Reviews Film / The Avengers 2012

I never find this argument very convincing. Any argument which is based on the lines of 'this thing about this sucked but calling it out for sucking isn't valid because you were wrong to expect that things wouldn't suck in your film/book/game'. It's not something that takes on or talks about the criticism, it just says that the critics are wrong because 'they're not the target audience' or 'their expectations were wrong'

This is the standard by which I could just as easily deny that the Transformers things were in any way bad. People were epxecting plot? Character cohesiveness? None-cringeworthy humour? Those aren't valid criticisms, the boobs were good and the explosions big. That's the point. Transformers is perfect. Obviously you were expecting it to be Citizen Kane or The Dark Knight or something.

And in the case of the Avengers it's doubling unconvincing because it tried adding in all the complications of Loki's scheming.

I don't want to rag on it too hard. I'm not saying Avengers was a bad film or anything, or that you can't make the argument that the character stuff was brilliant, but I still feel like you've got to engage or acknowledge the other criticism and a lot of this review seemed to be dismissing it without adding anything to the discussion. For example, is it then the Avengers fault that it failed to give these people the expectations that the plot wasn't important? Shouldn't a film cue it's own audience into what it's strengths and failings are, and if it requires people like you to go around and tell the people who were unhappy afterwards that 'it's not about the plot', would it be fair to say that's a failing of the film?

I don't know if you watch sf-debris, but if you do, do you feel like your argument is distinct from the 'It's a shame people didn't like it, but it wasn't for them' defence that the writer of 'Fear Her' in Doctor Who used to excuse a boring unexceptional episode with particularly weak themes? Again I'm not saying the Avengers is bad, but it seems like this particular brand of logic is equally valid at defending bad films and good films, without distinguishing them.

^ I think it is perfectly valid to dismiss the significance of the plot. It's a superhero movie. Good guys fight, struggle, eventually win. That's what EVERY superhero movie is unless it was specifically meant to be a deconstruction or a subversion. And, as the review says, balancing this many iconic characters requires a trade-off in the plot department. When people go to see a movie with characters like these, they don't intend to see some deep, thought provoking drama, they just want to see well loved characters do cool shit together. Complaining about poor plotting in a movie like this is like going to Les Miserables and complaining about the lack of explosive action.

Don't forget that taste in entertainment is subjective. Even if someone says they value boobs and explosions in a movie you can disagree with them but you can't claim that they are wrong for valuing that.

Whileit's certainly true that you don't go see an action movie for the plot, I don't feel that this excuses a poor plot. It excuses a minimal plot. Doing something badly always detracts from the experience

...Also, it did seem like it was trying to have a more complex plot with Loki and the Chitauri, and failing

@Mc Someguy 'Even if someone says they value boobs and explosions in a movie you can disagree with them but you can't claim that they are wrong for valuing that.'

This is why I said what I said. If this review was 'it didn't have a good plot but that didn't matter because...' I wouldn't have brought it up, but it's claiming that the negative reviews are wrong for valuing story. And as you said, it's subjective and I don't find the argument that people are wrong for valuing the 'incorrect' parts of a film particularly valid

How was the plot poor, instead of minimal? It was a run of the mill save-the-world story. That's what it was supposed to be and that's exactly what it delivered. Something is only bad when it fails at it's intended purpose, and I would say this movie succeeded.

I'm not actually arguing that the Avengers is a bad film or had a weak plot here. I am literally making exactly 0 commentary either way on the goodness of the Avengers, all I'm saying is that the logic being used to dismiss other peoples arguments is bad logic. Not because the Avengers is a bad film, but because the logic doesn't involve the Avengers at all. All it does is say 'You were wrong to criticise the simplicity/formulaicness/lack of depth of the plot because you were wrong to want that'

I mean he almost literally says 'If you didn't like this, it's a shame, but it wasn't for you' which is the most cop-out excuse you can use to defend a film. It doesn't matter that he's using weak logic to defend an excellent film because it's still not a great argument and, because it's an excellent film, there were better lines of reasoning to go down than 'If you didn't like it it's your fault for expecting the wrong thing'

Something is only bad when it fails at its intended purpose, and I would say this movie succeeded.

