Monday Morning Quarterback Part IV
By BOP Staff
May 10, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Statistically, the odds say that a lot of you have already seen The Avengers. What are your thoughts about it?
Felix Quinonez: I absolutely loved it. I saw it twice already and I know I'm going to see it at least one more time. I think Bruce described it perfectly in the first topic. "it's everything a non Nolan comic book film should be." I just thought it worked perfectly. They did a great job of establishing a threat large enough that would require these guys to be working together. The action was incredible. It had just as much eye candy as all of the Transformers movies but I actually cared about what was happening. Not only that but it was all shot so well. It wasn't done in a dizzying, cut-heavy matter that makes it hard to follow the action. The acting was great, they all had great chemistry. It had a lot of funny moments that I never found forced. I remember that I was a bit worried that this movie might be lacking a bit of depth and while I kind of feel that it did. I don't think it mattered. As a comic book geek, I used to dream about an Avengers movie and this is the movie I always wanted to see.
Bruce Hall: I recently mentioned (in another context) that if you want me to believe the crazy stuff that often happens in these kinds of films that you have to temper things with a bit of humor and/or romance (meaning a willingness to dream big, not a willingness to take your pants off).
Pathos (unless you really ARE Chris Nolan) usually comes off as corny in a film like this. The first Iron Man nailed the humor, and the first half of Captain America hit the romance button right on the head. Ang Lee went all in on pathos, and you see what happened there. This is also what bothered me so much about Superman Returns. How hard is it to write a Superman film? Or ANY superhero film? There is a threat. Our hero(es) is (are) overwhelmed by it. He/She/They have to regroup and overcome personal demons, yadda yadda, and find a bigger reason to fight. Act three is guys in tights throwing skyscrapers at each other.
I simplify, of course, but successful stories follow a sound structure and The Avengers did this, the usual comic book shaped gaps in logic notwithstanding. But the bonus is that a well structured screenplay without interesting characters is a cake without frosting. In The Avengers, each major character was sufficiently fleshed out enough over the first two acts to add compelling dimension and shadow - by comic book standards, anyway. The dialogue was sharp enough to give them color and clarity. The cast and director were prepared to do their diligence. The Avengers wasn't perfect, but it hit all the right notes and pushed all the right buttons. It did all the things a genre film has to do in order to succeed, and scored bonus points by accomplishing most of the things any good movie needs to do from a purely cinematic standpoint. The same bar previously set by films such as 1978's Superman, X-Men 2 and Spider-Man 2 has been set a notch higher. A while back, I think we discussed whether the superhero genre was running out of steam and I think we might have agreed that the fate of The Avengers would have a lot to say about that.
Now, we have our answer.
Reagen Sulewski: This was probably the closest experience I've had in the theater of what it feels like to read a comic book. All the jumping around in perspective felt exactly like how one of those giant all-star team-up issues reads, and it did so without sacrificing the cinematic quality. I could almost construct how the comic would be paneled while I was watching it.
One thing I was very appreciative of was how Joss was able to give each character their moment without hitting us over the head with it. He typically doesn't stop the movie for you to get the joke or see the character development, and trusts that you're along for the ride. It's nice to be treated like an adult.
Max Braden: I saw it on a moderately large screen in 3D, which reinforced conclusions I'd already made: 1) 3D makes a screen seem a little bit smaller, so you need a huge screen to compensate, 2) 3D fails in close action (like hand-to-hand fighting) or with wide open lens apertures, because if anything goes blurry, the 3D effect is busted, and 3) the darkness of the glasses mutes the beauty of the cinematography. I would have preferred 2D.
I liked Banner and Stark, and Agent Coulson a lot. I really liked that they gave Black Widow a real psychological skill in addition to looking hot in a tight outfit. Paltrow looked great in the shorts, but I wanted more from Pepper Potts, and Hawkeye. Hulk and Thor provided the peak laughs, but their invincibility makes things kind of boring. And Captain America is too much of a sourpuss. And poor Cobie Smulders, trying so hard with a role that didn't provide much to work with.
Overall, I didn't have any fault with the movie, but it was still a little...quiet...for me, even during the action sequences. I think more music would have helped. Iron Man is still the better movie because it's more fun and lively. And I think the best moments of The X-Men series exceed the best moments of The Avengers.
David Mumpower: I want to avoid spoilers here as much as possible, so I will be vague in a manner that I hope people who have seen the movie understand while those who have not (both of you) can deduce intent. Reagen touches upon the character development, and this is the true strength of the film. I previously discussed how much I enjoy the implementation of Hawkeye, the Least Avenger in my eyes. Black Widow is the same way in this regard. The start of the film elevates her into the rarefied air of topnotch espionage agents, the toughest humans known to man. Then, she is trapped in a claustrophobic situation with an indomitable enemy and the viewer appreciates exactly how terrifying that monster is. Then, others attempt to subjugate the same enemy and the viewer recognizes how bad-ass they must be to accomplish this feat. Everything in The Avengers is a matter of scale with clear definitions that provide a blueprint for how the entire affair plays out. As a pure action movie, it is an impeccable achievement. What makes The Avengers a movie for the ages is that it is also funny every step of the way. Joss Whedon accomplished this once before with Serenity ("Tell me you brought them this time"), and that is what secures him as the perfect director for a film combining six superheroes (seven if you count Nick Fury) into one quip-riffic team. Iron Man was my favorite movie of 2008. The Avengers is the deluxe version of it.
