.

Didn't know he was signed up long term. Good I think he makes a very good Banner and given that the Hulk was him he did a good job with that as well. Looking forward to it.

Me too, but I'm concerned some of the same problems will plague a solo Hulk film regardless of the quality of the lead. Bana and Norton are both good actors, I think the quality of the writing and the nature of a supporting role really helped. A big issue is the amount of actual screen time you can give Hulk, given the cost involved in doing the CGI. If you have a 2 hour movie, and can only use Hulk in 20-30 minutes it's a lot of filler time.

Yeah Hulk can be tough to do solo. It's too bad Marvel doesn't own Wolverine. They could make a heck of movie out of that match up.

wait, what? marvel doesnt own wolverine?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Ruffalo is signed to something like an 8 or 9 film deal, and Marvel is said to be looking hard at a new Hulk solo film given the great response to the character in The Avengers.

Didn't know he was signed up long term. Good I think he makes a very good Banner and given that the Hulk was him he did a good job with that as well. Looking forward to it.

Me too, but I'm concerned some of the same problems will plague a solo Hulk film regardless of the quality of the lead. Bana and Norton are both good actors, I think the quality of the writing and the nature of a supporting role really helped. A big issue is the amount of actual screen time you can give Hulk, given the cost involved in doing the CGI. If you have a 2 hour movie, and can only use Hulk in 20-30 minutes it's a lot of filler time.

Yeah Hulk can be tough to do solo. It's too bad Marvel doesn't own Wolverine. They could make a heck of movie out of that match up.

wait, what? marvel doesnt own wolverine?

Fox has the X-Men feature movie rights, which includes Wolverine.

 

[NCCommish]

Ruffalo is signed to something like an 8 or 9 film deal, and Marvel is said to be looking hard at a new Hulk solo film given the great response to the character in The Avengers.

Didn't know he was signed up long term. Good I think he makes a very good Banner and given that the Hulk was him he did a good job with that as well. Looking forward to it.

Me too, but I'm concerned some of the same problems will plague a solo Hulk film regardless of the quality of the lead. Bana and Norton are both good actors, I think the quality of the writing and the nature of a supporting role really helped. A big issue is the amount of actual screen time you can give Hulk, given the cost involved in doing the CGI. If you have a 2 hour movie, and can only use Hulk in 20-30 minutes it's a lot of filler time.

Yeah Hulk can be tough to do solo. It's too bad Marvel doesn't own Wolverine. They could make a heck of movie out of that match up.

wait, what? marvel doesnt own wolverine?

Fox has the X-Men feature movie rights, which includes Wolverine.

Unfortunately true

 

[Premier]

How does that happen? Marvel sold them off?

 

[shadyridr]

I guess my kids are extremely sheltered.. Maybe its different for boys, but several of you have also mentioned taking your young girls to see this.I cant fathom taking my 8 and 5 yr old daughters to see this. More a statement on me than on you guys.. I guess we are just behind the curve.Any suggestions on a superhero movie to start with for my 8 yr old? I havent seen many of these films, but enjoyed Avengers.Thanks.

My Dad took me to see Aliens when I was 9 lol. I saw Avengers and I wouldnt dare bring my 3 yr old to see it in the movies cuz he wouldnt be able to sit still but I dont see any issues with him watching it when it comes out on Blu Ray. No curse words as far as I can remember and comic book violence shouldnt bother him. Hes seen Spiderman at home.

 

[NCCommish]

How does that happen? Marvel sold them off?

They did a deal on the rights with Fox and as long as Fox keeps making X-Men movies they keep the rights. Same thing with Spidey which is why we are getting this ridiculous reboot of that series.

