null

Show Entries

The Avengers
Entered on: May 6, 2012 4:13 PM by Jackzilla
Best Comic Book Movie Ever.  
 
Anyone want to argue against that?

NEWS 687 - 20 Comments
From: BigFatty Entered on: May 7, 2012 3:20 PM

Nope.  Fatty likes.  Saw it in 3D in all it's sweetness.  I just might see it again.  Best movie ever.....  Hmmmmmm.  Maybe.  I would have to rewatch The Dark Knight.  But it certainly would be a chicken con-tender.

 


 
From: Ross Entered on: May 7, 2012 4:56 PM

I don't think I can argue against it.  It's certainly the most entertaining comic book movie in my opinion.  Arguments for "best" might be made for the Dark Knight, but honestly when you compare/contrast the two, The Avengers showcases what I've been complaining about in Nolan's Batman movies, which is really the lack of comic-bookiness.  Whedon hit the perfect tone of fun without going to campiness.  I am still basking in the glow of its sweetness. 

I took Logan on Friday during his normal naptime so unfortunately for him, he fell asleep during the climactic battle.  But fortunately for both of us, that gave me an excuse to see it again, so we went on Sunday morning.  When the Hulk showed up and opened that giant drum of whoopass, he kept shouting "This is AWESOME!" which to me is as great as anything in the movie itself.  When we got home and pulled into the garage he proclaimed "I am so impressed!" and I'm not even sure he knows what that means.

So yes, I loved it as much as I hoped I might, and I already had unrealistic expectations.  I can't wait to take Heather!


 
From: Jackzilla Entered on: May 9, 2012 1:16 AM

I agree regarding Dark Knight.  As much as I love Nolan's Batmans it takes quite a few liberties in doing Batman, whereas The Avengers is so much like watching a comic!  I've watched it twice at the movies already (a rare enough thing) and I'd like to see it AGAIN.  It's better than my wildest hopes.  Swerb mentioned a possible Nerdfest viewing when we're in Naperville...


 
From: Ross Entered on: May 9, 2012 8:41 AM

I'm down!


 
From: Ross Entered on: May 9, 2012 9:02 AM

Harry from Aint It Cool News says it right:

Watching the latest DARK KNIGHT RISES trailer after having seen THE AVENGERS…  it makes DARK KNIGHT RISES almost seem like a serious parody of the superhero film’s potential.   Angsty, over-wrought and a profound lack of color.   You couldn’t have two more different Comic Book franchises than Christopher Nolan’s Batman films and this Joss Whedon explosion of pure comic joy!


 
From: Ross Entered on: May 9, 2012 11:16 AM

I would also like to add that I haven't had so many goosebumps watching anything in many, many years.  Hulk's "I'm always angry" transformation and Loki beatdown will probably always be among of my greatest memories of amazement when watching a movie. 


 
From: BigFatty Entered on: May 9, 2012 5:15 PM

One point to bring up.  The Dark Knight is based on the graphic novel, a much different genre than a comic book series.  The Dark Knight novel is in stark contrast to the traditional comic book, and these movies mirror that.  I loved the Dark Knight because it showed what a comic movie could be, a dark and serious drama.  Avengers really embodies what comic books are - exciting, fun, and enjoyable.  I really liked Avengers.  I lol many times.  Loki's rag doll beat down was one of my favorite moments too.  That and Hulk cold cocking Thor.  I am not going to pick a favorite.  They are too different.  Avengers was certainly more fun and enjoyable.


 
From: Jackzilla Entered on: May 10, 2012 12:33 AM

Fatty, I call bullshit on your reasoning.

Graphic novel vs. comic book is mearly different mediums.  The contents are the same.  When you take the individual comics and throw 'em together as a graphic novel now it's different?

And are you suggesting The Dark Knight movie is based on Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns?  Have you read Miller's graphic novel?

I shouldn't pick on you Fatty.  From what I hear all you have to read for comics in Hungary is Tin Tin:

  tintin

 

I agree that the Hulk/Thor and Hulk/Loki moments are the funniest in the movie.  Both times I almost choked on my popcorn.


 
From: Ross Entered on: May 10, 2012 2:08 PM

Yeah someone in my office tried this comic book/graphic novel distinction on me the other day too.  I've come to the conclusion that only people who don't read either one really makes a distinction. 

And not sure which graphic novel Fatty is referring to, either. 

To get (probably a little too) nerdy here, while I think it's true that Batman in particular, being darker/grittier and not having super powers, lends itself to more realistic stories, I think Nolan has gone too far in this direction.  Granted, there is some comic-based precedent for this kind of Batman story, chief among them Batman: Year One but also The Long Halloween, which Nolan definitely drew from. 

Now I'm perfectly willing to say that it's just me, but I think many comics fans will agree, especially after seeing The Avengers: Nolan's films lack some essential ingredient that makes superheroes fun or popular in the first place.  He dials the realism up so high that we're left with a character that is like the real-world cousin of the superhero known as Batman.  And that's fine, many people prefer that, it's obviously a hugely popular film sreies.  But I think the Avengers shows us what a real comic book movie can be, where the characters onscreen are nearly indistinguishable from the ones you read in the comics.  They look and act the same.  Halfway into the Avengers I noticed that I'd stopped mentally comparing Whedon's versions of these characters to the ones in head because they were the same. 

