-
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Film & Television
Welcome Guest
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat Recently Watched Best Documentaries ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak
Film The Avengers
- Thread starter axl blaze
- Start date
reply to my above friends about post-credits:
NSFW:
NSFW:
hiphophippy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 1,314
I'm pretty sure thanos was based on darkseid. and dark claw was the shit. All the reason and smarts of batman, but he would actually kill people.
I'm normally not interested in the whole Marvel world, but must say this film really was something. I felt entertained the whole time.
Last edited:
axl blaze
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 31,420
Heh. I was saying "Thantos," in my posts, which is my mind's mash-up of "Thanos" and "Thanatos," the latter being the Greek/Freudian personification of death and the former being the correct spelling of the Marvel character. Freudian slip. While talking about comic book character mash-ups, I was trying to draw parallels between comic book villains and those of ancient myth and ended up doing so unintentionally by making an unconscious spelling error.
marissaaaaaa
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 9,416
these are statements that trouble me.
lol.
that's like saying fuck the books of harry potter and game of thrones, as long as it's fun to watch! fuck those nerds who read!
it's dumb.
don't adapt shit if you're not going to do it right.
come up with your own goddamn shit if you're not going to stay faithful.
still haven't seen it. don't regret it.
lolololol.
axl blaze
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 31,420
but your argument is invalid because as a person who vehemently reads the source material, the silver screen adaption was extremely coherent to the stories in the comics. hell, I'll say it again once more, the director/writer of the Avengers also wrote many well-received Marvel Comics (his best being Astonishing X-Men). I don't understand your stance here? you say the movie sucks but you have not seen it. you say the movie isn't true to the comics, yet you don't read many comics...
nonetheless I doubt that the third highest grossing movie of all-time cares if you saw it or not... stick to Harry Potter, it is easier to read than comics
nonetheless I doubt that the third highest grossing movie of all-time cares if you saw it or not... stick to Harry Potter, it is easier to read than comics
L2R
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2001
- Messages
- 43,528
do you enjoy being this miserable?
I got a hold of some Adderall, so this got a bit long, but I think it all goes towards addressing what you find troubling about what I’ve said rather than being a typical stimulant-fed off the rails rant (don’t feel bad for me writing this all because you were meaning your post to be taken lightly – I consider this fun).
I have the exact same opinion about book renditions of movies, or comic book renditions of video games, whatever. I certainly have nothing against reading (my gf is a book blogger and I read quite a bit), nor do I think reading is dorky. What’s dorky is people who immerse themselves in a fantasy so much its spills over into their better judgment. What’s dorky is investing one’s identity in a story so much that an alternate telling of the story is taken as a personal insult. I, for instance, think Star Trek the Next Generation was a pretty good show, but I’m never going to have a Klingon wedding. I’m never going to play World of Warcraft until I’m penniless and destitute, or rave about the continuity of a cartoon.
How is demanding that a screenwriter and director stick adamantly to the narrative and characterization found in a comic book within a movie a matter of questionable judgment? It’s because different media very clearly communicate experience using distinct principles of storytelling, and the experience of each absolutely cannot transfer into another medium faithfully (granted, certain films like Sin City, for example, approach the feeling of a graphic novel through visual mimicry – but that is hardly commonplace).
During the Western artistic movements the 18th and 19th century’s texts and painting were about as far distant from each other as they ever have been on the dimension of representation and abstraction. By this I mean, and I just mean this generally to illustrate a point, most texts were about as abstract and elaborate – concerned with the senses and philosophy, etc. – as they ever had been, and most painting was as representational and specific as it ever had been (concerned with light and visual accuracy). So, theoretically, they were polarized, with painting at the pole of representation and writing and the pole of abstraction and meaning. Photography is even more representational than paintings during this era (like journalistic photography today), and film is basically photography in motion (with audio). This is all highly simplified of course, and there’s all sorts of examples that blur the lines, but this is a post and an illustration of my stance, not a book on critical theory.
Where am I going with this? … comics are texts alongside illustrations. As a medium they fall somewhere between pure texts and film on the aforementioned dimension. They, for example, convey time with successive illustration panes, motion with blurs, emotion with abstract line forms (think squiggles over an angry characters head), etc, with pictures and text working in conjunction to convey meaning. Like pure texts, the viewer can stop, or go back in the story, whereas in a movie theater the direction of time in a film is strictly fixed. Like film, the visuals can convey meaning alone, whereas texts must rely wholly on the meaning and succession of words.
In different mediums experience is conveyed using different sets of principles, with unique advantages and limitations, and the experience of a narrative is of course conveyed by employing these different principles artistically. To try to employ the principles of storytelling belonging largely to one medium in another medium is almost necessarily to flirt with incoherence, or be outright insensible. The more one tries to be faithful to the story of a comic in a film the more they are going to stumble into this problem of translation between storytelling principles. So that’s the understanding I was working with when I made that last post, and this is all to ignore the fact that most films need to be about two hours long, whereas finishing a series of comics read in succession might take tens of hours or more (so there’s the issue of compression to deal with as well).
