Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AduroT wrote:
A.) How is Hawkeye Supposed to act?

2.) You wanted Cyborg to be killed?

A. Like Hawkeye. Civil War and Thor had him actually acting like Hawkeye whereas the two Avengers movie could have seen him swapped out with literally ANY powerless Avenger and nothing would have seemed out of place. Try it. Just replace every mention of Hawkeye with The Swordsman and see if anything goes wrong.

2. Whedon changed FAR more than that.

edited by ingtaer.

So, again, how Does Hawkeye act? Saying he acts like Hawkeye isn’t an answer, because if it is, then Hawkeye acted like Hawkeye in Avengers since that’s how Hawkeye acted.

Wow.

Lets assume you've read a single comic starring Hawkeye in your life. How did he act in those? A wiseass who had a sarcastic bend while also being overly cocky, but able to back it up for the most part.

Avengers and Avengers 2 Hawkey? Morose, when not completely dry. Watching his behavior in Civil War is more in line with how the character should be portrayed.

I honestly don't see how this is so hard for you to get, unless you're being argumentative solely for the sake of being argumentative.

 Lance845 wrote:
For me avengers 1 and 2 are two of the WORST the mcu has to offer, equally. And its the director/writers fault. Joss wheddon is an over rated hack who can write snappy dialog and thats about it. Those characters are never more one dimensional then when they were in those movies.

Well, Hawkeye was mind controlled over much of the Avengers 1. Also, Avengers movies have big casts and that inevitably means that individual characters are not going to get much screentime.
But that said, I do think that Whedon screwed up Avengers 2. First, it repeats by now tired theme where heroes create the villain. This is cool trope used in moderation (and to some extent it leads to Civil War) but it makes the villain and heroes seem less when they are tied together. Sort of a Skywalker effect, if you will. Especially as Stark seems to almost completely ignore his irresponsible decisions which created Ultron.

But bigger problem is that Ultron just does not work. He is not scary. His repeats are easily disposable targets. He talks WAY too much. This is something where Whedon has failed before. He is great at writing dialogue, great at coming up with plot twists and character moments, but not always too good at writing villains. Ultron was similar to The First from last season of Buffy, he talked too much and was overexposed. We were assured he was super-evil and scary, but did not come across that way. Those characters simply came up as tiresome towards the end.

AduroT wrote:So, again, how Does Hawkeye act? Saying he acts like Hawkeye isn’t an answer, because if it is, then Hawkeye acted like Hawkeye in Avengers since that’s how Hawkeye acted.

Hawkeye, more then any other character that has ever been in the Avengers, BELIEVES in the Avengers. There is a single throw away line in Age of Ultron when he's talking to his wife that implies it, but it really comes out in his moments in Civil War. Though I will give the speach he gives Scarlett whitch in Ultron credit where credit is due. But again, it's wheddon's dialog writing. But heres the thing about that dialog writing, remove hawkeye from the scene and put captain america there. That line could have been delivered by him too. Put Iron man there. Tony could have also given that speech. Civil War shows that in the hands of better directors and with better writing the characters can maintain their depth of character and their unique voice without being turned into sound bites.

Backfire wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
For me avengers 1 and 2 are two of the WORST the mcu has to offer, equally. And its the director/writers fault. Joss wheddon is an over rated hack who can write snappy dialog and thats about it. Those characters are never more one dimensional then when they were in those movies.

Well, Hawkeye was mind controlled over much of the Avengers 1. Also, Avengers movies have big casts and that inevitably means that individual characters are not going to get much screentime.
But that said, I do think that Whedon screwed up Avengers 2. First, it repeats by now tired theme where heroes create the villain. This is cool trope used in moderation (and to some extent it leads to Civil War) but it makes the villain and heroes seem less when they are tied together. Sort of a Skywalker effect, if you will. Especially as Stark seems to almost completely ignore his irresponsible decisions which created Ultron.

But bigger problem is that Ultron just does not work. He is not scary. His repeats are easily disposable targets. He talks WAY too much. This is something where Whedon has failed before. He is great at writing dialogue, great at coming up with plot twists and character moments, but not always too good at writing villains. Ultron was similar to The First from last season of Buffy, he talked too much and was overexposed. We were assured he was super-evil and scary, but did not come across that way. Those characters simply came up as tiresome towards the end.

Let's ignore the large casts are hard bit. And the screen time bit. Civil War, Infinity War, Oceans 11, Lock Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels, Pulp Fiction... fething lots of movies have a cast that is more then a single protagonist, their love interest, and a villain. And all those movies manage to make each character a whole character without those issues.