Also, I'm a bit worried that Avengers has spoiled me for other comic book movies.  After having so many characters in the same movie, and done well, focusing on just one seems paltry by comparison now.

Anyway, to each his own, I suppose.  But I think Whedon's response to Nolan is pitch-perfect!  I'm going to take Logan again Saturday morning!


 
From: BigFatty Entered on: May 10, 2012 2:12 PM

Call bullshit all you want.  There is no clear definition of what a graphic novel is.  But, yes, I am referring to Miller's work.  And I think you are a moron if you can't see the difference between a stand alone story ie The Dark Knight, 300, etc and a monthly episodic story.  They are presented and approached in different ways.  Sure, you can bundle up a collection of comic episodes that make a complete story and call it a graphic novel.  But, I think it is completely different to set out to tell a single story, in a single book.  IMO, the true 'novel' allows you greater space to develop a story where the reader doesn't need to wait a month to get the next installment.  And yes I am aware you can have episodic graphic novels.  I don't think that weakens the case.  Each one is an individual story.  Just like you can have a collection of novels.  If you get down to the nitty gritty of a graphic novel, it is the development of a complete story, at once.

 


 
From: BigFatty Entered on: May 10, 2012 2:19 PM

And I just read Ross' post, and completely follow and agree.  I can see Nolan's Batman being too real and gritty, and taking the fun out of the hero.  Most comics were cool, fun, and funny.  Avengers certainly captured that.  The Dark Knight was missing the fun and funny.


 
From: Jackzilla Entered on: May 10, 2012 11:07 PM
BigFatty said:

Call bullshit all you want.  There is no clear definition of what a graphic novel is.  But, yes, I am referring to Miller's work.  And I think you are a moron if you can't see the difference between a stand alone story ie The Dark Knight, 300, etc and a monthly episodic story.

 

Well if I'm a moron then at least I'm in good company:

"It's a marketing term... that I never had any sympathy with. The term 'comic' does just as well for me... The problem is that 'graphic novel' just came to mean 'expensive comic book' and so what you'd get is people like DC Comics or Marvel Comics—because 'graphic novels' were getting some attention, they'd stick six issues of whatever worthless piece of crap they happened to be publishing lately under a glossy cover and call it The She-Hulk Graphic Novel...."  - Alan Moore


 
From: Ross Entered on: May 11, 2012 10:04 AM
BigFatty said:

Call bullshit all you want.  There is no clear definition of what a graphic novel is.  But, yes, I am referring to Miller's work.  And I think you are a moron if you can't see the difference between a stand alone story ie The Dark Knight, 300, etc and a monthly episodic story.  They are presented and approached in different ways.  Sure, you can bundle up a collection of comic episodes that make a complete story and call it a graphic novel.  But, I think it is completely different to set out to tell a single story, in a single book.  IMO, the true 'novel' allows you greater space to develop a story where the reader doesn't need to wait a month to get the next installment.  And yes I am aware you can have episodic graphic novels.  I don't think that weakens the case.  Each one is an individual story.  Just like you can have a collection of novels.  If you get down to the nitty gritty of a graphic novel, it is the development of a complete story, at once.

 

Okay: bullshit. :)

Story arcs happen all the time in comics and are reprinted in trades, which are de-facto graphic novels.  There is zero difference.


 
From: Jackzilla Entered on: May 11, 2012 10:47 AM

Fatty!  It looks like us morons are outnumbering you!

 

hh


 
From: Ross Entered on: May 11, 2012 2:39 PM

Something I just posted on Serba's blog about best superhero movies of all time:

 

This has gotten me thinking about the distinction between comic book movies and superhero movies. You really have 3 types:

Category 1: Comic Book movies (no superheroes). Examples: Sin City, 300, Scott Pilgrim

Category 2: Superhero Movies (not from comics). Examples: The Incredibles, Unbreakable, Chronicle

Category 3: Comic Book Superhero movies, which is your Superman/Spider-Man/Batman/Avengers type stuff.

I think Serba means to rank Category 3 movies in this post, but my trouble is that I almost view Nolan's Batman films as Category 2 films rather than 3. I know it's not, but they're so divorced from a comic movie in tone in my mind that I almost feel like it's not a fair comparison.

 


 
From: Creeko Entered on: May 15, 2012 7:51 AM

What would American Splendor be categorized as?


 
From: Jackzilla Entered on: May 16, 2012 7:33 AM

American Splendor?  Category 1 according to the Bert Chart:  Comic book movie (no superheroes).  Others?  Ghost World, Road To Perdition, From Hell, 30 Days of Night. 


 
From: Jackzilla Entered on: May 16, 2012 7:34 AM

Is Fatty done with this topic?  I have more Tin Tin pics I'd like to post.


 
From: BigFatty Entered on: May 18, 2012 2:18 PM

Is Tin Tin a cat 1 or cat 3 ?  I think I need a diagram.  Does sweet hair count as a superpower? 

 

When do we get a Tin Tin / Ross Photoshop?

 

BTW... Ross, u are looking extremely sweet in recent pics.  This must be your sweetest build of all time.


 
From: Ross Entered on: May 18, 2012 4:57 PM

Thanks Fats.  I am probably in the best shape of my life, though the past week of eating gluttonously has set me back a bit.  


 

[Log In to Add Comment]


a division of

© 2003 Ross Johnson
RSS Feed