 

[gmbacm]

So watched The Hulk this weekend trying to catch up on the back stories I hadn't seen yet and is it just me or was the heart rate concept they showed in The Hulk kind of like the midichlorians things from Star Wars Episode I in the way that they really felt that was a stupid concept and they wanted no part of it after seeing it in action. The only instance where they could have implied it was a factor was him on the ship but certainly don't remember any watch check scenes like in the Hulk where it seemed like he checked it every 2 minutes. Was that like, oops, hopefully people forget that was such a big deal in his stand alone?

Consider this Hulk to be a reboot. The previous Hulk movies aren't considered part of the back story for The Avengers.

No, the Edward Norton film absolutely is. They actually have footage from that movie in Avengers.

what footage was in avengers? Must have missed that...

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

So watched The Hulk this weekend trying to catch up on the back stories I hadn't seen yet and is it just me or was the heart rate concept they showed in The Hulk kind of like the midichlorians things from Star Wars Episode I in the way that they really felt that was a stupid concept and they wanted no part of it after seeing it in action. The only instance where they could have implied it was a factor was him on the ship but certainly don't remember any watch check scenes like in the Hulk where it seemed like he checked it every 2 minutes. Was that like, oops, hopefully people forget that was such a big deal in his stand alone?

Consider this Hulk to be a reboot. The previous Hulk movies aren't considered part of the back story for The Avengers.

No, the Edward Norton film absolutely is. They actually have footage from that movie in Avengers.

what footage was in avengers? Must have missed that...

It's in the scene at Stark tower when Coulson gives him the laptop, one of the video clips he throws up into holo-space is from the Norton movie showing Hulk. I think they also show it on the Quinjet with Coulson and Capt. America.

 

[packersfan]

There's also footage from Norton's "Hulk" film at the end of "Iron Man 2" when Fury tells Stark he isn't part of the Avengers Initiative.

 

[SkyRattlers]

This may have already been answered here but I'll ask again. Question about The Hulk

Spoiler

why did the Hulk all of the sudden become part of the team after wanting to smash everyone on the ship

Spoiler

Saw the movie today and this is my take:He finally learned how to control the change from Banner to the Hulk. They didn't really explain it outright or in detail, but I think we were told he could control it in the scene when Banner said "the secret is I always stay angry" and then started attacking.Maybe that's BS, but going into the movie I was looking for/ wondering how they would make the transition from uncontrollable monster to Avengers team member... and that's all we got.

Spoiler

My take is that he always had control. He only lost control on the ship because of the energy from the staff (which was making them all fight) and the bomb just tipped him over the edge. For me, the main thing that made him want to be an Avenger was the conversations with Stark. Before them, it seems like Banner only thought that Hulk was a curse and could never be useful or good. The conversations with Stark gave Banner a new way of looking at "the other" guy and realizing he could do some good.

Spoiler

While I can certainly buy that Loki may have been affecting everyone using the staff, I would say that there is no reason to think Hulk wasn't simply choosing to attack Black Widow, etc. because he actually wanted to. He had spent two years trying to stay off SHIELD's radar because he had no interest in being part of their "freak show". But the good in him accepts that the Earth might actually be in danger and so he trusts them enough to get on the ship. But as SHIELD's secret Phase 2 weapon plans come to light he feels he has been tricked and he wants no part of it. That's when the ship gets attacked which is the final trigger to putting his rage over the edge. When he becomes the Hulk the first thing he sees is the woman who tricked him into being here in the first place and setting in motion the events that have cause this first "relapse" in a couple years. Why not take his anger out on her? She's not his friend yet. After that though it's simply a matter of fighting back when he's attacked. ie. Thor and the jet fighter.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

How does that happen? Marvel sold them off?

They did a deal on the rights with Fox and as long as Fox keeps making X-Men movies they keep the rights. Same thing with Spidey which is why we are getting this ridiculous reboot of that series.

Spiderman was probably my favorite super hero growing up. I was very excited when it hit the big screen and I to this day love the first spiderman film. I liked the second. I loathed the third. I refuse to see this new reboot. Why do we need the origin story again? The only possible good thing is that Peter Parker invents the webthrower, but still, this reboot is ridiculous.

