Thoughts on the big (inevitable) Avengers plot twist...

There is really only one genuine plot twist in The Avengers.  Sure there are visual moments that will shock or delight, clever lines of dialogue that one wouldn't want ruined, and/or certain narrative choices that merit discussion.  But there was only one truly 'shocking' moment in the 140-minute picture.  And now I'm going to discuss it.  Right after this first paragraph, so you've got plenty of warning, folks.  If you haven't seen it yet and don't want to know, don't read any further.  I'm giving you plenty of space between the start of this post and the actual discussion of the matter at hand.  SPOILER WARNING staring in  5...4...3...2...1...

Review: So close yet so far, Joss Whedon's The Avengers (2012) is an often soaring but occasionally frustrating B-movie with several A+ ingredients.

The Avengers

2012
142 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

In a film like The Avengers, which brings together strands of several prior pictures into a mostly cohesive whole, it is arguably inevitable that individual pieces will end up working better than the sum of its parts. That the film works at all is almost a miracle, and it's so purely entertaining and contains so much that works like gangbusters that it's tempting to ignore what doesn't work and merely salute the enterprise. It is a relentlessly engaging and confident motion picture, boasting a cast that in a more respected genre would make it an Oscar-bait film. But the film comes so close to out-and-out greatness that it's almost disheartening to point out the core issues at fault, both because it feels petty and because it's almost a genre masterpiece. Still, there is much to like and quite a bit to love about Joss Whedon's The Avengers. On a pure popcorn spectacle scale I can't imagine anyone feeling that they didn't get their money's worth. As a piece of art however, it's a trickier proposition.

5 comic adaptations that bucked the mold, and still failed.

Actor Tom Hiddleston wrote an eloquent essay yesterday for The Guardian basically praising and defending the sub-genre known as the superhero picture.  Plenty of disdain for the genre comes from the very notion that it's big-budget entertainment based on literature that was technically intended for children that gobbles up production dollars and screen space that otherwise might be allotted for more explicitly grown-up fare.  But at least some of the alleged weariness of this specific type of film (the superhero comic book adaptation) comes from a feeling that all-too many of them are basically telling the same story.  You've generally got the standard origin story which (let's be honest) basically takes Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie and pours it into a different color bottle (I say that as a big fan of Spider-Man and Captain America).  Then you have the sequels, which are quite often merely a case of escalation and/or the hero dealing with self-doubt often while in combat with a 'bigger/badder' version of himself (again, thank you Superman II) or a multiple villains who represent that which he might become if corrupted (Batman Returns).  But over the last twenty years or so, there have been a handful of high-profile comic book films that have attempted to play around with the formula but have artistically failed anyway.  As a rebuttal to the idea that 'all superhero movies are the same' as well as a reaffirmation of the idea that 'it's not what it's about, but how it's about it', let's take a look at five comic book adaptations that didn't play it safe, but didn't come out on top either.

The Avengers gets a hilariously bad new poster, but provides marketing insights...

First and foremost, the photo-shopping on this poster is pretty terrible.  The proportions are off, Downey Jr's head is affixed on his body as poorly as the various male leads in that infamous Takers poster 2.5 years ago, and no one seems to be in the same scene (here's a great look at the various light-source issues).  And, just to annoy me, they went out of their way to make sure the lone female of the group is much shorter than anyone else in the poster.  Anyway, this one-sheet again sells the notion that the entire climactic battle scene (which seems to represent most of the film's action judging by the marketing thus far) takes place on a single street in downtown New York City.  More importantly, while director Joss Whedon has confirmed that the story will be somewhat Steve Rogers-centric, the marketing is (wisely or by decree) focusing on Tony Stark.  Not only is Robert Downey Jr. front-and-center on the poster, not only does he get top billing on the cast roll-call, but he actually gets his name BEFORE the title.  Anyway, Marvel/Disney is dropping a new trailer tomorrow.  I'm not sure why they aren't waiting nine days and attaching said trailer to prints of John Carter. That film will need what little help an Avengers trailer can provide on opening weekend.  But no matter, what are your thoughts on this particular piece of marketing?  Oh, and what are your thoughts on the news that the film will be titled The Avengers Assembled in the UK to avoid 'confusion' with The Avengers television series from the 1960s (edit - yeah, probably the infamous 1998 Avengers movie too)?

Scott Mendelson