Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine The official Avengers movie thread - SPOILERS

I have a friend with the name, and he uses your pronunciation (But I have heard it both ways).

I don't want quippy Hawkeye or questioning Hawkeye, I just want non-conformist Hawkeye. Movie Hawkeye I simply found really, really boring.

I think Set was right in that the team needed a member who could keep it together more than another who could possibly leave at any time. Hulk, Thor and Iron Man already provide plenty of that.

No reason why that can't change along with the cast though.

In an odd sort of way, Hawkeye is still the non-conformist. He's a family man on a team full of bachelors. He's the one with a secret life on a team with public figures like Cap, Stark, and Banner. He's the quiet one on a team with several boastful loudmouths. He's the specialist who does one thing and does it very well while most of the others have more generalized skill sets in battle.

And he's the solid, predictable do-your-job warrior who balances the unpredictable behavior of the others.

That's all very well, but it's still not "my" Hawkeye.

Well, I can't argue that.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me like a failure on Whedon's part to properly define and differentiate the characters of Hawkeye and Captain America. The things He Who described as Movie Hawkeye's best qualities are those traditionally personified by Comic Book Cap. I'm not saying Movie Hawkeye should have a knee-jerk peevishness towards everything Cap says and stands for, like he did in the Silver Age, but making Hawkeye into Ward Cleaver just goes too far to the other extreme.

To me, the movie Cap is a bit old fashioned ("Language!"), but he's not a family man, nor does he possess any of the qualities ascribed to Hawkeye. Whereas Clint is unassuming, Cap is certainly ego-driven--he'd have to be to order Stark and Thor around. Cap is fully possessed of himself--he knows he's a leader, and he conveys that every time he opens his mouth. The others defer to him in a way they wouldn't to Clint.

There is a boy-next-door quality to Cap. He's embarrassed by the teasing he gets over the language comment, and he's humble when he needs to be. But these are not qualities Clint exhibits.

Cap realizes at the end of the film that the Cap who wanted to settle down with Peggy Carter was left behind in that iceberg 75 years ago (which, if taken literally, would put the movie in 2020, but I digress). He has found a new home and a new purpose, which further differentiates him from Hawkeye.

Did the Cap of the comics ever possess the qualities Hawkeye exhibits in the film? I'm not so sure. Cap was neither a family man nor a specialist. He did not have a secret life he kept from the other Avengers. About the only qualities he had in common with the movie Clint are that Cap was a soldier doing his job and the glue that often kept the Avengers together (though the team functioned just well on numerous occasions without him).

So, if the film Clint is transposed with the comic book Cap, I'm not seeing it.

Just as TV show 'Oliver Queen' is, IMO, a decent character on a good show, and yet 100% not *my* 'Oliver Queen,' I kind of agree with that. I don't mind this Hawkeye, but he has been kind of dull (surrounded by some 'full tilt divas' like Stark, which pushes him further into the background), and is nothing like the comic book character, just as quippy Stark is nothing like the comic book Stark of the decades before the first Iron Man movie.

Plus I see no need to defend what is a matter of taste. If you don't like the character, you don't like the character. It's all good. Tastes vary.

My final analysis is that it was too much, too fast. Like some sort of Michael Bay Transformers movie. What character development there was, including bits like Hawkeyes family and the BW/Hulk romance tease (including the great bit where , felt shortchanged by the need for more high-octane robot-smashing action.



Yeah, I'm a guy, I can't get away with criticizing actresses on their physical looks without getting burned in effigy.

The lack of eyebrows thing was a bit distracting, tho. But not nearly as annoying to me that they changed her 'bad luck bolts' power to telepathy and telekinesis, apparently because they thought the audience might be too stupid to understand the concept of 'bad luck.' (And yet, somehow, understand a more sci-fi concept like telekinesis!)

Maybe they can *not* insult the intelligence of the viewers capable of tying their own shoelaces and just assume that anyone who doesn't get 'bad luck' or 'she points and bad things happen' can have it explained to them by the person to their left, assuming that the person to their left is slightly smarter than a bag of popcorn?

Grr.

Haven't seen it (with my schedule I'll likely have time in July), but here's a bit from Whedon on his conflicts with Marvel before he steps away from the franchise:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/a...ant-age-of-ultron-memories-quits-twitter

Very informative. Thanks, Dave.

Like HWW, I don't mind, and actually appreciate, that in some instances, the film MU has veered away from the comics MU. Most spefically, I thought the Hawkeye revelation was fantastic and a really great moment in the film. It really brought the Hawkeye character (movie version) together at last, and it gave further nods to Natasha and Fury's history with him.

It was also an essential scene to the film, and Dave's above link is surprising. Because that sequence, to me, was really needed to break away from the special effects and action.

Also, I thought Linda Cardillini looked really beautiful! I didn't think there was any "strung out" vibe to her at all. She's just aged a little over the years and Whedon purposely took very un-glamorous route to Hawkeyes life. She was in limited make up, very shabby / "everyday" clothes, and that mirrored the quiet landscape and broke down tractor and other elements of the setting. It was a total 180 from the party in the beginning, which was certainly done on purpose.

Up until now Hawkeye in the movies was a big unknown, and this suddenly gave his character--played excellently by Renner--a real purpose in the film.

(Obviously, I see the point though that it's not the Hawkeye from the comics. We all have things that will bother us when something is translated from one medium to the next).

I read the "telepathy and telekinesis" comment as a way of creating a scientific rationale for her power--something a SHIELD investigator would likely say in order to be as precise as possible. ("Bad luck" can mean pretty much anything.) Even in a world where magic and gods exist, there would still be an attempt to rationally explain phenomena.