 

[NCCommish]

How does that happen? Marvel sold them off?

They did a deal on the rights with Fox and as long as Fox keeps making X-Men movies they keep the rights. Same thing with Spidey which is why we are getting this ridiculous reboot of that series.

Spiderman was probably my favorite super hero growing up. I was very excited when it hit the big screen and I to this day love the first spiderman film. I liked the second. I loathed the third. I refuse to see this new reboot. Why do we need the origin story again? The only possible good thing is that Peter Parker invents the webthrower, but still, this reboot is ridiculous.

The whole he was genetically engineered to become Spider-Man ruins it IMO.

 

[Copeman]

How does that happen? Marvel sold them off?

They did a deal on the rights with Fox and as long as Fox keeps making X-Men movies they keep the rights. Same thing with Spidey which is why we are getting this ridiculous reboot of that series.

Spiderman was probably my favorite super hero growing up. I was very excited when it hit the big screen and I to this day love the first spiderman film. I liked the second. I loathed the third. I refuse to see this new reboot. Why do we need the origin story again? The only possible good thing is that Peter Parker invents the webthrower, but still, this reboot is ridiculous.

No offense intended but this post sounds a little selfish. You mention growing up, and how he was your favorite superhero. Thats cool and all, but what about kids growing up right now? Sure they could see the ones you saw, but technology in movie making is advancing so fast that the effects in movies are better each and every year. Kids just coming into their own regarding comics will like it. And you might too if you would have an open mind about it.

 

[NCCommish]

How does that happen? Marvel sold them off?

They did a deal on the rights with Fox and as long as Fox keeps making X-Men movies they keep the rights. Same thing with Spidey which is why we are getting this ridiculous reboot of that series.

Spiderman was probably my favorite super hero growing up. I was very excited when it hit the big screen and I to this day love the first spiderman film. I liked the second. I loathed the third. I refuse to see this new reboot. Why do we need the origin story again? The only possible good thing is that Peter Parker invents the webthrower, but still, this reboot is ridiculous.

No offense intended but this post sounds a little selfish. You mention growing up, and how he was your favorite superhero. Thats cool and all, but what about kids growing up right now? Sure they could see the ones you saw, but technology in movie making is advancing so fast that the effects in movies are better each and every year. Kids just coming into their own regarding comics will like it. And you might too if you would have an open mind about it.

They are dramatically changing canon. If they want a new hero they should go for it. Plenty around. You can update the retelling of the Spider-Man story without changing canon.

 

[Dr. No]

How does that happen? Marvel sold them off?

They did a deal on the rights with Fox and as long as Fox keeps making X-Men movies they keep the rights. Same thing with Spidey which is why we are getting this ridiculous reboot of that series.

Spiderman was probably my favorite super hero growing up. I was very excited when it hit the big screen and I to this day love the first spiderman film. I liked the second. I loathed the third. I refuse to see this new reboot. Why do we need the origin story again? The only possible good thing is that Peter Parker invents the webthrower, but still, this reboot is ridiculous.

I don't think it's a reboot as much as telling a different side of the story.you're going to get some origin stuff, but you're getting stuff about spiderman's parents.and i have no clue if they are going to go with the current canon of them being SHIELD Agents from the past.A spiderman movie with no j jonah jameson, no mary jane, no betty brandt, and no harry osborn seems strange though.there are very few comics without one of those peeps in it. Instead of using Gwen Stacy I wish they had gone with Liz allen or black cat or something

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

How does that happen? Marvel sold them off?

They did a deal on the rights with Fox and as long as Fox keeps making X-Men movies they keep the rights. Same thing with Spidey which is why we are getting this ridiculous reboot of that series.

Spiderman was probably my favorite super hero growing up. I was very excited when it hit the big screen and I to this day love the first spiderman film. I liked the second. I loathed the third. I refuse to see this new reboot. Why do we need the origin story again? The only possible good thing is that Peter Parker invents the webthrower, but still, this reboot is ridiculous.

