Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Along with the rest of humanity, I saw The Avengers over the weekend.

Spoiler:

Not me - I was busy contributing towards finding a cure for multiple sclerosis and supporting my friends.

[Kevy Baby]

Are you saying... HEY, WAIT A MINUTE

[innerSpaceman]

I'm wondering what was Whedonesque about The Avengers (or what elements had "Joss-iness"). My Whedon exposure has been limited to Firefly and Cabin in the Woods, so maybe I'm not familiar with his signature style. I couldn't discern any particular style in The Avengers.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I'm wondering what was Whedonesque about The Avengers (or what elements had "Joss-iness"). My Whedon exposure has been limited to Firefly and Cabin in the Woods, so maybe I'm not familiar with his signature style. I couldn't discern any particular style in The Avengers.

Perhaps you should watch the Buffy series. Or Angel. Or (if you don't want to spend 100+ hours), Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.

I totally get that you didn't like the movie. Maybe I identify with you a little being one of the few people offended by Star Trek (and incensed that nobody else saw it like I did). But your question seems a little troll-y. If you're honestly asking for stylistic parallels between Firefly and The Avengers, I apologize for my reaction - when The Avengers comes out on Blu-ray (with 30 minutes of deleted scenes) we can watch it together and I'll show you why it's good (and Whedonesque). Like we did with Star Trek.

[innerSpaceman]

I didn't mean to be trolly. It's just that The Avengers seemed very by-the-book to me, and nothing about it seemed to have the stamp of anyone particular. Whedon's fans have always seemed to me to see something particularly Whedeonesque in his work - and I've seen the term "Whedonesque" bandied about in much of the press push for The Avengers. I just can't see what that is.

There was nothing in the film I wouldn't have expected from anyone else in the director's chair. I've heard it said the funny quips were very Whedon-ish ... but after two previous Iron Man movies, I hardly think funny quips were invented for The Avengers.

But I'm not a knowledgeable Whedon fan, and was simply inviting some input from anyone who happens to be.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Really? You really think that the treatment of the Hulk's character was by-the-book? Because I saw it as novel (for comic book films - I haven't read any of the comics.) Novel in about six different ways I can think of off-hand.

[innerSpaceman]

The treatment of the Hulk's character was one of the few highlights of the film. Sorry if I chalked that almost entirely up to Ruffalo's performance. I guess there has to be an element of script involved.

I'm not going to be seeing the movie again - so, just now, in endeavoring to recall all I can about Dr. Banner's part - it was all pretty much standard Banner as the character has been established in comics and prior movies. Really, the difference was 97.3% Ruffalo. I'll grant Joss the remaining percentage.


But, really, I'm not here to bash Joss Whedon. I've heard great things about Buffy, and I loved Firefly and Cabin in the Woods. So I'm just gonna personally consider The Avengers a misfire - a hugely financially successful misfire - from a talented man.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Let's see. Insightful/compelling/novel elements of Banner/Hulk that were strictly script-related...

And this is just off the top of my head...

Spoiler:

Banner as humanitarian.
Hulk as a comic relief - the great moment with Loki, the punching of Stark.
Hulk set off in a small area with a character we care about instead of a villain.
Banner having attempted suicide.
Banner being in control of himself when he purposefully changes into Hulk.
"I'm always angry."

Ruffalo's performance was great. But without the writing of those elements and others, it would've left me just as cold as the previous two hulk movies did.

You're welcome to your own opinions, but because I saw SO much in the film that was different/better/sharper/more developed/funnier/clearer/more structurally sound than the previous characters' movies, your "it's a complete misfire" response comes across to me as contrarianism, as opposed to thoughtful criticism.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, I guess because I actually liked the last two Hulk movies that I didn't really notice anything remarkable about the new Hulk except that the green "other guy" looked better than previous incarnations, and Ruffalo gave my favorite performance as Bruce Banner. But hardly the first soul-tortured Banner on screen.

Thanks, though, for clearing something up for me. I had wondered why - since it was touted throughout the movie that Banner could not control the "other guy" if he got angry, he was suddenly able to do just that for the Big Transformers Battle.

But the Hulk as comic relief, the Hulk endangering a character we care about instead of a villain, and - as I just said - soulful tortured Bruce Banner - sorry, but these things were hardly invented by Joss Whedon. There have been two movies, two hundred television episodes and two thousand comic books stories about the Hulk. Nothing can be invented at this point, I would hazard to guess.

And I didn't mean "complete misfire" as thoughtful criticism, but rather as a sum-up phrase for my expanded criticism found previously.

Your comparison to the previous films is interesting, though. Ruffalo was a stand-out here, and he wasn't in any of the previous films. Johannsen was noticeably better than her brief appearance in one of those. But everyone else seemed less effective to me than they did in those previous incarnations. Maybe that was part of my let-down. But only part.

I'm willing to grant that a comic-book story with this many characters is going to be a bit convoluted and editorially difficult, and I'm willing to grant that a comic-book story with this many characters is going to be short on plot. But -though I'm also willing to grant it's all a matter of taste, absolutely nothing grabbed me during two-and-a-half hours. I was stupendously bored. It's not a movie I'm gonna give a second chance to. So that's my final answer. Bad Movie.

[mousepod]

...which is kinda why I think you're trolling. Not that that's a crime or anything, but you clearly are baiting folks to give you positives to dismiss.

You're also granting things that I don't think I need "granted" for my complete enjoyment of the movie. I personally thought it was neither convoluted nor short on plot.

But I'm willing to take your bait and point out one of Whedon's particular strengths, in what you dismissively refer to as the "Big Transformers Battle". Unlike the fight sequences in that series, the showdown in The Avengers was not all noise and CGI motion blur. Every one of the Avengers had his/her particular way of approaching the battle, and the challenges played on their individual strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, Whedon did not fall into the cheap trick of seemingly random cutting to create a sense of chaos. Atypically, he choreographed a big fight scene in which the viewer would always know where each of the major characters were at all times. And given the scale, that's bloody difficult.

You're wrong about the movie, but that's ok.