Should The Avengers Be at the Oscars?

[cikame]

All movies should be at the oscars, it's a fucking movie awards show.

 

[Daniel Park]

Bob, you're an incredibly articulate guy, and a joy to read and listen to. But you need to bone up on your grammar.

"it's" - contraction, meaning "it is"
"its" - possessive adjective, something that belongs to "it"

Because possessive nouns get apostrophes (Mary's car, my dog's collar), it's (it is) easy to assume that possessive adjectives (its, hers) get them as well. They don't.

 

[repeating integers]

Nah, the Oscar'll go to some faux-artsy thing nobody actually liked except the Oscar judges.

The other day, I saw the first bit of The Descendants. The most blatant bit of Oscar-bait I've ever seen. Couldn't manage more than about 30 minutes of it.

 

[conflictofinterests]

Loki's tricked Thor before with that whole clone thing. Yet, somehow he didn't think the Hulk was a big enough threat to use on him, even though he was counting on the Hulk to take down the entire superhero team. Plus he apparently decided to never get up and walk away at any point.

Hubris. Loki is ridiculously overconfident, and didn't realize that the Hulk gives not two fucks about letting you finish your monologue. And by the point he realized that he was WAY in over his head, he was a little busy picking his spine out of the concrete to find time to flee.

Everyone keeps pointing their guns at Bruce Banner, even after he just gets done telling them he put a gun in his mouth and the Hulk just spit the bullet out. That one really ground my gears.

What the fuck else are you going to do? Walk around like nothing's happening with something that can literally tear you limb-from-limb and may have the inclination to do so at any point? Its not that they think it'll do anything, it's that the gun is a source of comfort.

If Bruce Banner's always mad, why isn't he always the Hulk. (face it, they wanted to give him something cool to say, but it doesn't make any sense)

I do have a little problem with it myself, but I'll take a stab at it. He may be always angry, but he can restrain himself for the most part. You can seethe with rage and still keep it under check.

How come Fury didn't dispatch any of those soldiers he's got all over the carrier with some experimental weapons Agent Coulson had? Even if they just had the one weapon, those elite soldiers would probably have been at least as helpful as the girl with a pistol and the guy with a bow.

Because the weapons are experimental and they are on an airship. Now, replace experimental with "dangerous and highly unpredictable" and then there's hardly a reason to keep them on a flying anything, let alone pretty much the most technologically advanced piece of hardware in our possession.

 

[Shynobee]

Not gonna lie, I first read the title of this article as "Should The Avengers Beat the Oscars."

Yes. Yes they should beat the oscars, simply cuz no one else has yet.

 

[Link55]

They shoould be but only nominated because I think there's going to be better movies out this year like Prometheus or the The Amazing Spiderman.

 

[Tono Makt]

Sorry Bob, but maybe you need to lay off the viagra a bit? This hard-on you've got for the Avengers is now threatening to poke people's eyes out...

For starters, THIS.

Secondly, the Avengers wasn't that great of a movie. What we're looking with the Avengers is an experiment that didn't fail. It was slightly above average with enough great bits (and I do mean bits - the longest great bit was Hulk vs Loki.) Everything else was a quick quip or a dialogue free visual scene, like Hulk punching Thor.) that fans and critics alike are willing to overlook the inanity of the plot and the crappy overall combat in the third act. (Seriously, the biggest reason that the climatic battle is so well liked is that it's better than anything Michael Bay has done since... erm. Ever?) It's not in the same league as Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. It's barely in the same league as the first two Sam Raimi Spiderman movies. I would go so far as to say that it's not even as good of a movie as the first Iron Man or Captain America.

And given the other movies that are coming out this year and are likely be fighting for the Geek Entry into the Best Picture, The Hobbit and The Dark Knight Rises are more likely to be deserving of that honour. Even if the Avengers ends up making more money than either of those two movies.

 

[Yearlongjester]

It'd be nice, because honestly Avengers was much better than Avatar. Still it most likely won't, but I wonder what will be nominated instead. Dark Knight Rises will most likely get a token nomination, if only because of the outcry that The Dark Knight was snubbed.