No offense intended but this post sounds a little selfish. You mention growing up, and how he was your favorite superhero. Thats cool and all, but what about kids growing up right now? Sure they could see the ones you saw, but technology in movie making is advancing so fast that the effects in movies are better each and every year. Kids just coming into their own regarding comics will like it. And you might too if you would have an open mind about it.

I did just fine loving Star Wars which was made in 1977 even though I was born in 1978.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

How does that happen? Marvel sold them off?

They did a deal on the rights with Fox and as long as Fox keeps making X-Men movies they keep the rights. Same thing with Spidey which is why we are getting this ridiculous reboot of that series.

Spiderman was probably my favorite super hero growing up. I was very excited when it hit the big screen and I to this day love the first spiderman film. I liked the second. I loathed the third. I refuse to see this new reboot. Why do we need the origin story again? The only possible good thing is that Peter Parker invents the webthrower, but still, this reboot is ridiculous.

I don't think it's a reboot as much as telling a different side of the story.you're going to get some origin stuff, but you're getting stuff about spiderman's parents.and i have no clue if they are going to go with the current canon of them being SHIELD Agents from the past.A spiderman movie with no j jonah jameson, no mary jane, no betty brandt, and no harry osborn seems strange though.there are very few comics without one of those peeps in it. Instead of using Gwen Stacy I wish they had gone with Liz allen or black cat or something

It's also just the fact that Hollywood is forcing a remake of a movie that is barely 10 years old.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

How does that happen? Marvel sold them off?

They did a deal on the rights with Fox and as long as Fox keeps making X-Men movies they keep the rights. Same thing with Spidey which is why we are getting this ridiculous reboot of that series.

Spiderman was probably my favorite super hero growing up. I was very excited when it hit the big screen and I to this day love the first spiderman film. I liked the second. I loathed the third. I refuse to see this new reboot. Why do we need the origin story again? The only possible good thing is that Peter Parker invents the webthrower, but still, this reboot is ridiculous.

No offense intended but this post sounds a little selfish. You mention growing up, and how he was your favorite superhero. Thats cool and all, but what about kids growing up right now? Sure they could see the ones you saw, but technology in movie making is advancing so fast that the effects in movies are better each and every year. Kids just coming into their own regarding comics will like it. And you might too if you would have an open mind about it.

Why do they need an origin story? If they wanted spider-man with new effects (not that the effects in the spider-man movies we have are in any way poor or out of date yet) what's the problem with just having spider-man 4? If every generation has to grow up with a modern origin of all their favorite franchises then we'd have to reboot every franchise every 5 years.

 

[The Football Freak]

How does that happen? Marvel sold them off?

They did a deal on the rights with Fox and as long as Fox keeps making X-Men movies they keep the rights. Same thing with Spidey which is why we are getting this ridiculous reboot of that series.

Spiderman was probably my favorite super hero growing up. I was very excited when it hit the big screen and I to this day love the first spiderman film. I liked the second. I loathed the third. I refuse to see this new reboot. Why do we need the origin story again? The only possible good thing is that Peter Parker invents the webthrower, but still, this reboot is ridiculous.

No offense intended but this post sounds a little selfish. You mention growing up, and how he was your favorite superhero. Thats cool and all, but what about kids growing up right now? Sure they could see the ones you saw, but technology in movie making is advancing so fast that the effects in movies are better each and every year. Kids just coming into their own regarding comics will like it. And you might too if you would have an open mind about it.

They are dramatically changing canon. If they want a new hero they should go for it. Plenty around. You can update the retelling of the Spider-Man story without changing canon.

I don't know much about this new Spidey movie, so what part of his story are they changing?

 

[NCCommish]

How does that happen? Marvel sold them off?

They did a deal on the rights with Fox and as long as Fox keeps making X-Men movies they keep the rights. Same thing with Spidey which is why we are getting this ridiculous reboot of that series.