"A film that aims low should not be praised for hitting that target." — Gene Siskel.

There are some films that succeed at their intended purpose and still are quite terrible. If a film makes a compelling argument for something evil like murder or robbery, then succeeding to explaining its reasoning actually shouldn't be raised at all. Or if the film makes no sense, then it should not be praised for merely trolling the audience.

If the movie hits said target, however, why complain it hasn't hit a different target? The Fear Her example was a guy trying to hide behind a defense about why one episode was different from the rest of the show (he said it was different because it was for someone different than the other ones). As far as I know, all of the MCU movies have an excuse for someone to become a superhero, fight a bad guy, and destroy several city blocks doing it. I don't get why it seemed so different when you had a bunch of superheroes together. Avengers seemed to fit with the other films (at least to me).

^^What "aiming low" is is subjective anyway, making that entire point moot. As I see it, I don't think there's any way the Avengers could have had more depth than it had without upsetting some fans of some characters by giving undue focus to one or two for development and having the rest as background. Instead, the devs took the alternative by giving them all (roughly) equal attention, making sure they turned in their best performance, and giving them scenes where they can be shown off at their most awesome. And it did all of that extremely well. So instead of praising it for being "formulaic" (though I think it deserves a little credit for that as the best possible design choice for the reasons I've mentioned), I'd say it should more be praised for making the best possible use of the "formula", because the Avengers did what it did well. I was not disappointed in a single line of dialogue, I didn't think even one fight scene was badly shot, and I was enjoying myself the whole way through.

"A film that aims low should not be praised for hitting that target."

It shouldn't be trashed just for that either.

Also, if someone manages to create a movie that makes a compelling argument for murder then I would like to see that movie, because I can't imagine anyone doing so successfully.

''Instead of praising it for being "formulaic", I'd say it should more be praised for making the best possible use of the "formula"

Yes, THAT is a better reasoning for praising Avengers. Intentionally following a formula is easy, actually making that formula enjoyable again through good dialogue, character development, and well staged fight scenes is praiseworthy.

I can't imagine anyone doing so successfully.

The Birth Of A Nation managed to convince many of the "greatness" of the KKK and their lynching (even President Woodrow Wilson!), and still influences many extremists today. It might not have convinced you, but it did convince many people.

^ Yes, but those people were already racists in a time when racism wasn't a social taboo. They didn't really need a lot of convincing.

I am sure glad I am not the only one who reasonned that way about the Hulk controlling his rage... It was so obvious to me I was a bit puzzled to see everyone complain about him suddenly controlling his rage.

I probably didn't explain myself very well, but I was meaning this was meant to be a movie that demonstrates how a formula can work when used correctly, and the people who were criticizing it for being formulaic were missing the point. And as for my point about people having the wrong expectations, I didn't mean there was anything wrong with people (I have actually watched SF Debris, an he's had a huge influence on how I treat others opinions) who didn't like it. Imagine something like this: a person (this is not a real person, thought for all I know it could be) hates 'artistic' movies because he thinks they're too 'snooty', and not relatable to his life. He hears about this one 'artistic' movie that everyone loves, even people who don't normally like them. He looks at some previews, and sees that while it has a lot in common with the movies he hates, it does have some things he likes, and it may be worth checking out if everyone else loves it. He sees it, and decides it was exactly what he hates. There's nothing wrong with him, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was anything wrong with the movie. He just went in with the wrong expectations. That was the point I was trying to make. No film, play, or any work of art, can please everyone. It is simply impossible to achieve universal love. There's nothing wrong with the people who think The Avengers plot was too light, but I think they were missing the point of the movie. That's what I was meaning, bear in mind, I am a teenager, so I still have a lot of trouble articulating myself.