I think I enjoyed your review almost as much as the movie. :-) It's added depth to my understanding and delight in what I, too, see as a close to perfect movie translation of a superhero comic/team.
(Particularly a Marvel comic, where a slugfest between fellow good-guy heroes is always required before the main event. :-))
I thought there was one relatively large flaw in the plot; the reason why Loki finangled his way onto the SHIELD carrier in the first place. Maybe I missed something, but as it currently stands I believe he only did this to ... try and sow seeds of discord amongst the neo-Avengers? To break up the team ... before it had even formed? (And how did Loki even know about the Avengers Initiative?) That part of the story doesn't make sense to me.
I thought the "he's adopted" line was funny but I can fully understand - and fall into line with - your view on that.
For me the SHIELD operative playing the 'computer game' on the carrier control deck was an even more incongruous joke. It was funny - and Stark's line matched his abrasive entrance - but when you think about it ... no. It just doesn't fit at all into the overall serious tone of the movie, and the portrayal of SHIELD as a bona-fide security organisation.
I thought Captain America was the weakest part of the movie also. I wasn't as sensitive to the acting deficiency, but the costume was just ... ugh. So many superhero movies fail in this regard in translating the hero to the big screen ... Captain America was the only such weakness with the Avengers. (I was surprised at how 'realistic' Thor was.)
I loved how Whedon had all six of the Avengers work as equals. There may have been a quick mention of "our biggest guns", but otherwise I think Whedon made a deliberate effort to keep each of them in parity with the others, each played a critical role in the end game.
(Although I note that the collage of video segments at the very end showed that the citizens of New York celebrated only the 'big four' of the group, the ones who were truly 'super'. No children pretending to be Hawkeye, no women with Black Widow hairdos. The discrepancy is marked simply because it's the only part of the film that makes a conscious divide between members of the group, I think.)
As a trite - and personal - observation I wish they'd granted the Widow her canon long hair. Or maybe I'm showing I haven't read many (Marvel) comics over the past few years. :-) I remember seeing a blonde doppleganger with the above-shoulder locks a while ago, but not the authentic article.
I was surprised to read of your take on Whedon's eschewal of male homosexuality, and I don't see any 'bisexuality' potential in Tony Stark. I think too many (PC evangelistic) folk these days try too hard to look for things that aren't there, or find imagined slights in a vacuum that they would personally prefer to be filled with homosexual content. The absence of homosexual material isn't proof of homophobia, and there's no law (yet) that requires every piece of entertainment under the sun to have the minorities du jour represented.
I've come across a couple of 'Loki fangirls' - or references to same - over the past few months. Fans who are apologists for the villain and are quick to redeem him. Every time I hear the Widow's line - "he killed eighty people in two days" - I think of them. He was a charming and charismatic villain, maybe, but - perhaps partially due to my reaction to the Loki apologists - I understand why the Council wanted to punish Loki for all of the deaths that should be laid at his feet, and remonstrated with Fury for letting him go. Hmm. Maybe that ending - "if it's all the same to you, I'll have that drink now" - could have been extended another couple of lines, just so the audience was reminded of the severity of the Asgardian's war crimes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-09-15 01:18 am (UTC)(Particularly a Marvel comic, where a slugfest between fellow good-guy heroes is always required before the main event. :-))
I thought there was one relatively large flaw in the plot; the reason why Loki finangled his way onto the SHIELD carrier in the first place. Maybe I missed something, but as it currently stands I believe he only did this to ... try and sow seeds of discord amongst the neo-Avengers? To break up the team ... before it had even formed? (And how did Loki even know about the Avengers Initiative?) That part of the story doesn't make sense to me.
I thought the "he's adopted" line was funny but I can fully understand - and fall into line with - your view on that.
For me the SHIELD operative playing the 'computer game' on the carrier control deck was an even more incongruous joke. It was funny - and Stark's line matched his abrasive entrance - but when you think about it ... no. It just doesn't fit at all into the overall serious tone of the movie, and the portrayal of SHIELD as a bona-fide security organisation.
I thought Captain America was the weakest part of the movie also. I wasn't as sensitive to the acting deficiency, but the costume was just ... ugh. So many superhero movies fail in this regard in translating the hero to the big screen ... Captain America was the only such weakness with the Avengers. (I was surprised at how 'realistic' Thor was.)
I loved how Whedon had all six of the Avengers work as equals. There may have been a quick mention of "our biggest guns", but otherwise I think Whedon made a deliberate effort to keep each of them in parity with the others, each played a critical role in the end game.
(Although I note that the collage of video segments at the very end showed that the citizens of New York celebrated only the 'big four' of the group, the ones who were truly 'super'. No children pretending to be Hawkeye, no women with Black Widow hairdos. The discrepancy is marked simply because it's the only part of the film that makes a conscious divide between members of the group, I think.)
As a trite - and personal - observation I wish they'd granted the Widow her canon long hair. Or maybe I'm showing I haven't read many (Marvel) comics over the past few years. :-) I remember seeing a blonde doppleganger with the above-shoulder locks a while ago, but not the authentic article.
I was surprised to read of your take on Whedon's eschewal of male homosexuality, and I don't see any 'bisexuality' potential in Tony Stark. I think too many (PC evangelistic) folk these days try too hard to look for things that aren't there, or find imagined slights in a vacuum that they would personally prefer to be filled with homosexual content. The absence of homosexual material isn't proof of homophobia, and there's no law (yet) that requires every piece of entertainment under the sun to have the minorities du jour represented.
I've come across a couple of 'Loki fangirls' - or references to same - over the past few months. Fans who are apologists for the villain and are quick to redeem him. Every time I hear the Widow's line - "he killed eighty people in two days" - I think of them. He was a charming and charismatic villain, maybe, but - perhaps partially due to my reaction to the Loki apologists - I understand why the Council wanted to punish Loki for all of the deaths that should be laid at his feet, and remonstrated with Fury for letting him go. Hmm. Maybe that ending - "if it's all the same to you, I'll have that drink now" - could have been extended another couple of lines, just so the audience was reminded of the severity of the Asgardian's war crimes.