I’m not saying totally ignore the book or comic or whatever in your adaptation, just to be aware of the strengths and limitations of the medium you work in and adjust how the story is told accordingly (which can mean leaving big things out or altering a character's back story). I’m certainly not saying just keep the title for marketing purposes and tell a totally different story (that would be silly) If what I’ve read about the comics in this thread is right The Avengers elected to largely stick with the storyline and characterization from previous Marvel movies, which themselves presumably deviated to varying degree from their source material. It stayed wholly within its own medium – thereby largely sidestepping the whole issue of translation.
One of the most interesting comics I've read (and I haven't read many), is a comic about the artistic theory of comics, and it goes much more in depth regarding some of what I'm talking about as it regards comics specifically (NSFW'd for space)
I have the exact same opinion about book renditions of movies, or comic book renditions of video games, whatever. I certainly have nothing against reading (my gf is a book blogger and I read quite a bit), nor do I think reading is dorky. What’s dorky is people who immerse themselves in a fantasy so much its spills over into their better judgment. What’s dorky is investing one’s identity in a story so much that an alternate telling of the story is taken as a personal insult. I, for instance, think Star Trek the Next Generation was a pretty good show, but I’m never going to have a Klingon wedding. I’m never going to play World of Warcraft until I’m penniless and destitute, or rave about the continuity of a cartoon.
How is demanding that a screenwriter and director stick adamantly to the narrative and characterization found in a comic book within a movie a matter of questionable judgment? It’s because different media very clearly communicate experience using distinct principles of storytelling, and the experience of each absolutely cannot transfer into another medium faithfully (granted, certain films like Sin City, for example, approach the feeling of a graphic novel through visual mimicry – but that is hardly commonplace).
During the Western artistic movements the 18th and 19th century’s texts and painting were about as far distant from each other as they ever have been on the dimension of representation and abstraction. By this I mean, and I just mean this generally to illustrate a point, most texts were about as abstract and elaborate – concerned with the senses and philosophy, etc. – as they ever had been, and most painting was as representational and specific as it ever had been (concerned with light and visual accuracy). So, theoretically, they were polarized, with painting at the pole of representation and writing and the pole of abstraction and meaning. Photography is even more representational than paintings during this era (like journalistic photography today), and film is basically photography in motion (with audio). This is all highly simplified of course, and there’s all sorts of examples that blur the lines, but this is a post and an illustration of my stance, not a book on critical theory.
Where am I going with this? … comics are texts alongside illustrations. As a medium they fall somewhere between pure texts and film on the aforementioned dimension. They, for example, convey time with successive illustration panes, motion with blurs, emotion with abstract line forms (think squiggles over an angry characters head), etc, with pictures and text working in conjunction to convey meaning. Like pure texts, the viewer can stop, or go back in the story, whereas in a movie theater the direction of time in a film is strictly fixed. Like film, the visuals can convey meaning alone, whereas texts must rely wholly on the meaning and succession of words.
In different mediums experience is conveyed using different sets of principles, with unique advantages and limitations, and the experience of a narrative is of course conveyed by employing these different principles artistically. To try to employ the principles of storytelling belonging largely to one medium in another medium is almost necessarily to flirt with incoherence, or be outright insensible. The more one tries to be faithful to the story of a comic in a film the more they are going to stumble into this problem of translation between storytelling principles. So that’s the understanding I was working with when I made that last post, and this is all to ignore the fact that most films need to be about two hours long, whereas finishing a series of comics read in succession might take tens of hours or more (so there’s the issue of compression to deal with as well).
I’m not saying totally ignore the book or comic or whatever in your adaptation, just to be aware of the strengths and limitations of the medium you work in and adjust how the story is told accordingly (which can mean leaving big things out or altering a character's back story). I’m certainly not saying just keep the title for marketing purposes and tell a totally different story (that would be silly) If what I’ve read about the comics in this thread is right The Avengers elected to largely stick with the storyline and characterization from previous Marvel movies, which themselves presumably deviated to varying degree from their source material. It stayed wholly within its own medium – thereby largely sidestepping the whole issue of translation.
One of the most interesting comics I've read (and I haven't read many), is a comic about the artistic theory of comics, and it goes much more in depth regarding some of what I'm talking about as it regards comics specifically (NSFW'd for space)
NSFW:
hydroazuanacaine
bluelighter
- Joined
- May 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,497
hey! i've read that book behind the nsfw tag! ENG 152. good stuff.
panic in paradise
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 3, 2000
- Messages
- 18,867
I got a hold of some Adderall, so this got a bit long, but I think it all goes towards addressing what you find troubling about what I’ve said rather than being a typical stimulant-fed off the rails rant (don’t feel bad for me writing this all because you were meaning your post to be taken lightly – I consider this fun).