Spiderman was probably my favorite super hero growing up. I was very excited when it hit the big screen and I to this day love the first spiderman film. I liked the second. I loathed the third. I refuse to see this new reboot. Why do we need the origin story again? The only possible good thing is that Peter Parker invents the webthrower, but still, this reboot is ridiculous.

No offense intended but this post sounds a little selfish. You mention growing up, and how he was your favorite superhero. Thats cool and all, but what about kids growing up right now? Sure they could see the ones you saw, but technology in movie making is advancing so fast that the effects in movies are better each and every year. Kids just coming into their own regarding comics will like it. And you might too if you would have an open mind about it.

They are dramatically changing canon. If they want a new hero they should go for it. Plenty around. You can update the retelling of the Spider-Man story without changing canon.

I don't know much about this new Spidey movie, so what part of his story are they changing?

Allegedly the main plot point is that he was genetically engineered by his parents to become Spider-Man. And his parents are of course not dead they are in hiding or some such. It's way out in left field. Supposedly even Sony hates it but they have to make a movie or lose the rights.

 

[jdoggydogg]

What did Norton pull?

From everything I read he was a real PITA diva type the whole time they filmed. He fought with everyone and made ridiculous demands. Not a team player:

"We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in the Avengers. Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert, Chris H, Chris E, Sam, Scarlett, and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks."

Marvel Studios President of Production Kevin Feige

I've heard specifically that Norton demands script rewrites.

 

[netnalp]

Best action movie I've ever seen, hands down. I'm not a comic guy or superhero guy either. That was a freaking awesome movie and funny as hell, too. The Hulk smashing Loke on the ground while he was still talking was awesome. Joss Whedon is brilliant. Robert Downey is freaking hilarios. I wish my son was old enough to enjoy it.

how olds your son? my son will be 3 in june and loves spiderman, hulk, and captain america. im gonna let him watch it when it comes out on blu ray. i think hell love it

Will be 2 in July.

My son is 5 and for the most part he's not allowed to watch any action movies that are PG-13. As far as we've gone is the Star Wars movies and Tron. Tron is really good because there's a lot of action but not much violence. I don't think a gun is fired in the entire movie.From what I know about Avengers, he won't be allowed to watch it for a while. Part of the issue is that he spends almost every waking hour acting out movies he's seen by running around the house, throwing stuff, and beating the crap out of his 3yo sister. So we try to keep the influence of that down until he matures a bit more.

Star Wars movies are more violent than The Avengers IMHO. Star Wars has his aunt and uncle crispy, hand chopped off in Empire, Vader force choking a guy, Jabba being strangled, people chopped in half, Vader set on fire and Nick Fury Jedi tossed out a window, Jedi kid shot, etc.

 

[NCCommish]

What did Norton pull?

From everything I read he was a real PITA diva type the whole time they filmed. He fought with everyone and made ridiculous demands. Not a team player:

"We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in the Avengers. Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert, Chris H, Chris E, Sam, Scarlett, and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks."

Marvel Studios President of Production Kevin Feige

I've heard specifically that Norton demands script rewrites.

Yeah and lots of them IIRC. In fact he takes full credit for the final script. Along with credit for American History X, the Score and Frida. His favorite thing seems to be getting signed then he tries to take over and if you don't like it he threatens to trash the movie or not do pub. He just isn't worth it IMO.

 

[The Duff Man]

The trailer for new spidey does make it look like an entirely new story. When you are dramatically altering the story of how he came into being, it can change the character a lot.

There are lots of good spidey stories still untold, it is a shame they went this route. Clearly a grab to keep the rights, but I think they wanted a younger spidey again, to appeal to the teems so they couldnt just continue with #4

 

[packersfan]

What did Norton pull?