But, in a nod to no-more-brains-than-a-bag-of-popcorn set, they did offer an interpretation: "He's fast. She's weird."

Unglamorous is one thing. Frighteningly gaunt and pasty-faced is quite another, especially considering that:

1) She was never particularly glamorous in the past.

2) She used to look a lot healthier (i.e. curvier and rounder) than the average Hollywood actress.

Random thoughts based on other reactions in this thread:
-- I liked the Hawkeye here more than in the first movie where he seemed too serious. (even before he got hexed by Loki)
-- Odd that they didn't even explain the Vision's powers. He definitely showed some phasing abilities in the fight. (loved seeing Vizh save Wanda - they used to be my fav comics couple) I think Vizh looked great except for his eyes - a bit too human for me.
-- I'm ok with the tweak in Scarlet Witch's powers. It's not like they have such a great handle on it in the comics.
-- I like how this tied in to the SHIELD episode right before it where Coulson located Strucker's base, but maybe having Coulson in that first part of the movie would been nice and get over the whole reveal that he's still alive.
-- I like how the movies aren't just a redo of comic book stuff. The Widow/Banner thing, Hawkeye's family, Vizh having the mind stone, etc. It's nice to be surprised.(although the little things like Ultron removing that red cloak to reveal himself are nice nods to the source material)
-- I loved the comparisons Whedon made between Widow ("Nat" just seems wrong) and Banner in the first one, but to have her actually say "You're not the only monster..." was a bit too on the nose. (and especially when related to her being barren as opposed to say, having killed a whole bunch of people) It's a shame that the espionage skillset she exhibited in the first movie has been supplanted by a romance and her role as a victim.
-- Spader was good, but he's essentially playing Reddington again. Ultron was always interesting to me because he wasn't a cold machine - he was tortured and filled with rage. It would have helped me if we got to actually see some of it at least once.(I almost always imagined him having Starscream's voice ;))

Yep, same here as far as the voice goes. And even though Chris Latta is no longer with us, I think Frank Welker could have done a fair approximation.

The scene in the first movie where she 'reverse interrogated' Loki remains unparalleled.

I did like the way in which she spells out exactly why she likes Banner ("All of the other men in my life are spies and killers, and you do everything in your power to *avoid* a fight..."), and yet, at the end of the day, she outs herself as cold-bloodedly practical, and willing to turn Banner into the Hulk when she needs the Hulk (alienating Banner in the process) *and* willing to use the lullaby to get rid of the Hulk when she's done with him (which even the Hulk has figured out by the end of the movie, as he turns off the comm before she can shut him down again, revealing himself to be much smarter than anyone had figured, and yet also with an air of sadness, not rage, which suggests that Widow's pragmatic and mercenary nature had disappointed *both of them*).

Which, I suppose, neatly averts what could have been one hell of a dangerous love triangle...

Wanda's powers were always very nebulous and Deus-ex-machina.

They *became* that way, after Byrne had her become a Bride of Set, get kidnapped by a sentient amoeba, etc., etc. in his never-ending series of nasty things he did to her, but, for decades, she had 'bad luck bolts.' Not 'Chaos magic,' not 'reality manipulation,' just 'hex bolts,' that afflicted the target with some unfortunate circumstance (collapsing floor, malfunctioning gun, etc.). Against targets like Ultron, made up of complicated machinery, she was a beast, since there's hundreds of little things that could go wrong in such an advanced bit of technology.

It was that easy.

And then Byrne decided that 'bad luck' was too complicated, and went with some sort of reality manipulation, and she's been practically unusable since, with her own actions being retconned over and over, sometimes within the space of a single issue, by writers who *might* have been able to 'get' the idea of 'she points at people and bad luck happens' but have demonstrated time and again that they can't write for Wanda Ex Machina with 'reality manipulation.'

I would say that having "bad luck" powers is a bit Deus ex Machina. You can say the same for any magic user character - White Witch, Dr. Strange, Zatanna, Dr. Fate, et. al.

When you think about it, even the super-strong or super-fast characters have a bit of Deus ex Machina to their powers. i.e. in issue #123 Superman can easily juggle two elephants, but in issue #164 he struggles against one elephant.

Finally saw it, loved it and refuse to nitpick it.

EXCEPT FOR THE ONE THING. I didn't like the one thing that happened to the one guy.

Nor did I, Lash, nor did I.

I finally sat down and watched it at home tonight for only the second time after originally seeing it in the theater. I think it is much better on a second viewing. It's hard to explain, but when I watch it and know what's going to happen, I can see that Joss rather skillfully weaved the themes and characters into a pretty impressive narrative. It's still not perfect, but it's much better than it has been given credit for.

And, hey, I figure if Agent Coulson can get better, why not the person who apparently met his/her end in this one? besides, we all know that no one really dies in the Marvel Universe, right?

I also finally got around to rewatching it. Still wasn't impressed. After how great Avengers 1, Winter Soldier, Guardians, etc. have been, I felt like AoU was way too busy, and had too many beats I just didn't care for, like what happened to 'that guy,' the change to Wanda's powers, and their interpretation of the Vision.



I couldn't stand Coulson in Iron Man 2 or Thor, he seemed like a smarmy creep. That's probably my least favorite part of Agents of SHIELD, that it's so focused on Coulson.

Captain America: Civil War, which is Avengers 3 in everything but name, comes out in theatres in one month.

I was initially reluctant to watch it, because I hated the Civil War comic book and also hated Avengers: Age of Ultron.

But the Captain America: Winter Soldier directors are at the helm of this one, so I'm giving it a fair chance. I just hope they've pruned it of all Millar-isms.