I have the exact same opinion about book renditions of movies, or comic book renditions of video games, whatever. I certainly have nothing against reading (my gf is a book blogger and I read quite a bit), nor do I think reading is dorky. What’s dorky is people who immerse themselves in a fantasy so much its spills over into their better judgment. What’s dorky is investing one’s identity in a story so much that an alternate telling of the story is taken as a personal insult. I, for instance, think Star Trek the Next Generation was a pretty good show, but I’m never going to have a Klingon wedding. I’m never going to play World of Warcraft until I’m penniless and destitute, or rave about the continuity of a cartoon.
How is demanding that a screenwriter and director stick adamantly to the narrative and characterization found in a comic book within a movie a matter of questionable judgment? It’s because different media very clearly communicate experience using distinct principles of storytelling, and the experience of each absolutely cannot transfer into another medium faithfully (granted, certain films like Sin City, for example, approach the feeling of a graphic novel through visual mimicry – but that is hardly commonplace).
During the Western artistic movements the 18th and 19th century’s texts and painting were about as far distant from each other as they ever have been on the dimension of representation and abstraction. By this I mean, and I just mean this generally to illustrate a point, most texts were about as abstract and elaborate – concerned with the senses and philosophy, etc. – as they ever had been, and most painting was as representational and specific as it ever had been (concerned with light and visual accuracy). So, theoretically, they were polarized, with painting at the pole of representation and writing and the pole of abstraction and meaning. Photography is even more representational than paintings during this era (like journalistic photography today), and film is basically photography in motion (with audio). This is all highly simplified of course, and there’s all sorts of examples that blur the lines, but this is a post and an illustration of my stance, not a book on critical theory.
Where am I going with this? … comics are texts alongside illustrations. As a medium they fall somewhere between pure texts and film on the aforementioned dimension. They, for example, convey time with successive illustration panes, motion with blurs, emotion with abstract line forms (think squiggles over an angry characters head), etc, with pictures and text working in conjunction to convey meaning. Like pure texts, the viewer can stop, or go back in the story, whereas in a movie theater the direction of time in a film is strictly fixed. Like film, the visuals can convey meaning alone, whereas texts must rely wholly on the meaning and succession of words.
In different mediums experience is conveyed using different sets of principles, with unique advantages and limitations, and the experience of a narrative is of course conveyed by employing these different principles artistically. To try to employ the principles of storytelling belonging largely to one medium in another medium is almost necessarily to flirt with incoherence, or be outright insensible. The more one tries to be faithful to the story of a comic in a film the more they are going to stumble into this problem of translation between storytelling principles. So that’s the understanding I was working with when I made that last post, and this is all to ignore the fact that most films need to be about two hours long, whereas finishing a series of comics read in succession might take tens of hours or more (so there’s the issue of compression to deal with as well).
I’m not saying totally ignore the book or comic or whatever in your adaptation, just to be aware of the strengths and limitations of the medium you work in and adjust how the story is told accordingly (which can mean leaving big things out or altering a character's back story). I’m certainly not saying just keep the title for marketing purposes and tell a totally different story (that would be silly) If what I’ve read about the comics in this thread is right The Avengers elected to largely stick with the storyline and characterization from previous Marvel movies, which themselves presumably deviated to varying degree from their source material. It stayed wholly within its own medium – thereby largely sidestepping the whole issue of translation.
One of the most interesting comics I've read (and I haven't read many), is a comic about the artistic theory of comics, and it goes much more in depth regarding some of what I'm talking about as it regards comics specifically (NSFW'd for space)
NSFW:
one of the most interesting and absurd posts, ever.
Yeah, I re-read it recently because I remembered how it used the very same comic book storytelling principles it had just covered to illustrate the next point it was trying to make. It's a very cool, very accessible, and entertaining book, but it also delves into (still developing) "comics theory" pretty deeply at the same time. It's hard to imagine anyone interested in comics regretting the buy (I'm sure it can be found at many libraries, too).
Heh, amphetamines and posting make for interesting bedfellows. It seemed like this Avengers thread was spinning off in all sorts of directions -- probably because I was doing a lot of the spinning. Whatever. I get bored talking about the usual on topic stuff. Hopefully some of it gives the discussion more context.
Last edited:
Rated E
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2006
- Messages
- 9,263
I saw this a few weeks ago at the Imax in Times Square, on my second day in New York. It made the location of the film that much more interesting.