From everything I read he was a real PITA diva type the whole time they filmed. He fought with everyone and made ridiculous demands. Not a team player:

"We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in the Avengers. Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert, Chris H, Chris E, Sam, Scarlett, and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks."

Marvel Studios President of Production Kevin Feige

I've heard specifically that Norton demands script rewrites.

Yeah and lots of them IIRC. In fact he takes full credit for the final script. Along with credit for American History X, the Score and Frida. His favorite thing seems to be getting signed then he tries to take over and if you don't like it he threatens to trash the movie or not do pub. He just isn't worth it IMO.

Norton's an amazingly gifted actor but by all accounts he is an enormous pain in the a**. I liked him a lot in the "Hulk" but Ruffalo is also a very good actor and did great work in the "The Avengers." I don't think anyone is losing any sleep over this decision.

 

[netnalp]

I really don't get why cgi is expensive. Isn't all done on a computer?

Man hours and computing costs mainly. I have read it can take over 200 people to do the CGI on a film. And you have to have a farm of computers to do the rendering. That isn't cheap no matter how you do it.

I think the software is expensive too. I believe film companies rent it's use and can't just buy their own copy. Like Massive is owned by WETA and that program has been rented for films with large armies.

 

[NCCommish]

I really don't get why cgi is expensive. Isn't all done on a computer?

Man hours and computing costs mainly. I have read it can take over 200 people to do the CGI on a film. And you have to have a farm of computers to do the rendering. That isn't cheap no matter how you do it.

I think the software is expensive too. I believe film companies rent it's use and can't just buy their own copy. Like Massive is owned by WETA and that program has been rented for films with large armies.

Yeah the software is expensive either way. If you do your own, development costs are huge. If you license at least you don't have to reinvent the wheel but you still pay heavy for it.

 

[The Duff Man]

On a positive note, it does feature Gwen and the Lizard. Gwen's story was crap in the first three movies.

 

[NCCommish]

On a positive note, it does feature Gwen and the Lizard. Gwen's story was crap in the first three movies.

I would've liked some Gwen in the earlier films. Her death would have been a great movie if somewhat dark for Marvel. And as much as I was looking forward to the Lizard before it seems like they have changed him as well. This is probably the first Marvel based superhero movie I will be skipping.

 

[iamsmilin]

This may have already been answered here but I'll ask again. Question about The Hulk

Spoiler

why did the Hulk all of the sudden become part of the team after wanting to smash everyone on the ship

Spoiler

Saw the movie today and this is my take:He finally learned how to control the change from Banner to the Hulk. They didn't really explain it outright or in detail, but I think we were told he could control it in the scene when Banner said "the secret is I always stay angry" and then started attacking.Maybe that's BS, but going into the movie I was looking for/ wondering how they would make the transition from uncontrollable monster to Avengers team member... and that's all we got.

Spoiler

My take is that he always had control. He only lost control on the ship because of the energy from the staff (which was making them all fight) and the bomb just tipped him over the edge. For me, the main thing that made him want to be an Avenger was the conversations with Stark. Before them, it seems like Banner only thought that Hulk was a curse and could never be useful or good. The conversations with Stark gave Banner a new way of looking at "the other" guy and realizing he could do some good.

Spoiler

While I can certainly buy that Loki may have been affecting everyone using the staff, I would say that there is no reason to think Hulk wasn't simply choosing to attack Black Widow, etc. because he actually wanted to. He had spent two years trying to stay off SHIELD's radar because he had no interest in being part of their "freak show". But the good in him accepts that the Earth might actually be in danger and so he trusts them enough to get on the ship. But as SHIELD's secret Phase 2 weapon plans come to light he feels he has been tricked and he wants no part of it. That's when the ship gets attacked which is the final trigger to putting his rage over the edge. When he becomes the Hulk the first thing he sees is the woman who tricked him into being here in the first place and setting in motion the events that have cause this first "relapse" in a couple years. Why not take his anger out on her? She's not his friend yet. After that though it's simply a matter of fighting back when he's attacked. ie. Thor and the jet fighter.

