Starlord didn’t open the present because his mother told him to open it “After she was gone”. As he rejected her pleas on her deathbed and missed his chance to say goodbye, the gift was painful to him. Opening it would mean admitting she was gone and admitting that his selfishness as a child took away his only chance to say goodbye.Finally, something I had a big problem with involves sort of a spoiler. In the movie, Starload is carrying something on his ship that he received when he was a kid, something very special to him. So, how in the heck does he not open it for 26 years? Wouldn't he want to know what was inside because of the importance it has to him?
...
Starlord didn’t open the present because his mother told him to open it “After she was gone”. As he rejected her pleas on her deathbed and missed his chance to say goodbye, the gift was painful to him. Opening it would mean admitting she was gone and admitting that his selfishness as a child took away his only chance to say goodbye.
I thought it was touching that he kept it unopened for so long and only opened it after he had moved on from his mistake and found his “new family”.
Today of all days I have to disagree with that. As we learned last night with Robin Williams. Those who do the most "yucking it up" are often hiding the most pain. I thought Pratt and Downey both did a really good job of laying on the sarcasm while keeping those expressions so you know there is more going on inside. This wasn't Adam Sandler saves the universe. I think they both showed pain with the humor. Its subtle, but I think they both pull it off well.That does make sense when you look at it. I guess my problem is Peter, in his later years didn't come across as someone who was troubled. He spent the whole movie cracking one-liners and acting (as my girl friend put it) Tony Stark Lite. Because of this I never got a sense of his dramatic past, at least one that would cause him to put off for 26 years, opening the last present his mother ever gave him. Maybe if there was a scene where he was starring at the box, touching it, thinking about opening it, then putting it away I would have gotten that feeling more. But the problem is the box only makes two appearances in the film, and both where for .15 seconds.
It's not the fault of the script, it just suffers, to me from the same thing Iron Man 3 did. If Tony Stark is yucking it up with kid sidekicks, you can't take him serious.
To make this a little topical, Robin Williams was a comedian but just committed suicide following years battling depression.That does make sense when you look at it. I guess my problem is Peter, in his later years didn't come across as someone who was troubled. He spent the whole movie cracking one-liners and acting (as my girl friend put it) Tony Stark Lite. Because of this I never got a sense of his dramatic past, at least one that would cause him to put off for 26 years, opening the last present his mother ever gave him. Maybe if there was a scene where he was starring at the box, touching it, thinking about opening it, then putting it away I would have gotten that feeling more. But the problem is the box only makes two appearances in the film, and both where for .15 seconds.
It's not the fault of the script, it just suffers, to me from the same thing Iron Man 3 did. If Tony Stark is yucking it up with kid sidekicks, you can't take him serious.
Today of all days I have to disagree with that. As we learned last night with Robin Williams. Those who do the most "yucking it up" are often hiding the most pain. I thought Pratt and Downey both did a really good job of laying on the sarcasm while keeping those expressions so you know there is more going on inside. This wasn't Adam Sandler saves the universe. I think they both showed pain with the humor. Its subtle, but I think they both pull it off well.
Guess it’s just a matter of style preference. In my own life experience, all of the troubled souls I have encountered have far more in common with RDJ’s stark or Pratt’s starlord than the dark brooding types like Bales Batman or Norton’s Hulk. And traumatic and dramatic experiences tend to happen with more uncomfortable sarcasm like I’m living a Whedon script, than with the rumblings and grumblings of melodrama.True, Pratt's acting was nowhere near something like Adam Sandler (although Sandler was almost cast as Rocket). It was very clever of your to bring up Robin Williams. It is the perfect example to use on a day like today. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. As I said before, those dramatic bits in the movie felt like an afterthought to the comedy and action. That has been my problem with Marvel for a long time now, they don't know how to properly balance comedy and serious drama, except for two instances. One being Ed Norton's version of The Hulk (which they replaced with comedic gorilla Mark Ruffalo) and the other being Bucky/The Winter Solider. When you see him strapped to that operating table, being brain washed and watching him struggle internally with his feeling for Rogers throughout the entire film, now that I got a sense of pain and suffering.