Wheddon likes to define each of his characters by a single personality trait which defines their every action. Anything more complex then that and they fall apart. For instance, Loki in A1. Seriously, what the feth was his plan? He has never been less intelligent in what he was doing then in that movie. We all explain it away as a plot to get back to Asgaurd but thats just us connecting the dots after the fact. Nothing in any movie ever actually says that and Thor the Dark World more or less counters it. Do you remember A1 at all? The character with the most depth was the hulk, and thats because Banner was 1 thing and the hulk was another 1 thing so unlike every other character he got to be 2 things. Look at Captain America in his own movies and then look at him in both of the Avengers movies. He just stands around and watches things happening around him until a moment arrives for him to give the others orders and then hit a bad guy in front of him with his shield. Now go rewatch ANY Captain America movie. When is Cap not stepping in front of the actions of others who are about to do wrong? He's a ACTIVE force in all of those movies but he needs Stark to tell him Shield is hiding something in A1? Pick ANY of the characters from A1. What was their character ark in that movie? Nobody had one. They were just there while the events unfolded and nobody learned anything or grew in any capacity in that movie. It took OTHER movies to show you what happened to these characters as a result of that movies events.

But in Civil war wanda and vision have a ark. Cap has one. Tony has one. BP has one. You get all of Nemos story unfolded before you. BW goes through some changes. Warmachine gets a little story in there. Civil war manages to have more depth with characters both new and old, central and not. What exactly was Joss doing in A1/2?

On shows like Firefly Wheddon is not writing alone and that writing staff gave those characters more depth. But then Wheddon alone writes the Serenity movie and suddenly everyone is reduced to single character trait sound bits. Serenity is the worst episode of Firefly. Wheddon sucks.

Whedon is a creeper as well as being a hack. I'll never understand the love for Buffy.
Avengers doesn't hold up as well as other MCU movies on rewatch.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Whedon is a creeper as well as being a hack. I'll never understand the love for Buffy.
Avengers doesn't hold up as well as other MCU movies on rewatch.

He made Firefly y'know...

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
Whedon is a creeper as well as being a hack. I'll never understand the love for Buffy.
Avengers doesn't hold up as well as other MCU movies on rewatch.

He made Firefly y'know...

No. He conceptualized Firefly. A great cast of actors and a writing staff made firefly. Don't give that dumpy idiot all of their credit.

People in this thread like Snyder and dump on Whedon. Well, I guess it’s true what they say about bad opinions. Whedon’s super hero movies crushed it at the box office. Snyder’s generally sucked. It’s not hard for me to see which one is more appreciated by the general public and why.

Saw it last night and really enjoyed it.

Loved how they handled her origin and where she got her powers from - nice call back to the comics without being overly complicated.

Loved the 'twists' too - they were twitsy enough to be entertaining without being too Shyamalanian in nature, if you know what I mean!

I know what you mean. I love a twist, but not when it's an Agatha Christie 'there is no way the reader/viewer could've possibly guessed, because it's based entirely upon evidence not mentioned anywhere else within the story'.

Don't mind being wrong in my guesses, but man. That's just cheap!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and just another thought. Which I'll put in spoiler tags.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
People in this thread like Snyder and dump on Whedon. Well, I guess it’s true what they say about bad opinions. Whedon’s super hero movies crushed it at the box office. Snyder’s generally sucked. It’s not hard for me to see which one is more appreciated by the general public and why.

I didnt say i liked snyders dceu movies (watchmen was good). Box office success does not equal quality. Transformers movies are all wildly profitable except bumblebee, the only good one.

 Alpharius wrote:
Saw it last night and really enjoyed it.

Loved how they handled her origin and where she got her powers from - nice call back to the comics without being overly complicated.

Loved the 'twists' too - they were twitsy enough to be entertaining without being too Shyamalanian in nature, if you know what I mean!

Just because I've been waiting for an opportunity to post this:



but, yes, it was all well done.

A1 is a pretty great film and at its time unprecedented. I don't take any issue with the reality that since then, the Russo brothers have done better.

The only unprecedented thing about it was having so many movies before it build up to it.

Mystery Men was a team super hero movie that handled its characters way better. A1 taken on its own as a film is remarkable for nothing. Its a fun movie sure. Its not flat out BAD because none of the marvel movies are actually just flat out bad. But it doesnt deserve any accolades for ground breaking things it didnt do. And in every place where it falls short it does so in the ways joss is known for.

As another comparison, joss wrote alien ressurection. The movie where one character was the wheel chair guy, and one was the black guy, and one was the pilot, and one was the gruff jerk, and ripley was a strong female lead because she had super powers...

It was what if buffy was aliens.

 Lance845 wrote:
As another comparison, joss wrote alien ressurection. The movie where one character was the wheel chair guy, and one was the black guy, and one was the pilot, and one was the gruff jerk, and ripley was a strong female lead because she had super powers...