That's a pretty good analysis. Didn't think of it that way.

 

[The Dude]

One thing that has slightly bothered me when seeing the movie was the Widow tricking Loki for inforamtion during their scene on the helicarrier. Loki is the lod of lies and he's duped by the widow? Great character moment for her - for him, not so much.

Just another moment that costs him street cred.

 

[NCCommish]

One thing that has slightly bothered me when seeing the movie was the Widow tricking Loki for inforamtion during their scene on the helicarrier. Loki is the lod of lies and he's duped by the widow? Great character moment for her - for him, not so much.Just another moment that costs him street cred.

Loki has always had a focus issue. For a trickster he gets tricked a lot.

 

[Dr. No]

Allegedly the main plot point is that he was genetically engineered by his parents to become Spider-Man. And his parents are of course not dead they are in hiding or some such. It's way out in left field. Supposedly even Sony hates it but they have to make a movie or lose the rights.

that sounds genuinely awful.way to butcher the story

 

[Dr. No]

On a positive note, it does feature Gwen and the Lizard. Gwen's story was crap in the first three movies.

I would've liked some Gwen in the earlier films. Her death would have been a great movie if somewhat dark for Marvel. And as much as I was looking forward to the Lizard before it seems like they have changed him as well. This is probably the first Marvel based superhero movie I will be skipping.

I understand why Marvel went with introducing MJ as Peter's love interest in high school, but that was a bunch of baloney.. also Flash Thompson never dated her.Liz Allen, Betty Brant were the early interests... gwen came around in college, MJ somewhat after that.Also Gwen Stacey's dad is a retired older police general, not a younger looking guy like Dennis O'Leary.I really don't like it when they break-up perfectly acceptable stories as written in the comics.

 

[NCCommish]

On a positive note, it does feature Gwen and the Lizard. Gwen's story was crap in the first three movies.

I would've liked some Gwen in the earlier films. Her death would have been a great movie if somewhat dark for Marvel. And as much as I was looking forward to the Lizard before it seems like they have changed him as well. This is probably the first Marvel based superhero movie I will be skipping.

I understand why Marvel went with introducing MJ as Peter's love interest in high school, but that was a bunch of baloney.. also Flash Thompson never dated her.Liz Allen, Betty Brant were the early interests... gwen came around in college, MJ somewhat after that.Also Gwen Stacey's dad is a retired older police general, not a younger looking guy like Dennis O'Leary.I really don't like it when they break-up perfectly acceptable stories as written in the comics.

Yeah I try not to be too much of a purist but some things are fundamental and should stay as they were. And as far as I am concerned Kirstin Dunst was a horrible casting choice.

 

[Dr. No]

Yeah I try not to be too much of a purist but some things are fundamental and should stay as they were. And as far as I am concerned Kirstin Dunst was a horrible casting choice.

agree, sadly she was an "it" girl back in '01 when they were shooting.overall i liked spiderman 1 and 2, but they could've stuck closer to the source material and done a little better.but semi-casual fans all know mary jane watson... but none understand parker's dynamic with betty brandt, liz allen, etc.so for sales purposes it was probably better to have mj

 

[NCCommish]

Yeah I try not to be too much of a purist but some things are fundamental and should stay as they were. And as far as I am concerned Kirstin Dunst was a horrible casting choice.

agree, sadly she was an "it" girl back in '01 when they were shooting.overall i liked spiderman 1 and 2, but they could've stuck closer to the source material and done a little better.but semi-casual fans all know mary jane watson... but none understand parker's dynamic with betty brandt, liz allen, etc.so for sales purposes it was probably better to have mj

Having been a long time dedicated reader I definitely have some notion how it should have been done. For me I would have loved to explore the whole high school experience on film. Got real short shrift overall and as a youngster that was what got me into the character as he was identifiable for me. Much more than Superman or anyone like that. But I understand that wouldn't have been as commercially successful so you go with the flow. And the first 2 were good movies.