Before seeing the film I was a bit worried about the change from Norton to Ruffalo. It didn't end up being much of a problem, Ruffalo was a pretty likeable presence. Not to mention the CGI of this Hulk was waayy awesome, and the fact that they referenced the giant-pants-naked-shrunken-small-dude dilemna with a joke makes up for almost everything. The only thing I would comment on is that Norton's portrayal seemed more troubled.
I loved the bit where Capt America tipped Fury. In fact, I thought the film really got the one-liners / comedic respites just right. There was a good amount of one-liners, and most of them were genuinely funny. Coupled with some clear, impressive fight scenes (think: the opposite of Transformers 3) and Scarlett Johansson in leather. What's not to like?
Before seeing the film I was a bit worried about the change from Norton to Ruffalo. It didn't end up being much of a problem, Ruffalo was a pretty likeable presence. Not to mention the CGI of this Hulk was waayy awesome, and the fact that they referenced the giant-pants-naked-shrunken-small-dude dilemna with a joke makes up for almost everything. The only thing I would comment on is that Norton's portrayal seemed more troubled.
I loved the bit where Capt America tipped Fury. In fact, I thought the film really got the one-liners / comedic respites just right. There was a good amount of one-liners, and most of them were genuinely funny. Coupled with some clear, impressive fight scenes (think: the opposite of Transformers 3) and Scarlett Johansson in leather. What's not to like?
marissaaaaaa
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 9,416
you guys are missing my point.
my main issue with the film is it's approach towards women characters and narratives. because the avengers was a leading comic that took women characters and were as attentive to their character arcs, powers, and stories as they were with the men. other comics rarely do that. so, in a film adaptation; there are MANY strong, complex, developed female characters to choose from. they instead chose the least developed and complex, and one of the most blatantly sexualized characters. because they were lazy and scared to take a risk and have a STRONG, COMPLEX, female character, that would probably require her own intro-movie like thor, captain america, and iron man. they didn't want to do that because in the past female hero movies didn't do well at the box office. the reason WHY (catwoman, and electra) was because those movies were bullshit excuses to have the hottest chick of the day run around in leather. if they actually took the time and effort to make a powerful woman superhero in film, WHICH THE AVENGERS WAS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO, it would run well at the box office.
but they didn't do that.
they chose one of the least complex and most sexually satisfying character, and stuck the hottest actress of the moment in a leather outfit.
like they always do.
i'm having a feminist moment, that is fueled by comic nerdness. because as a child, i loved comics. and when i discovered how many strong and developed women heroes there were in the avengers, that was my favorite.
so to see a movie adaptation that leaves that out, feels to ME, as if they're leaving out a very important characteristic as the avengers as a whole. and i don't need to see a misogynistic hollywood version of the avengers.
my main issue with the film is it's approach towards women characters and narratives. because the avengers was a leading comic that took women characters and were as attentive to their character arcs, powers, and stories as they were with the men. other comics rarely do that. so, in a film adaptation; there are MANY strong, complex, developed female characters to choose from. they instead chose the least developed and complex, and one of the most blatantly sexualized characters. because they were lazy and scared to take a risk and have a STRONG, COMPLEX, female character, that would probably require her own intro-movie like thor, captain america, and iron man. they didn't want to do that because in the past female hero movies didn't do well at the box office. the reason WHY (catwoman, and electra) was because those movies were bullshit excuses to have the hottest chick of the day run around in leather. if they actually took the time and effort to make a powerful woman superhero in film, WHICH THE AVENGERS WAS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO, it would run well at the box office.
but they didn't do that.
they chose one of the least complex and most sexually satisfying character, and stuck the hottest actress of the moment in a leather outfit.
like they always do.
i'm having a feminist moment, that is fueled by comic nerdness. because as a child, i loved comics. and when i discovered how many strong and developed women heroes there were in the avengers, that was my favorite.
so to see a movie adaptation that leaves that out, feels to ME, as if they're leaving out a very important characteristic as the avengers as a whole. and i don't need to see a misogynistic hollywood version of the avengers.
Last edited:
marissaaaaaa
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 9,416
and you can't even tell me that no body wants to see a heroine and it doesn't do well in popular culture or whatever.
HUNGER GAMES HELLO.
think of how great the avengers could have been with a really strong and interesting female lead.
heaps better.
was it good on it's own with a male oriented cast? probably tolerable. but it's upsetting that they ruined one of the only chances they had to introduce a really big blockbuster female superhero.
HUNGER GAMES HELLO.
think of how great the avengers could have been with a really strong and interesting female lead.
heaps better.
was it good on it's own with a male oriented cast? probably tolerable. but it's upsetting that they ruined one of the only chances they had to introduce a really big blockbuster female superhero.
Well, I think you might understand how we missed your point here ^ when what we were responding to was this here:
I can see how your post before this one ^ stayed on your point, but not so much how that point clearly carried over to the above.