DVD Collectors Online

A friend recommended this:

 

Actually a Reddit find - but who cares!

Big find right here. Offical trailer reliease by Marvel!

Quote from: addicted2comics(:P) on October 12, 2011, 09:58:45 PM
Big find right here. Offical trailer reliease by Marvel!

Mark Ruffalo as "The Incredible Hulk"?

It seems that Edward Norton wanted too much money then.

Quote from: Silence_of_Lambs on October 12, 2011, 11:11:28 PMIt seems that Edward Norton wanted too much money then.

No. I don't think so. As far as I know, Edward Norton would have liked to continue the role, but the studio didn't ask him back (I think the reason for this was never fully disclosed).

Quote from: Silence_of_Lambs on October 12, 2011, 11:11:28 PM

Quote from: addicted2comics(:P) on October 12, 2011, 09:58:45 PM
Big find right here. Offical trailer reliease by Marvel!

Mark Ruffalo as "The Incredible Hulk"?

It seems that Edward Norton wanted too much money then.

Not at all! I don't think anyone knows the full story, but the summary is he somehow pissed off the producers while making The Incredible Hulk. He'd pushed for the role in the first place after being a lifelong fan, if I remember correctly, so I think he made several demands on the direction the film was taking and producers don't like trouble-makers. Just ask Orson Welles. I don't know if Norton was displaying Welles level of genius or was just being a prick, but either way he somehow shit in his own bed. This is what was said at the time:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/edward-norton-ditched-from-the-avengers-film-as-producers-criticise-actors-talent/story-e6freuyi-1225890756651

All things being equal, I thought The Incredible Hulk was a big missed opportunity and Norton himself wasn't memorable as Banner. I preferred Eric Bana in the "don't make me Ang Lee" version (damn, I'm getting some mileage out of that pun! ), but I think Mark Ruffalo is an excellent choice.

I saw the trailer the other day and thought it was awesome. There's a chance this could be special, with Joss Whedon at the helm.

edit: sorry, Tom, didn't see you there...

Quote from: Jon on October 12, 2011, 11:24:01 PM
I saw the trailer the other day and thought it was awesome. There's a chance this could be special, with Joss Whedon at the helm.

Meh. Looks like more Iron Man 2. Well, at least there is Scarlett in a tight suit again.

I really want to see The Avengers.  I think it is looking good from the trailer.
Though I'm not sure about Ruffalo as Bruce.  But I'll see.  I liked Norton in the part.

Quote from: goodguy on October 13, 2011, 02:41:29 AM

Quote from: Jon on October 12, 2011, 11:24:01 PM
I saw the trailer the other day and thought it was awesome. There's a chance this could be special, with Joss Whedon at the helm.

Meh. Looks like more Iron Man 2. Well, at least there is Scarlett in a tight suit again.

But you're not an average comic fan though, are you? I remember when I said of Kick Ass that it should be counted amongst the best of the sub-genre along with Superman and Dark Knight, you questioned that because they were "boring". I have a funny feeling that The Avengers will not be disputing that view!

Quote from: Jon on October 13, 2011, 08:02:37 PM
But you're not an average comic fan though, are you?

Well, my Scarlett comment was pretty average, wasn't it?  But the Avengers don't strike me as particularly interesting material (I didn't even bother with Thor and Captain America) and while I won't completely count out Joss Whedon just yet, being some sort of genius doesn't always prevent you from producing crap. Just look at Matthew Vaughn's recent X-Men. Sure, it wasn't completely stupefying, but do we have to set the bar that low just because it's comics?

Quote from: goodguy on October 14, 2011, 03:53:47 AM
...but do we have to set the bar that low just because it's comics?

Absolutely not, but I think we might be expecting different things. I've always been more of a fan of British comics and find American stuff rather lazy. What the films do, when they get it right, is effectively become like a Greatest Hits edition of a particular story and distil the characters down into their most defined parts from the comics. Therefore they are like catnip to the fans, but if they misjudge the tone even slightly it collapses.

As way of example, I think the Batman character is a very fine creation, but I haven't bothered attempting to keep up with the comics because of the ridiculous amount of crap in between the good stuff. Christopher Nolan took all the pathos and style developed over decades and wrapped it up wonderfully in Batman Begins. The Dark Knight, by introducing such a superb realisation of The Joker, became a new kind of awesome and is quite simply a perfect realisation of who and what Batman is. By creating what will surely be a trilogy, Nolan has also escaped the predictable pulp-fiction style of a weekly cliffhanger story that can diffuse much of a comics potential.

But you called it boring. 

So you see my problem. The Dark Knight could not have been better and in terms of making it the way they did, the bar was set very high. You're just not going to get what you are looking for.

It's telling you cite the new X-Men film as an example. I haven't seen it yet, but from what I hear, the story is not considered canon so the fans haven't been blown away and newbies to the stories haven't been given anything to get in a lather about. It kind of plays fast and loose with realising a 'what if' else-world. Meanwhile, X-Men 2 is one of the best comic book movies ever because it realised one of the classic storylines and followed a narrative inspired by The Empire Strikes Back. Again, that's a very high bar indeed.

Though I would assume Empire is not in your top five films of all time like it is mine? 

Considering X-Men again, of course, Matthew Vaughan is responsible for the incredible Kick Ass, except that is a very different kind of film not least because it deals with characters that are designed to be parodies of the classic heroes. By being a pure film (as in developed as a film, not a book) and using a narrative how it should be used, it inherently becomes a "better" film than most of those based on existing material. It can confront the basic silliness of comics without adhering to pre-conceived ideas. But oddly, the bar was set low for Kick Ass because they were dealing with something truly fresh.

Most of the Marvel stuff is completed in pre-production. They just have to film it. So in that sense, they approach the franchise in the same ways of regular issues and without the Nolan touch of a defined arc, there's a sense they will keep churning this stuff out until it implodes. I commented in my Kick Ass review that Iron Man 2 was going to have it hard, but I was wrong because to some degree they were making Iron Man 2 as a shot to nothing. There will be a 3 and 4 and 5 until it misses, I'm sure. They aren't that bothered about defining anything like Nolan's films was.

So that bar is low. Avengers though, has to have a higher bar because of the very nature of the story. Ensemble's can be very hard to get right which is why I have such hopes for Whedon's approach. Don't think it will be a particularly surprising film, but it will be exciting, well made catnip! Bring it on.

I think finally that we also have different ideas about how the story plays out. I love a well structured narrative and characters that reflect an arc. Have you ever seen Kill Bill 2? I know, I know... but Bill's speech at the end of the film, where he describes the essence of who is Superman/Clark Kent is a perfect example of where I'm coming from. I love that kind of stuff. The Superman movie is another perfect comic book film, but there is still potential to be had if they consider the ideas of his identity and whether he is a man or a god.

So they are still god for something