Well, Thor is in charge of thunder and lightning and stuff, so...
Kim Hollis: We've now had a $152 million opener and a $200 million opener in 2012, with The Dark Knight Rises yet to debut. What is your gut reaction now about the opening weekend of Christopher Nolan's final Batman film. Will it finish above The Avengers, or has it had its thunder stolen?
Felix Quinonez: I had pictured this playing out similarly to the summer of 2008. I thought The Avengers, like Iron Man, would have an awesome opening weekend. Everybody would love the movie...and then The Dark Knight Rises would come out and steal its thunder. But now I'm not so sure. I mean audiences have a whole lot of goodwill towards Nolan's Batman franchise, the commercials look great so it will definitely have a huge opening weekend and if Nolan delivers another quality film it has a chance to match or maybe even pass The Dark Knight's total domestic gross. But I just can't imagine another movie opening to over $200 million dollars (at least not for a while) and The Avengers was so good and people love it so much that I think it will show some very strong legs. So as shocked as I am to say it, I think The Avengers will come out on top and will very likely be the biggest movie of the year.
Bruce Hall: I know that fixating on box office is part of what you do when you write about movies, but I kind of think we're talking apples and oranges here, or at least two different kinds of apples. The Avengers and The Dark Knight are both superhero films, but they're different KINDS of superhero films. The Avengers is kind of like a Michael Bay movie with, well, at least HALF a brain. Nolan's Batman franchise is downright operatic. It's a whole different animal. I am not sure Nolan's films aren't shooting for a slightly narrower audience, so in my mind I'm not even sure it's a fair comparison.
But nonetheless, it's an inevitable one that people are going to make, and it needs to be addressed. I will say that The Avengers will probably be the biggest film of the year. But if The Dark Knight is as good as I am starting to hear it might be, things could well be different. Iron Man garnered the same sort of audience goodwill that the Avengers has, albeit in a smaller portion, yet The Dark Knight was so...damn...good...that it didn't matter. The only two things I am comfortable going on record saying is that 1) The Avengers might...might be the biggest comic book film of 2012, but it's not going to be the best.
And 2) Spider-Man will be neither of those things. This is a two horse race.
Edwin Davies: I think it'll be very, very close. The Avengers has some considerable advantages; it has the boost of screening in 3D, it has a lot more constant build up going into it, since there have been three Avengers related films in the time between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, and it got out the gate first, so The Dark Knight Rises is going to have to play catch-up.
However, I think that it will top The Avengers because the marketing have really been hitting the idea that it is the final film in the Batman trilogy, and that finality can lead to a massive increase in opening weekend numbers. It also has the advantage of being the sequel to the most successful comic book movie ever (well, the current most successful ever) and we've often said that a sequel's opening weekend is often a reflection of what people think of its predecessor. The Dark Knight is one of the most popular and acclaimed blockbusters of the last 20 years, and Nolan's work on the Batman series, as well as the monumental success of Inception, have given him a lot of leeway with audiences. If The Dark Knight Rises is good, then I think it will have no problem topping the Avengers to become the biggest film of the year, and it will get very close to topping its opening weekend.
Max Braden: I think that The Dark Knight Rises would have broken the opening record were it not for Avengers, but I don't see Avengers making a difference on Batman's box office. I don't think Batman had (or has) any chance of coming close to $200 million, and I don't think there's any way it could come close in the long run either. I think part of that is due to The Avengers' broader audience appeal. Batman is darker and a little more adult, while The Avengers is more easily marketed to both kids and adults.
David Mumpower: When we last debated this, I was of the opinion that The Dark Knight Rises would be the largest movie of the year. After Thursday midnight sneaks, I was relatively certain that was the case. Now that The Avengers has shattered the standing opening weekend record by $38 million (!), the largest dollar amount the record has ever changed, I am conflicted. I cede Edwin's point about 3D ticket pricing aiding The Avengers and I acknowledge Max's argument about The Avengers being (much) more kid friendly. What I still believe is that Batman is a bigger property than anything in the Marvel library, and that is why I am so conflicted. My head tells me that as seminal as The Dark Knight was, its successor is unlikely to improve by $50 million on opening weekend. My gut says otherwise. What I know from my job as a box office analyst is that Batman breaks opening weekend records. That is what the franchise has done four times thus far. As such, I cannot rule out another such instance. Still, if I were a betting man, I would place my money on the leader in the clubhouse rather than the challenger in the on deck circle. The debut of The Avengers is so extraordinary that I have had to flip flop on the subject. I have a hard time reconciling the idea that after no movie had cracked $170 million up until last week, two movies could break $207 million in three months.