It was what if buffy was aliens.

While I think Whedon deserves a lot of flak, I think we should be fair and acknowledge the disaster that was this movie isn't really his fault.

Joss wrote four different scripts for Aliens 4, and every single one was bounced back by the executives who couldn't make up their mind what the movie was about but picked and chose ideas from the different scripts at random for some reason. Two other executives who are now on record as trying to sabotage the film to kill the franchise, which is kind of mind blowing when you think about it. Even when his final script was accepted he got mostly shut out by the director who ignored half of it and ad libed the other half and thought the film was bad idea from start to finish and just wanted to collect a pay check.

There were so many points of failure along Alien Resurrection's journey to mediocrity that blaming one of the few people who by all accounts was honestly trying just feels spiteful.

All that being true you can see his dna in all the parts they kept. The character bits in particular. Ripley being a super powered alien/human hybrid is exactly his shtick. The rest of the characters having basically no character is too.

And back to the marvel point, avengers 1 and 2 treat the characters the same way.

And putting 6 people together on screen as a team to fight 1 bad guy and his mooks isnt anything that hasnt been done before. Except other writer/directors managed to give the protagonists an actual story while doing it.

 Lance845 wrote:
All that being true you can see his dna in all the parts they kept. The character bits in particular.

Honestly I think this is a matter of taste. I like the way Whedon handles characterization, at least in film/TV formats. He's to filmography what Gaiman is to literature, and the criticism of characters having no character can be leveled at almost any action movie. It's a flaw of the genre, not of Whedon per se. There was never going to be enough room in Avengers for individual characters to show a lot of character. They'd all ultimately boil down to basic traits. At least for me, I think Whedon managed to make those traits interesting even if they're shallow.

Ripley being a super powered alien/human hybrid is exactly his shtick

It also wasn't his idea.

The first script was about a grown up Newt. The execs kicked it back and said make it about Ripley, which he thought was stupid cause she died in the last movie. Then Weaver got involved and this concept was born, but Weaver never gets any flak for it.

And putting 6 people together on screen as a team to fight 1 bad guy and his mooks isnt anything that hasnt been done before. Except other writer/directors managed to give the protagonists an actual story while doing it.

It's not, but as has been pointed out in the past, that's not what Avengers generally gets praised for.

Name another movie that is the culmination of multiple distinct films about different characters that then managed to bring them all together for an ensemble piece that wasn't a hot mess from start to finish.

There really aren't any.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
All that being true you can see his dna in all the parts they kept. The character bits in particular.

Honestly I think this is a matter of taste. I like the way Whedon handles characterization, at least in film/TV formats. He's to filmography what Gaiman is to literature, and the criticism of characters having no character can be leveled at almost any action movie. It's a flaw of the genre, not of Whedon per se. There was never going to be enough room in Avengers for individual characters to show a lot of character. They'd all ultimately boil down to basic traits. At least for me, I think Whedon managed to make those traits interesting even if they're shallow.

Ripley being a super powered alien/human hybrid is exactly his shtick

It also wasn't his idea.

The first script was about a grown up Newt. The execs kicked it back and said make it about Ripley, which he thought was stupid cause she died in the last movie. Then Weaver got involved and this concept was born, but Weaver never gets any flak for it.

And putting 6 people together on screen as a team to fight 1 bad guy and his mooks isnt anything that hasnt been done before. Except other writer/directors managed to give the protagonists an actual story while doing it.

It's not, but as has been pointed out in the past, that's not what Avengers generally gets praised for.

Name another movie that is the culmination of multiple distinct films about different characters that then managed to bring them all together for an ensemble piece that wasn't a hot mess from start to finish.

There really aren't any.

Abbott and Costello Meets Frankenstein!*


*yes, I went there.

Touche XD

Well, Joss Whedon is NO Abbott and Costello!




Captain marvel did exactly what it was supposed to do. It introduced us to Carol and Captain Marvel, fit her into the Marvel universe, explained why she is only appearing now. I'm not 100% sold on who Capt marvel is as a character, as I am not sure I liked her very much; but the movie did what it needed to do.

I was not 100% sure of what her Rooting Interest was, or the thing that makes the audience want to cheer for her. She partnered well with Fury;but on her own came across a bit arrogant, hard-edged, and sarcastic. Typically, I like my heroes to be a bit humbler, and she was not humble.

That being said, I am eager to see how she grows, since almost all other Marvel heroes have to learn to overcome this aspect of their personality IN the origin movie. She did not.

Carol has pretty much never been a humble character in the comics. She's generally pretty abrasive all around. I am curious how that fits in to Endgame.

FWIW, since they have a lot in common, that's something I always miss when they swap Hal out of the League for a more agreeable Lantern. Hal and Bats as Barry's Betty and Veronica is one of my favorite team dynamics.

