It's hard to see how The Avengers could be better than Lord of the Rings, Raiders or Spider-Man 2
Maybe because they are all great in their own way. Although, I don't know what Spiderman 2 is doing in that list, since it's leagues behind what the others represent. Where Avengers, LotR, and Raiders were paradigm-shifting and genre defining movies, Spiderman 2 (great as it was) was very much NOT.
I think even among the hype most of it was that it was very contemporary & modern and modern is presumed to be better than older films and styles.
Hype doesn't factor into this and neither does the presumption that 'modern' equals 'better', something
most modern movies disprove all by themselves.
What makes these movies great is that they excell in creating characters and telling a story in a way that raises the bar for everything that comes after by staying completely true to themselves, without
needing to resort to having fan-pandering or marketing strategies dictate the narrative. And every time they
do throw in such elements, it's all icing on the cake.
Where the LotR trilogy fits this principle in its entirety, simply for being one huge project, hardly any
sequel will (as the Hobbit trilogy proved). And where Avengers wasn't a sequel so much as an unprecedented convergence and culmination of
different stories,
its sequel, almost by definition, doesn't live up its predecessor's masterpiece status. It, like Spiderman 2, was just another sequel.
I thought AoU didn't have more depth, most of the characters' doubts and dilemmas and choices and the themes felt very underdeveloped and rushed.
If not the movie itself, the characters in it
did have more depth. I agree the movie would have worked better with a longer running time, giving every arc a bit more room to breathe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkcvHaiG_MFabricati Diem, Pvnc !
RIP Terry Pratchett
reply
share
AndrewGS
8 years ago
It's hard to see how The Avengers could be better than Lord of the Rings, Raiders or Spider-Man 2
Maybe because they are all great in their own way. Although, I don't know what Spiderman 2 is doing in that list, since it's leagues behind what the others represent. Where Avengers, LotR, and Raiders were paradigm-shifting and genre defining movies, Spiderman 2 (great as it was) was very much NOT.
I thought in
Spider-Man 2 the action and effects surpassed what had been done before in comic book films and it also conveyed well the episodic nature of a lot of the comic books (while still working as a film story), how Peter was torn between different goals and commitments, how Spider-Man was generally unappreciated and the intensity and irony of Jameson's hate of Spider-Man.
What makes these movies great is that they excell in creating characters and telling a story in a way that raises the bar for everything that comes after by staying completely true to themselves, without needing to resort to having fan-pandering or marketing strategies dictate the narrative.
If not the movie itself, the characters in it did have more depth.
I didn't have much of a problem with the characters in the first film other than that the Hulk was contrived and Thor was initially a little too stubborn. But in the sequel you have Tony and Bruce deciding to create a world-changing system in a day if not a few minutes (and Tony later decides that despite the disastrous consequences it was still a good, necessary idea but then decides to quit), Captain America pondering whether he really likes fighting for its own sake (which seems like a silly strawman and he does then get over the question very suddenly), the twins bearing a big grudge against the team for a questionable reason and endangering a lot of innocent people but then being accepted as heroes and Thor deciding that in spite of/because of Ultron the team needs a bigger weapon and for some reason his innovation is benevolent and works.
reply
share