But hey, it's all good. The best part about film is that it's subjective to different opinions
Guess it’s just a matter of style preference. In my own life experience, all of the troubled souls I have encountered have far more in common with RDJ’s stark or Pratt’s starlord than the dark brooding types like Bales Batman or Norton’s Hulk. And traumatic and dramatic experiences tend to happen with more uncomfortable sarcasm like I’m living a Whedon script, than with the rumblings and grumblings of melodrama.
I don’t think that makes either way untrue. It just means I identify with one more than the other as it is true to my experience. But a lot of people like to harp on the comedy as if its unrealistic, and I think that’s unfair. It’s all based on the personalities of those dealing with the conflict. The personalities in a the Avengers universe react to their circumstances in a way true to the characters that have been designed. I feel it’s how I would act in similar situations (you know…next time I have to save the galaxy or something) so I relate to it more and find it far more believable than the overly serious approach which I find a bit dull and one note.
But as I said. In the end, It’s just a preference of style more than a right and wrong.
I’ll keep going here, because…well I don’t feel like working today. I love debating this stuff (sad, I know), so dont' take my comments personally.I agree with everything you've said. There are different types of ways people deal with their issues, it's not one or the other. I know a lot of people on here think I am one of those people who dismiss comedy as being unrealistic. In reality, I'm not one of those people. I love comedies and I feel they it should have a presence in the MCU, I've never suggested Marvel should go the "Nolan route" because then it would be no different than something like Man of Steel.
What gets to me more than anything I think is Joss Weiden's writing style. I am not a fan. It just comes off too much like a T.V. sitcom. Everyone has to say something witty, so much so that your expecting the audience laugh track to go off in the background. Meanwhile the Chitauri villains get no back story and mean nothing when the heroes are "threatened". To me, when someone uses a lot of banter and wise-cracking, it's like they're trying to cover up for the lack of quality script writing. "Lets distract the audience from all the plot holes with our never-ending banter". If the writers spent more time developing the characters and villains, I feel that I could relate to them better. But when the villains are not presented as a threat, the heroes take nothing serious, and the tone is all over the place I can't get any emotion out of the film...
I guess in the end it's not something completely serious or comedic that I'm looking for. It to have more fleshed out characters. Ones that scratch deeper than just the top layer of their personalities.
It's not the fault of the script, it just suffers, to me from the same thing Iron Man 3 did. If Tony Stark is yucking it up with kid sidekicks, you can't take him serious.
Just watched The Amazing Spiderman last night...
And it's more of the 'serious' angle as NMBC1993 would want compared to Avengers and GotG. And while the film had memorable stuff (and lots of stuff you can tell were made with presentation in mind.. IMAX.. 3D). The film still had some comedy gags, but lacks the humor of IronMan or GotG.
I’ll keep going here, because…well I don’t feel like working today. I love debating this stuff (sad, I know), so dont' take my comments personally.
I disagree on Whedon. I think the character development is in the humor. In my experience, that is how real people talk. Their wit might be sharper and quicker than in real life, but in my experience that is real. People constantly trying to break tension or one up each other with wit. And that style allows the characters to retain personality within a genre which is very often without it. It takes them approachable and makes you feel like you are part of this group athat is about to save the world. And while it may not delve into obvious expository charcter development, I see more character development in the way Bruce Banner retorts to Tony stark than in any of the past Hulk movies combined. Again, its subtle, and it is just hints. But to me, that’s far more entertaining than being bludgeoned over the head with flashbacks to Banner’s past to explain why he is the way he is. We don’t need that, we are smart enough to get it from inferences and facial expressions. It’s there. It’s just not in your face.