 Lance845 wrote:

But in Civil war wanda and vision have a ark. Cap has one. Tony has one. BP has one. You get all of Nemos story unfolded before you. BW goes through some changes. Warmachine gets a little story in there. Civil war manages to have more depth with characters both new and old, central and not. What exactly was Joss doing in A1/2?

Avengers 1 was not meant to be character development movie, but a GROUP development movie. Basically assumption was that all the characters were already estabilished in earlier movies, and now they would have to learn to work together despite mistrust, it doesn't help that their opponent is an expert on creating mistrust. It would have been pointless to continue further character development since everybody had just been estabilished in their own movies. Whedon stated that he drew the concept from Ultimate Marvel (Ultimates), and it is obvious.

Now, I don't think the movie really worked as intended, I think Whedon's directing was somewhat plain compared to his earlier work, and it would have needed some other villain to support Loki who once again was not scary enough. It did not meet my (admittably huge) expectations, though in retrospect, it was not similar letdown as Avengers II. Maybe Whedon is past his prime as a writer by now (or needs a long break at least to reload idea banks), supposedly his Wonder Woman draft proposal was pretty bad.

 Lance845 wrote:

On shows like Firefly Wheddon is not writing alone and that writing staff gave those characters more depth. But then Wheddon alone writes the Serenity movie and suddenly everyone is reduced to single character trait sound bits. Serenity is the worst episode of Firefly. Wheddon sucks.

'Serenity' was never meant to be episode of Firefly. It was something Whedon threw together in a hurry because no company would pick up the series, and he had to make it much more action-y than the show was. If he had written it as a Firefly episode, it would have never seen the screen (big or small).

Whedon was doing Buffy, Angel and Firefly at the same time, with the result that he could give only little of his time to each series, delegating work to hacks like Drew Greenberg, and quality of all those shows suffered as a result. Firefly was quite frankly very hit & miss when it comes to episode quality (I recall the brothel defence episode, it was awful). It is no coincidence that Angel's final season was big improvement over anything he did year before as Firefly and Buffy had ended.

And yes, Buffy was revolutionary in execution and the famed "MCU style" owes much to Whedon's work. Instead of doing a "comedy" show, he wrote a very serious show, where the characters were just very funny. This is coincidentally what went wrong in the first Buffy movie (1992) where producers did not understand the intent and just made it an action comedy and it fell flat. And instead of doing "Monster of the week" show (as most shows were on TV back then), he had long storylines and people could die, got sent in hell or have their eye gouged out.

Shes very blunt and matter of fact. Once she was with spider man when venom was there. She asks spidey what his deal is and he explains the guy is powerless its all the suit. So she goes "got it", reaches down venoms throat, grabs mac gargan (the host at the time), and ripped him out of the symbiote.

It temporarily backfired when venom jumped onto her but it illustrates her personality and tactics. She gets the intel and acts decisively to end it fast. A lot of people take her lack of tact and diplomacy as abbrassivness. But she tends to just pile drive through problems.

 Easy E wrote:

I was not 100% sure of what her Rooting Interest was, or the thing that makes the audience want to cheer for her. She partnered well with Fury;but on her own came across a bit arrogant, hard-edged, and sarcastic. Typically, I like my heroes to be a bit humbler, and she was not humble.

I take you don't like House?

No one likes House.

We just love watching him find inventive new ways to gak on everyone around him, like a car crash you can't look away from

Admitted I can totally get how that kind of character doesn't mesh easily with the classic model of comic book heroism.

It’s still something we’ve not seen in the Avengers as a team, even though they’re all, in their own peculiar and particular ways, incredibly dysfunctional people.

Indeed it’s them still managing to work as a team despite their flaws that makes them so interesting.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
People in this thread like Snyder and dump on Whedon. Well, I guess it’s true what they say about bad opinions. Whedon’s super hero movies crushed it at the box office. Snyder’s generally sucked. It’s not hard for me to see which one is more appreciated by the general public and why.

Jimi Hendrix was a one hit wonder. By contrast, the Spice Girls went platinum more than once and had several songs in the top 40. Fiscal profitability with the sheeple does NOT equal quality.

I've seen some really good reviews on this one.

Might pick it up on amazon.

saw the movie....
1) love brie larson
2) Adore Goose
3) did not like the movie (no surprise there, dont like super hero movies anyway and loathe origin stories)
4) prefer brie in roles like freefire "we cant all be nice girls" was a great line at the right time.
5) would have been perfectly thrilled to see her spend 2 hours in costume playing with Goose (who was a male cat)

 thekingofkings wrote:
saw the movie....

3) did not like the movie (no surprise there, dont like super hero movies anyway and loathe origin stories)

I think you are very confused.