The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread- Open SPOILERS -enter at own risk!

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It's just more ignorant trolling for the sake of it. He's blatantly ignoring that his own posts are contradictory. Yet if we were talking about Se7en or Fight Club or some other lame indie flick that we were oversaturated with in the 90's-00's, he'd be naked, coated in peanut butter and slapping jelly on his monkey in celebration of their overabundance. :lol

Eh, we're all biased I guess, but oversaturation is a valid concern. I just think it's gonna take a long time for that to happen to us. I mean I kind of look at the whole Superman/Batman run from the late 70's and mid 90's as a golden age dominated by a few big names which was sort of the case during the golden age of comics (sans the Cap Marvel). This new period feels like a silver age because of all these silver age names coming into prominence now. The way I figure, we have a good 20 or so more years until we really start scraping the bottom of the barrel. However, the whole superhero thing just has too much broad appeal for it to really be in danger of a serious downturn.

Then again, if we ever get the directorial equivalent of Rob Liefeld on one of these IPs, then the end may come sooner than later. We already had a Liefeld level disaster when Schumacher put the Batman franchise in critical condition. We could be riding the end of the superhero disco era, and the Avengers are the Village People on CGI. I doubt it though. Right now, Hollywood is throwing its best and brightest at these projects. If there are any duds, reboots within a few years are becoming more frequent.

And to be fair, I generally use Liefeld as a whipping boy for 90's excesses but it wasn't all his fault. Marvel, like Oliver North who didn't understand supply and demand or distribution, thought that the only way to make more money was to keep flooding the market with "product". It's possible to do in movies, but due to the fact that they are such a gigantic financial undertaking, it might take a bit longer for them to match what happened in the comics.

Don't ask me who the Marvel equivalent of Freeway Ricky Ross is in all this though. :monkey4
 
Peanut-Butter-Baby.jpg









I do that all the time. My nick name in high school was PPn'J.


:lol "Peanut Butter Jelly Time"
 
It's just more ignorant trolling for the sake of it. He's blatantly ignoring that his own posts are contradictory. Yet if we were talking about Se7en or Fight Club or some other lame indie flick that we were oversaturated with in the 90's-00's, he'd be naked, coated in peanut butter and slapping jelly on his monkey in celebration of their overabundance. :lol

except those two were far from independent, in fact fight club got the Executive that green light it fired because of how expensive it was to make compared to the money it made at the B.O.

Just saying.
 
Eh, we're all biased I guess, but oversaturation is a valid concern. I just think it's gonna take a long time for that to happen to us. I mean I kind of look at the whole Superman/Batman run from the late 70's and mid 90's as a golden age dominated by a few big names which was sort of the case during the golden age of comics (sans the Cap Marvel). This new period feels like a silver age because of all these silver age names coming into prominence now. The way I figure, we have a good 20 or so more years until we really start scraping the bottom of the barrel. However, the whole superhero thing just has too much broad appeal for it to really be in danger of a serious downturn.

If they were cranking out 10 a year, "oversaturation" could potentially be a valid point. However, that's not the case and save for Amazing Spider-Man and Ghost Rider, the studios seem to be playing it very safe with what they put out. If anybody drops the ball, it'll be WB who've never understood how to treat a Superhero franchise (and yes, looking at the Batman trilogy, they were great movies but Batman proper was abused and TDKR a poor wrap-up). I think Marvel Studios will continue to put out 1-2 great films a year and it's clear that they know how to treat their superheroes.
 
except those two were far from independent, in fact fight club got the Executive that green light it fired because of how expensive it was to make compared to the money it made at the B.O.

Just saying.

it's funny how the guy talks about trolling when that's precisely what he's had to resort to in the absence of anything of substance to say, like nonsensical attacks about my liking "indie" films that have nothing to do with my actual points.

and nothing i said is contradictory if one reads my posts properly, it's just that he chooses to be selective in what he responds to and what to conveniently leave out to "prove" his point. still, although that's classic baiting by a troll i do find it pretty amusing. but while it's been fun, i will gladly let him have the last say. he needs it far more than i do... :clap
 
If they were cranking out 10 a year, "oversaturation" could potentially be a valid point. However, that's not the case and save for Amazing Spider-Man and Ghost Rider, the studios seem to be playing it very safe with what they put out. If anybody drops the ball, it'll be WB who've never understood how to treat a Superhero franchise (and yes, looking at the Batman trilogy, they were great movies but Batman proper was abused and TDKR a poor wrap-up). I think Marvel Studios will continue to put out 1-2 great films a year and it's clear that they know how to treat their superheroes.

