Kamandi
Super Freak
It says a lot about Whedon as a writer and director that he lets his actors go off script. Many writers are too precious to tolerate that.
It says a lot about Whedon as a writer and director that he lets his actors go off script. Many writers are too precious to tolerate that.
Fine line though. Even a good actor can ruin a movie with too much input (Incredible Hulk).
Yeah, that that was also my criticism of the use of Hawkeye (though I think Widow is more similar to her comic iteration than he gives her credit for). I get that the Ultimates version was his inspiration, but. . .he's just some highly skilled soldier in this movie. The 616 version had real character and personality that set him apart. GOT author is probably right about Tony to some extent. Back in the day, Stark was really nothing like RDJ, personality-wise (apart from the addictions and ego). Hawkeye had more of the personality that RDJ represents as Stark--witty, wise-cracking, never really taking things as seriously as everyone else, challenging authority, etc. One major difference is probably that Hawkeye had a huge chip on his shoulder that RDJ doesn't seem to have. And Hawkeye has been one of my top Marvel characters for many years, so it was disappointing to see that they went with the "cool assassin soldier guy" approach. I guess it makes him more of a bad-ass, but it makes him less Hawkeye to me. And look no further than this poll to see how much of an impression that approach had on viewers vs. the other team members:I agree! I *hope* we'll see the Hawkeye backstory flushed out in a one-off movie (probably with widow).
The important point though was that Hawkeye's and BW's Ultimates versions were COMPLETELY different characters than the 616 versions (Hawkeye in particular). The Avenger's movie used Ultimate HE and BW as its templates, and Martin is reminiscing about the 616 versions.
Fine line though. Even a good actor can ruin a movie with too much input (Incredible Hulk).
Oh my god..so many nerds in that theater.
Sounds like a fun theater.
Certainly that had more to do with a mediocre initial script than Ed Norton's input (which from what I've read may have actually improved things).
Hulk wasn't all action during Avengers, though. He was Banner most of the time. They just used his moments of Hulkness to good effect IMO. There was a LOT of Hulk in the Ang Lee movie, but lots of folks still seem to hate it.He pushed to make a film about the "human" side of Hulk. His goal was to attempt to reproduce the same vibe as the old TV show (which barely had any Hulk despite the name). That's not what people want. Marvel argued this and he threw a temper tantrum when Marvel cut the film to be more action-oriented, and refused to do any press for it. In the end he was wrong. Avengers proves this.
Hulk wasn't all action during Avengers, though. He was Banner most of the time. They just used his moments of Hulkness to good effect IMO. There was a LOT of Hulk in the Ang Lee movie, but lots of folks still seem to hate it.
No, I feel the same way. Getting excited over a scene or two is a'aight, but if folks were constantly bantering it would bug me. The only movie I saw where it felt completely appropriate was Jackass
But I was thinking about how some of the serious, diehard Nolanites would respond if that happened during the Batman movie. They would probably jump over seats and start wailing on guys.
It's funny how when I visit the Avengers thread, I hear some bashing on people who love the Nolan films (nolanites), but if you go into TDKR's thread, you see none of that towards The Avengers hardcore fans.
Enter your email address to join: