The Avengers Movie Talkback Thread - SPOILERS

[Rhanen]

I had my own thoughts on the surprise but I was just speculating on the most logical choice and honestly I didn't even think of this individual. If it is who I been hearing it is, I will be a very content villain! I just hope his arm candy is there too! She's a major babe! Hubba hubba!

You are truly evil sir... after your comment, I do know have an idea of who him may be
It's been rumored quite for a while if true though.

[krosfyah]

Don't know if this is a spoiler but, I heard Whedon confirmed that the army is

 

Chitauri

I have no clue who they are!

Kevin smith made a guess at a villain based on loki's staff, I theorize that's the villain teased at the end credits. might be cool.

[Benedict Judas Hel]

Don't know if this is a spoiler but, I heard Whedon confirmed that the army is


I have no clue who they are!

I believe those individuals you named, k-man, were the main antagonists on both Ultimate Avengers animated DVDs.

[Thatman]

I'm just going to put this out there re: Mystery/Unknown villains, so read at your own risk: (POTENTIALLY BIG SPOILER )

 

The Chitauri are supposedly confirmed as Loki's Army, according to what I read it was Whedon himself who admitted it...the Chitauri are the Ultimate version of Skrulls (and "Skrull" falls under the Fantastic Four banner and as such is held by Fox). Kevin Feige said that who they are isn't necessarily that important to the movie, but who they're working for is...because evidently Loki is in some kind of alliance with the Chitauri's leader....Thanos.

What intrigues me is that the Infinity Gauntlet was an Easter Egg in the Thor movie, stored in Asgard....is this where they're going for Avengers 2?

[krosfyah]

I believe those individuals you named, k-man, were the main antagonists on both Ultimate Avengers animated DVDs.

that would make sense then. thanks! So Ralph Garman radio personality, actor, podcasting partner to Kevin Smith went ape doo doo over the film, he echo's Unemployedskeletor's sentiments, the traqiler shows NOTHING exciting in comparission to what you get, Ruffalo IS Banner and so forth.

[Benedict Judas Hel]

that would make sense then. thanks! So Ralph Garman radio personality, actor, podcasting partner to Kevin Smith went ape doo doo over the film, he echo's Unemployedskeletor's sentiments, the traqiler shows NOTHING exciting in comparission to what you get, Ruffalo IS Banner and so forth.

So when are we meeting to see the flick, k-man? I'll be expecting an expensive dinner afterwards!

[krosfyah]

So when are we meeting to see the flick, k-man? I'll be expecting an expensive dinner afterwards!

Unicorn steaks good enough? For dessert Gryphon milk iced cream with pixie wing sprinkles"

[EldestSon]

Because this isn't rebooting the Hulk, because we'd already had to get used to a new Banner once already, because some of us liked Norton's portrayal more than Bana's, because three Batmans in three movies in a row was bad enough...there are legitimate reasons, it's just futile to raise heck about it.

incredible hulk was not a reboot of hulk.

[Benedict Judas Hel]

Unicorn steaks good enough? For dessert Gryphon milk iced cream with pixie wing sprinkles"

Dang! Canadian cuisine is as exotic as it's people!

[gbagok]

incredible hulk was not a reboot of hulk.

I don't know how you are defining reboot, but when the previous movie is not used as canon (and it wasn't despite putting Banner in South America), I call that a reboot of the franchise.

[Spidey]

I don't know how you are defining reboot, but when the previous movie is not used as canon (and it wasn't despite putting Banner in South America), I call that a reboot of the franchise.

Reboot means Re-initiate, start over. Norton's Banner did not explain his origin.

New Spider-Man with Andrew Garfield will be a re-boot, they will explain how he became spider-man, despite Tobey showing us how already

[mbaker]

Reboot means Re-initiate, start over. Norton's Banner did not explain his origin.

New Spider-Man with Andrew Garfield will be a re-boot, they will explain how he became spider-man, despite Tobey showing us how already

I still think A 'Spider-Man' reboot is too soon, after the disagreements with Raimi, Sony, and Marvel, but I'm still gonna give this movie A shot.

[Optimus Prime]

Reboot means Re-initiate, start over. Norton's Banner did not explain his origin.

What do you mean, it didn't explain Banner's origin? Last time I checked, the Hulk's origin was explained pretty damn well to me. Banner's origin was pretty normal, a scientist working for the government and an experiment goes horribly wrong.

[Spidey]

What do you mean, it didn't explain Banner's origin? Last time I checked, the Hulk's origin was explained pretty damn well to me. Banner's origin was pretty normal, a scientist working for the government and an experiment goes horribly wrong.

From 2003's Hulk: David Banner is a genetics researcher who has figured out how to mutate human DNA so that the body can heal quickly from an injury or wound. He wants to use his research to create supersoldiers for the U.S. Army, but is denied permission to do it, so he experiments on himself. -ORIGIN

Norton's Hulk is already the Hulk - Did not have an origin, Banner works at the bottling factory in brazil, then the ops are searching for him, and he becomes the Hulk. -ALREADY ESTABLISHED

It doesn't spend 45 minutes explaining to you how it happened, that's what re-boots do!

[gbagok]

Reboot means Re-initiate, start over. Norton's Banner did not explain his origin.

New Spider-Man with Andrew Garfield will be a re-boot, they will explain how he became spider-man, despite Tobey showing us how already

The Norton version did start over. It remains to be seen if retelling the same story we already know in Amazing Spider-Man will be a good idea.

It doesn't spend 45 minutes explaining to you how it happened, that's what re-boots do!

I disagree that's what they do. They CAN do that, but it's not required. Batman Begins spent so much time on retelling the origin only because Batman's origin had not been detailed on film to that level (remember the 89 version only used a flashback). Lee's Hulk frankly overcooked Hulk's origin to the point that there was really no way to retell that--even improved--and not bore the audience with been there, done that. A reboot simply doesn't treat previous movies as canon. It doesn't have to redo in detail, it can streamline and simplify too. Incredible Hulk summarized the origin in the opening credits very effectively--and thought it was similar there were still differences from what was in the Lee version--and then it got right into the story. No more garbage about mysterious experiments by Banner's dad, or strange nanites. Even Hulk writer Peter David said they should have just used one origin and not some mixed up medley of possible causes.

[Rhanen]

Hulk's origin in The Incredible Hulk is more in sync with the MU movies or Ulimate Universe, in which it was hinted that Banner was looking for Cap's super soldier serum; and as it has been already said, it is in the opening credits that also renders homage to the 70's TV series opening.

BTW, tomorrow tickets go onsale for next Thursday Avnegers premiere. I wish this week just pass by faster.

[Adam_Prince of Eternia]

Like Superman Returns, The Incredible Hulk was designed to function as both a stand-alone film and as a sequel. Neither is reboot of the franchise in the proper sense.

[gbagok]

Semantics. There's too much in the Lee version that is clearly not in the more recent film with Norton, which was clearly designed to be a part of a shared universe with the Iron Man cameo and setting up Avengers and Captain America. Lee's Hulk didn't even know his name was Banner. The two are just very different worlds. Superman Returns can't qualify as a reboot because it was obviously trying to keep parts of the previous movies in its continuity, particularly the character's origin as depicted with Brando's Jor-El and the entire design of Krypton/Fortress of Solitude. About the only deliberate nod to Lee's Hulk was showing Banner had escaped to South America after becoming the Hulk, but that's far more superficial.

[Adam_Prince of Eternia]

Semantics. There's too much in the Lee version that is clearly not in the more recent film with Norton, which was clearly designed to be a part of a shared universe with the Iron Man cameo and setting up Avengers and Captain America. Lee's Hulk didn't even know his name was Banner. The two are just very different worlds. Superman Returns can't qualify as a reboot because it was obviously trying to keep parts of the previous movies in its continuity, particularly the character's origin as depicted with Brando's Jor-El and the entire design of Krypton/Fortress of Solitude. About the only deliberate nod to Lee's Hulk was showing Banner had escaped to South America after becoming the Hulk, but that's far more superficial.

By all means, what in The Incredible Hulk negates anything in The Hulk? If anything, it is evident from The Hulk ending with Bruce Banner in exile in South America and The Incredible Hulk beginning with Bruce Banner in exile in South America that it is a sequel. What is superficial is the Tony Stark cameo in The Incredible Hulk that is tacked-on after the credits like an afterthought, making the notion that the film was designed from the outset to be part of a shared Avengers universe tenuous at best.

[gbagok]

Watch them, if you don't see how they don't fit, I won't be able to convince you and we can just agree to disagree.

[Optimus Prime]

Sorry, just because Banner's in South America doesn't connect the two movies in my opinion either. You want to get lost and not be found? Leave your home country, move to another country and lose yourself in the local population. It's not a hard concept, hell, later Fast & Furious films live by this mantra.

[Adam_Prince of Eternia]

Sorry, just because Banner's in South America doesn't connect the two movies in my opinion either. You want to get lost and not be found? Leave your home country, move to another country and lose yourself in the local population. It's not a hard concept, hell, later Fast & Furious films live by this mantra.

So it is just happenstance that The Incredible Hulk begins in the specific location that The Hulk concludes? If the films are not connected and Bruce Banner simply wanted to be lost and not found, then why not go to some place remote and unpopulated? Why begin the film in the same location with the protagonist in the same circumstances as in the previous, supposedly unconnected, film?

[Rhanen]

So it is just happenstance that The Incredible Hulk begins in the specific location that The Hulk concludes? If the films are not connected and Bruce Banner simply wanted to be lost and not found, then why not go to some place remote and unpopulated? Why begin the film in the same location with the protagonist in the same circumstances as in the previous, supposedly unconnected, film?

I think there was some kind of connection in a way to try to link them, o retconned both films, but they are not equally.
Ang Lee's Hulk ends in a non specified South American jungle with local Spanish speakers militia, that could be a sort of "Ejèrcito Zapatista" in Chiapas, "Sendero Luminoso" en Perú, "Las FARC" in Columbia, or even and very quite outdated "Montoneros" in Tucumán (Argentina).
Incredible Hulk begins in Favelas do Rio da Janeiro (Brazil), which don't have any militia and they speak Portuguese. In a later scene, after Banner first transformation, he speaks Portuguese to a local truck driver and he replies in Spanish, since he has traveled to Venezuela if I recall exactly.

Hope it helps

[krosfyah]

Marvel said it wqasn't really a reboot didn't they, they just kind of ignored the last movie aside from South America, also isn't it established in the incredible hulk that he was on the move anyway, so he could have gone from Columbia to Guyana to Brazil between stories. or not. the way it was done IMO, it's up for at least some debate, if you liked ang lee's hulk then take the norton one as a sequel, if you hated it, then ignore it.

[gbagok]

I've never seen Marvel say the movie wasn't a reboot. And if you liked the Lee version, you have to be wondering what happened to all the business about David Banner's experiments and nanites, which were given as the multiple reasons Bruce could turn into the Hulk in the Lee film but are pretty much denied by omission in TCH where the reasons are just the gamma exposure combined Dr. Ross's primer. The other factors from the 2003 movie--which should have been important enough to at least discuss with Mr. Blue--never come up again. Then there's Betty, who doesn't act like she's experienced the first movie and doesn't even seem to remember ever seeing Bruce become the Hulk before. I think it resembles a sequel if you don't look at it very closely and don't bother to hold it accountable to any of what happened in Lee's version. But all it shares with the Lee version is the basic set up from the comics with the single added touch of having him hide in South America because that way the audience who isn't looking very closely will think it's a follow up to what they already saw. It played a game with the audience, and it appears to have won with some still thinking of it as a sequel.