It's annoying because we're reaching the point where we can make genre films like this that are actually intelligent and compelling and should get some attention for the hard work put in to make them. Whereas I hardly remember what won last year, I'll be remembering Avengers for awhile yet. But ultimately it's up to whoever decides which film gets what, not our personal favorites. If we don't like it, then actually boycott the Academy Awards.

 

[tehweave]

The Avengers should receive recognition.

It WON'T but it should.

 

[Gatx]

He wrote a similar article about the last Harry Potter film capping off a monumental achievement in film making too but we all saw how the Academy Awards showed their appreciation for that.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

I'm not really bothered if it does or not. The oscars don't matter to my opinions and seem kinda pretentious.

 

[Kinokohatake]

Oscar for what? Avengers was a solid film but I don't see why the internet has put it on a pedestal. It's nowhere near as good as The Dark Knight or Xmen First Class.

I am confused as to why people keep putting First Class up like it was great. Hell the movie wasn't even good. A montage of montages, and Fassbender was the only good part of it.

OT: No it won't win. Also the Oscars have a great stigma for the Best Picture being a picture no one has seen. The Oscars are a who cares of movies.

 

[Siberian Relic]

I really enjoyed 'The Avengers', but the fact is I didn't leave having experienced any sort of emotional impact, and that makes the difference. The first two Spider-Man films dealt heavily with responsibility and the cost and loss that entails. Batman Begins followed a wayward kid to becoming a proactive, self-made crime fighter who stabbed through the heart of a corrupt city, only to lose a loved one and willingly sacrifice his reputation in The Dark Knight to ensure that city continued to improve.

'The Avengers' was unquestionably high-yield entertainment, and more like it should be made. But I didn't find it inspirational.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

In the end Oscars just don't mean what they used to.

There was a time when almost everyone had seen the films that were nominated and people wanted to see the stars at the awards because they seemed so glamorous it was almost like the actors were from another world.

Now it's only the real film buffs that have seen all of the nominated films. The average person at random on the street likely knows very little about the nominated films. Thanks to scandals and the paparazzi catching stars at their worse the glamor is just gone.

The two things you seem to hear every year is about how the viewership is down for the Oscar awards and how the American box office is down because Hollywood just can't connect like they used to. Instead of working harder to win back that appeal they just live in the fantasy land of movies being the same force they were in the 1930's and 1940's. Because hey not adjusting for inflation makes those box office numbers sound impressive.

 

[370999]

Sorry Bob, but maybe you need to lay off the viagra a bit? This hard-on you've got for the Avengers is now threatening to poke people's eyes out...

For starters, THIS.

Secondly, the Avengers wasn't that great of a movie. What we're looking with the Avengers is an experiment that didn't fail. It was slightly above average with enough great bits (and I do mean bits - the longest great bit was Hulk vs Loki.) Everything else was a quick quip or a dialogue free visual scene, like Hulk punching Thor.) that fans and critics alike are willing to overlook the inanity of the plot and the crappy overall combat in the third act. (Seriously, the biggest reason that the climatic battle is so well liked is that it's better than anything Michael Bay has done since... erm. Ever?) It's not in the same league as Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. It's barely in the same league as the first two Sam Raimi Spiderman movies. I would go so far as to say that it's not even as good of a movie as the first Iron Man or Captain America.

And given the other movies that are coming out this year and are likely be fighting for the Geek Entry into the Best Picture, The Hobbit and The Dark Knight Rises are more likely to be deserving of that honour. Even if the Avengers ends up making more money than either of those two movies.

I think that's the thing. IMHO for a film to be truly good it has to say something beyond that of it's own story. For all the abuse Bob give to the King's Speech at least it did that, saying "Sometimes in live you will be asked to do a job you not only don't want to do but are actively bad at". That observation, though a tad trite rings far more true to me then a big green man punching a robot snake.

Which isn't to suggest the Oscars always do that, Shakespeare in Love anyone? But I would see the Avengers winning being like that, albeit more appealing to boys.

 

[irishda]

Loki's tricked Thor before with that whole clone thing. Yet, somehow he didn't think the Hulk was a big enough threat to use on him, even though he was counting on the Hulk to take down the entire superhero team. Plus he apparently decided to never get up and walk away at any point.