 

[Dr. No]

Yeah I try not to be too much of a purist but some things are fundamental and should stay as they were. And as far as I am concerned Kirstin Dunst was a horrible casting choice.

agree, sadly she was an "it" girl back in '01 when they were shooting.overall i liked spiderman 1 and 2, but they could've stuck closer to the source material and done a little better.but semi-casual fans all know mary jane watson... but none understand parker's dynamic with betty brandt, liz allen, etc.so for sales purposes it was probably better to have mj

Having been a long time dedicated reader I definitely have some notion how it should have been done. For me I would have loved to explore the whole high school experience on film. Got real short shrift overall and as a youngster that was what got me into the character as he was identifiable for me. Much more than Superman or anyone like that. But I understand that wouldn't have been as commercially successful so you go with the flow. And the first 2 were good movies.

you sound like you've been a more dedicated fan.I have read from ish #1 and quit in the mid-80's... and only The Amazing Spider Man, never spectacular or anything like that.And I would've been definitely happy with a 60's high school movie with Spidey.Regardless, like you said, the first two movies were good... and frankly they had to go with Dr. Ock or Green Goblin as good villains... some of the other early villains like Chameleon and Vulture really aren't very good... Kingpin is more identifiable with Daredevil... though I always thought Kraven the Hunter could've been a good flick.The 3rd movie was an abomination though.. as i knew it would be when they tried to cram Goblin, Sandman, Venom, Gwen Stacey, Eddie Brock, etc.. all into the same movie.I'd like to see the Black Cat storyline hashed out in the movies someday, but i doubt they will bother.

 

[NCCommish]

Yeah I try not to be too much of a purist but some things are fundamental and should stay as they were. And as far as I am concerned Kirstin Dunst was a horrible casting choice.

agree, sadly she was an "it" girl back in '01 when they were shooting.overall i liked spiderman 1 and 2, but they could've stuck closer to the source material and done a little better.but semi-casual fans all know mary jane watson... but none understand parker's dynamic with betty brandt, liz allen, etc.so for sales purposes it was probably better to have mj

Having been a long time dedicated reader I definitely have some notion how it should have been done. For me I would have loved to explore the whole high school experience on film. Got real short shrift overall and as a youngster that was what got me into the character as he was identifiable for me. Much more than Superman or anyone like that. But I understand that wouldn't have been as commercially successful so you go with the flow. And the first 2 were good movies.

you sound like you've been a more dedicated fan.I have read from ish #1 and quit in the mid-80's... and only The Amazing Spider Man, never spectacular or anything like that.And I would've been definitely happy with a 60's high school movie with Spidey.Regardless, like you said, the first two movies were good... and frankly they had to go with Dr. Ock or Green Goblin as good villains... some of the other early villains like Chameleon and Vulture really aren't very good... Kingpin is more identifiable with Daredevil... though I always thought Kraven the Hunter could've been a good flick.The 3rd movie was an abomination though.. as i knew it would be when they tried to cram Goblin, Sandman, Venom, Gwen Stacey, Eddie Brock, etc.. all into the same movie.I'd like to see the Black Cat storyline hashed out in the movies someday, but i doubt they will bother.

Yeah Vulture would be a dud. Kraven would be cool as would Black Kat. With the popularity of vampires right now Morbius might make a good villain and since he interacted with so many other Marvel characters he would have good spin off potential.

 

[shadyridr]

Venom is my favorite comic book villain of all time. They botched Spiderman 3 so poorly. The Spiderman Reboot shouldve focused on Venom the right way.

 

[Dr. No]

Venom is my favorite comic book villain of all time. They botched Spiderman 3 so poorly. The Spiderman Reboot shouldve focused on Venom the right way.

the black suit was jammed into that disaster of a movie.that is an entire storyline in itself... and a good one.