I won’t argue with you on the Chitauri. They were glossed over. But, I see them as a plot device, not an enemy. The enemy in Avengers is Loki and SHIELD. The chitauri are the equivalent of the Death Star in Star Wars. They are a weapon being wielded by the villain. Would I have welcomed another 20 minutes of movie to get us insight into Thanos, The Other, and why the Chitauri were invading. Absolutely. But, it doesn’t ruin the movie for me as they are not the focus of the movie. The focus of the movie is how the Avengers interact and become a team. The conflict is secondary.
Just watched The Amazing Spiderman last night...
And it's more of the 'serious' angle as NMBC1993 would want compared to Avengers and GotG. And while the film had memorable stuff (and lots of stuff you can tell were made with presentation in mind.. IMAX.. 3D). The film still had some comedy gags, but lacks the humor of IronMan or GotG.
I really don't see GotG being 'worse' because it had that humor. I found GotG more entertaining, easier to watch, and frankly I felt better after watching it.
It also lacks coherence and focus. "We want this movie to be like the first Raimi one, but different! But also exactly the same! But different! But we still need a scene of average New Yawkers helping out Spidey!"
It also lacks coherence and focus. "We want this movie to be like the first Raimi one, but different! But also exactly the same! But different! But we still need a scene of average New Yawkers helping out Spidey!"
Lol, you too huh? I've got some work to do around here as well, but I love me some civilized discussion
Of course I don't take any of your comments personally, like I said everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's actually been nice to talk to you about all this. I'm starting to see things from the other side of the coin, does that mean I've changed my ways of thinking? No. But it's very interesting to see why people feel the way they do.
I find it amazing that you saw all this development in The Avengers through the wit and banter, to me it just went over my head as nothing more than attempts at comedy to make the audience laugh. I suppose I am the type of person who does want to be hit over the head with it. I wanted to see the Hulk present a threat to The Avengers, show why he's afraid of himself. But when Bruce is matching wits with Tony Stark, how can I know he's deeply troubled? Seems to me like he's having a great time. That's kind of what I mean. I didn't see 6 super heroes with different personality traits, I saw five super heroes trying to imitate Tony Stark. The only exception would be Steve Rogers towards the end of the film. He starting branching out into that leader role that we all know him for.
Also, I know this is my own fault and not of the movie, but I've never been able to get that chip off my shoulder involving the trailer for The Avengers. For a year and a half I was seeing advertisements and marketing for a gritty, dark, "In a World" type of movie. I never got that movie...instead what I got was a lighthearted action comedy.
I have to give Guardians of the Galaxy credit, although I personally didn't feel any depth for the characters, they at least tried to add some in there compared to The Avengers where there was none at all. It seems to me that DC and Marvel should start talking to each other more. DC's problem is they DO take things too seriously and do not know when to bring heart into their films (See Man of Steel). Marvel's problem is they put TOO MUCH heart into their films that it takes away from being anything more than "lighthearted fun".
There needs to be a balance. 50% comedy 50% drama/suspense (at least in my eyes). But hey, what do I know right? I'm just the grumpy old troll who hates fun
To me the glue to the new Spidey franchise is hands-down the chemistry of the leads. If they weren't sparkling with romantic magnetism I would probably be a whole lot harder on TAS. Heck, the scene of them on the rooftop - when he reveals to Gwen he is Spiderman - is one of my favorite movie scenes in recent history. But I do agree it doesn't have much else going for it, unlike GotG and the new Captain America.Just watched The Amazing Spiderman last night...
And it's more of the 'serious' angle as NMBC1993 would want compared to Avengers and GotG. And while the film had memorable stuff (and lots of stuff you can tell were made with presentation in mind.. IMAX.. 3D). The film still had some comedy gags, but lacks the humor of IronMan or GotG.
I really don't see GotG being 'worse' because it had that humor. I found GotG more entertaining, easier to watch, and frankly I felt better after watching it.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.