Hubris. Loki is ridiculously overconfident, and didn't realize that the Hulk gives not two fucks about letting you finish your monologue. And by the point he realized that he was WAY in over his head, he was a little busy picking his spine out of the concrete to find time to flee.

But his hubris is illogical. That was my point. He KNOWS the Hulk is strong enough to fight the other three superheroes (including his brother, who he knows is strong enough to beat him). That was his whole goddamned plan of getting rid of them. There's no reason for him NOT to take the Hulk seriously when his whole fucking plan was using the Hulk.

Everyone keeps pointing their guns at Bruce Banner, even after he just gets done telling them he put a gun in his mouth and the Hulk just spit the bullet out. That one really ground my gears.

What the fuck else are you going to do? Walk around like nothing's happening with something that can literally tear you limb-from-limb and may have the inclination to do so at any point? Its not that they think it'll do anything, it's that the gun is a source of comfort.

For one, I'd stop pointing guns at the guy who turns into the unstoppable killing machine whenever he's slightly agitated. Because lets face it, when the guy is getting angry, the best way to calm him down isn't threaten his mortality.

If Bruce Banner's always mad, why isn't he always the Hulk. (face it, they wanted to give him something cool to say, but it doesn't make any sense)

I do have a little problem with it myself, but I'll take a stab at it. He may be always angry, but he can restrain himself for the most part. You can seethe with rage and still keep it under check.

Yeah, "I'm always angry" is cooler to say than "I'm always angry at my situation, but I suppress it in order to keep that situation from getting worse." Plus that still doesn't explain how he controls it. I know there was all that "meditation" jazz at the end of Incredible Hulk, but I really liked it better when he was a modern day Jekyll and Hyde. It would've been INFINITELY more interesting to see how the Avengers would use the Hulk without putting themselves in danger too.

How come Fury didn't dispatch any of those soldiers he's got all over the carrier with some experimental weapons Agent Coulson had? Even if they just had the one weapon, those elite soldiers would probably have been at least as helpful as the girl with a pistol and the guy with a bow.

Because the weapons are experimental and they are on an airship. Now, replace experimental with "dangerous and highly unpredictable" and then there's hardly a reason to keep them on a flying anything, let alone pretty much the most technologically advanced piece of hardware in our possession.

People keep focusing on the wrong part of what I said. The elite soldiers didn't NEED those new weapons, although they certainly would've helped. But, as Hawkeye and Black Widow proved, regular bullets or even technology since fucking biblical times is just as effective as experimental weapons, ergo, soldiers with machine guns and rifles and grenades wouldn't hurt anything.

 

[regalphantom]

The Avengers might get a nomination for best special effects (which it may or may not win, I haven't seen it yet, but I've heard good things about Prometheus), best editing, and possibly best directing, but I doubt it will win, and I know it won't win best picture. My reasoning? While it was an entertaining movie, and a very well done entertaining movie, it wasn't significant in any real way. It wasn't really saying anything or doing anything, it was just cool action. There wasn't any real emotional stimulation, there wasn't an underlying theme, it was just an adrenaline charged theater-filler and money maker.

To be honest, the only reason we see threads like this or "Harry Potter should sweep the Oscars" or whatever thread comes up whenever some big popular movie comes out is because there is a difference between finding something entertaining and that thing actually being good. For example, I have a strong distaste for metal, but I can appreciate that some of it is good, well put together music. Also, although it is difficult, I can admit that a lot of the alt rock I listen to isn't the greatest music ever made and likely won't stand the test of time. Being able to identify the underlying quality of something with subjective tastes is very difficult.

Also, just as a side note to all the people saying that The Avengers should win because it is popular and successful in the box office, do you want to know what other movies were widely popular and financially successful? The Twilight movies. Think about that for a minute.

 

[Gerishnakov]

I can't remember if the Oscars still do a 'Best Score', or if that's been replaced by 'Best Song'. If they do still hand a gong out for best score then Alan Silvestri should be nominated for his Avengers soundtrack. The main theme alone deserves recognition.

 

[Silverspetz]

Loki's tricked Thor before with that whole clone thing. Yet, somehow he didn't think the Hulk was a big enough threat to use on him, even though he was counting on the Hulk to take down the entire superhero team. Plus he apparently decided to never get up and walk away at any point.