Agreed, not a problem yet. A 10 movie release year would be insane, but I'd probably love it. WB does need to figure it out before they're the "Batman Forever After" Company. So what if GL was a flop in their eyes? Marvel would have picked themselves up, wiped the dust off their pants and started working on a reboot.

But anyway, I'm glad Marvel has come into their own. I remember the doom and gloom days back when DC was on fire and the best Marvel could manage were dopey C and D movies for FF, Cap and Nick Fury. Now matter how glutted things get onscreen, I know we already have the worst behind us.
 
it's funny how the guy talks about trolling when that's precisely what he's had to resort to in the absence of anything of substance to say, like nonsensical attacks about my liking "indie" films that have nothing to do with my actual points.

and nothing i said is contradictory if one reads my posts properly, it's just that he chooses to be selective in what he responds to and what to conveniently leave out to "prove" his point. still, although that's classic baiting by a troll i do find it pretty amusing. but while it's been fun, i will gladly let him have the last say. he needs it far more than i do... :clap

I'm not the one fabricating ****, ignoring facts and using rediculous claims to hate on a film. There are legitimate issues with Avengers. Funny how you haven't brought any of those up. :wave
 
I'm not the one fabricating ****, ignoring facts and using rediculous claims to hate on a film. There are legitimate issues with Avengers. Funny how you haven't brought any of those up. :wave

nope, you're merely the one who cannot for the life of him respect other people's opinions, so you resort to rudeness and ridiculous attacks in order to impose your own views. i haven't ignored facts, what i've done is chosen to respect the OPINIONS of other members and let them have their say, just as they've politely let me have mine. this is what a discussion forum is for, after all.

oh, and kindly point out exactly where i have spewed "hate on a film", ANY film at all. you will be unable to find it because i did no such thing. you making that wild claim just reeks of desperation to find something to attack me with. the avengers may have had its issues (personally, i enjoyed it) but my original post wasn't even about the film specifically. my comments were simply about the superhero genre in general. others have even acknowledged that there IS the danger of over-saturation which is what i've been getting at.

now, go ahead and attempt to quote me out of context. you're quite an amusing presence on these boards, so i shall leave it to you to continue playing court jester and/or playground bully. cheers! :1-1:
 
I do agree that the constant "origin" rebooting needs to stop. Enough people see these origin movies that they don't need to rehash it when another actor inherits the role.

Nothing more than the flashback origin of TIH or even Cap's flashback during the Avengers punching bag scene are ever needed.
 
nope, you're merely the one who cannot for the life of him respect other people's opinions, so you resort to rudeness and ridiculous attacks in order to impose your own views. i haven't ignored facts, what i've done is chosen to respect the OPINIONS of other members and let them have their say, just as they've politely let me have mine. this is what a discussion forum is for, after all.

oh, and kindly point out exactly where i have spewed "hate on a film", ANY film at all. you will be unable to find it because i did no such thing. you making that wild claim just reeks of desperation to find something to attack me with. the avengers may have had its issues (personally, i enjoyed it) but my original post wasn't even about the film specifically. my comments were simply about the superhero genre in general. others have even acknowledged that there IS the danger of over-saturation which is what i've been getting at.

now, go ahead and attempt to quote me out of context. you're quite an amusing presence on these boards, so i shall leave it to you to continue playing court jester and/or playground bully. cheers! :1-1:

This post is absolutely biased and contradictory to your own point:
LOTR and HP were very specific "fantasy" properties, and different from one another like day is to night. the superhero genre as a whole operates on very basic premises and formulas, such as the origin story (which is ONE example, before any of u go taking this example to task).

and animation is not a genre. try suggesting to brad bird that it is and he'll slap you around the head.

As Khev pointed out, which you quite intentionally ignored, Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises couldn't have been further apart in style, mood, story, principle, plot, etc., meaning they match your LOTR and HP description and contradict your biased view on the genre as a whole. But I guess you enjoy living in ignorance. :wave
 
If those are the only choices then I hope they pick Wilson. I didn't know Ms. Marvel would be in A2. Interesting, I wonder if she'll be introduced in one of the other sequels first.
 
I don't think either are good choices. :dunno :lol

I don't either. But I'm betting Emily Blunt gets it. She's not going to look anything like the comic either unless she gets a boob job and puts on some weight. And for those critisizing ScarJo for not looking athletic enough, let's see how this goes over. :lol
 
Since bathing suits and thigh high boots aren't really the style of the Marvel Cinematic Universe I wonder if they'll go with this costume:

mm3.jpg

That's pretty neat, but they'll have to pad it. I haven't seen her in a while but the last time I did she was a twig.
 
Back
Top