Hubris. Loki is ridiculously overconfident, and didn't realize that the Hulk gives not two fucks about letting you finish your monologue. And by the point he realized that he was WAY in over his head, he was a little busy picking his spine out of the concrete to find time to flee.

But his hubris is illogical. That was my point. He KNOWS the Hulk is strong enough to fight the other three superheroes (including his brother, who he knows is strong enough to beat him). That was his whole goddamned plan of getting rid of them. There's no reason for him NOT to take the Hulk seriously when his whole fucking plan was using the Hulk.

Everyone keeps pointing their guns at Bruce Banner, even after he just gets done telling them he put a gun in his mouth and the Hulk just spit the bullet out. That one really ground my gears.

What the fuck else are you going to do? Walk around like nothing's happening with something that can literally tear you limb-from-limb and may have the inclination to do so at any point? Its not that they think it'll do anything, it's that the gun is a source of comfort.

For one, I'd stop pointing guns at the guy who turns into the unstoppable killing machine whenever he's slightly agitated. Because lets face it, when the guy is getting angry, the best way to calm him down isn't threaten his mortality.

If Bruce Banner's always mad, why isn't he always the Hulk. (face it, they wanted to give him something cool to say, but it doesn't make any sense)

I do have a little problem with it myself, but I'll take a stab at it. He may be always angry, but he can restrain himself for the most part. You can seethe with rage and still keep it under check.

Yeah, "I'm always angry" is cooler to say than "I'm always angry at my situation, but I suppress it in order to keep that situation from getting worse." Plus that still doesn't explain how he controls it. I know there was all that "meditation" jazz at the end of Incredible Hulk, but I really liked it better when he was a modern day Jekyll and Hyde. It would've been INFINITELY more interesting to see how the Avengers would use the Hulk without putting themselves in danger too.

How come Fury didn't dispatch any of those soldiers he's got all over the carrier with some experimental weapons Agent Coulson had? Even if they just had the one weapon, those elite soldiers would probably have been at least as helpful as the girl with a pistol and the guy with a bow.

Because the weapons are experimental and they are on an airship. Now, replace experimental with "dangerous and highly unpredictable" and then there's hardly a reason to keep them on a flying anything, let alone pretty much the most technologically advanced piece of hardware in our possession.

People keep focusing on the wrong part of what I said. The elite soldiers didn't NEED those new weapons, although they certainly would've helped. But, as Hawkeye and Black Widow proved, regular bullets or even technology since fucking biblical times is just as effective as experimental weapons, ergo, soldiers with machine guns and rifles and grenades wouldn't hurt anything.

Ignoring my earlier rebuttal are we? Oh well, I guess I can debunk these complaints just as easily.

1) I already covered this, it has less to do with hubris and more to do with the fact that Loki's illusion power isn't so convenient that he can just whip one up in a millisecond. The Hulk just started throwing him around like a rag-doll before he could do anything (his little rant that got interrupted was probably an attempt at buying time). After that he was too bruised to even get up so why is it a plot-hole that he didn't just walk away?

2) And if you aren't great diplomats and capable of such bargaining? Fury did try to calm him down with words and not guns. As I recall they only pulled guns on him when it looked like he was already at the breaking point. Again, that is pretty much all they CAN do at that point and hope it will do some good.

3) It kinda does, I already explained it to you that being always angry means that he is always close to becoming the Hulk. The Hulk is always a part of him and that is why he can be part of the Hulk too. And he doesn't control the Hulk as much as he just "aims" him. He still rage-smashes everything he fights, just now he is enough Banner to keep away from his allies (most of the time, he might still sucker-punch them apparently).

4) Already explained this too. Widow and Hawkeye are the only ones skilled enough with conventional weapons to do any good against the enemies with them. Normal shield agents can't shoot aliens moving at high speed on a hover-scooter out of the sky with a handgun or bow. Hawkeye can. They also can't battle their way through hordes of them without being overrun after taking down at most 2 or 3 soldiers, but Widow can. There is also that little problem of the Hellicarrier being understaffed after the attack on it. They probably couldn't have sent out much help anyways.