Discussion
Tiggsy said:
I suppose I hoped it would be quiet!
We only went as the kids wanted to see it and I'd heard 3d was good. I think I'd have liked the film more sat home home in front of my monster screen with 7.1 sound not screwed up by some little dick eating crisp behind me! Although I'd still think they should have sent Scarlet to boot camp before letting her near that suit!
Oh, and 2 adults, 2 kids and an under 5 - £50! Makes me feel less bad about downloading so much!
I felt the same when sitting in the cinema and thinking about my projector setup at home. Ok, the cinema screen is much bigger and the sound much better but i'd probably have enjoyed it more as I get to control the environment. Cinema seats aren't that comfortable for 2.5 hour movies, and it was getting a tad warm in there!We only went as the kids wanted to see it and I'd heard 3d was good. I think I'd have liked the film more sat home home in front of my monster screen with 7.1 sound not screwed up by some little dick eating crisp behind me! Although I'd still think they should have sent Scarlet to boot camp before letting her near that suit!
Oh, and 2 adults, 2 kids and an under 5 - £50! Makes me feel less bad about downloading so much!
Saying that though I really enjoyed the movie and 3D effects are definitely getting better. Have been thinking about upgrading my home projector to one of the new 3D ones (Epson) and I might go and have a demo to see if it's comparable with the cinema screen.
The whole 3D debate reminds me of HD a few years ago. That seemed to polarise people, with some saying they didn't see the point of it. Now HD is everywhere and you'd be hard pressed to find a TV without it. I think 3D is going the same way where in a few years it'll become the normal specification in a TV, and folk won't even question it.
s1962a said:
Cinema seats aren't that comfortable for 2.5 hour movies
That's why I generally pay a few quid more for the VIP seats in my local Vue cinema. Money well spent, I reckon. Plus you're less likely to get kids kicking your seat too (so long as you don't choose the back row of the VIP seats)Pesty said:
VinceFox said:
Must admit, i dont know who the othe woman in it was, but she looked better than johannson imho.
I agree I also would eat pepper potshowever to call Scarlet chunky and cpmplain about skin tight pants
is definitely gay and i don't even rate her that much
No, the one with the dark hair. Way better bone structure and figure imho.
VinceFox said:
Pesty said:
VinceFox said:
Must admit, i dont know who the othe woman in it was, but she looked better than johannson imho.
I agree I also would eat pepper potshowever to call Scarlet chunky and cpmplain about skin tight pants
is definitely gay and i don't even rate her that much
No, the one with the dark hair. Way better bone structure and figure imho.
Tiggsy said:
Hey, I gave 6.9/10 Thats not "dislike" - just couldnt get into it because of the dumb 3D and the odd mix of Gods and techno. I like my Superheros a bit less super...Batman and Kick Arse are more my thing!
The Gods are techno. Even though Thor was a horrible film, it does explain quite well that the Gods are just an alien race who have far superior tech to Earth. Thor's hammer is just higher level tech. Hulk is a God, so is Iron-Man. The film Thor has less to do with the comic Thor.Your point about BW and Hawk is a little valid. They are just the best of the best, anyone can fight bad guys if they got the balls, plus we do see them emotionally and physically shattered in the film, showing that they are obviosuly on the very limits of what they can do.
As for thingys fat arse, I like her, but my fave lady in the film was the hot SHIELD agent.
As someone else said, she plays Robin in How I Met Your Mother.
I saw the film last night, and I think I'm in a minority with this. I found it really rather boring. An hour and a half to set it all up just seemed to drag it all out, and then fit all the action in to the last 30 minutes.
I loved Ironman, quite enjoyed Thor and I have seen Captain America on a plane and can't remember it being terrible, but this really just seemed to drag. Without Tony Stark it would have all been a bit of nothing really. It was more like Ironman 2.5 than a film on its own. Very disappointed, I was hoping for so much more.
I saw the film last night, and I think I'm in a minority with this. I found it really rather boring. An hour and a half to set it all up just seemed to drag it all out, and then fit all the action in to the last 30 minutes.
I loved Ironman, quite enjoyed Thor and I have seen Captain America on a plane and can't remember it being terrible, but this really just seemed to drag. Without Tony Stark it would have all been a bit of nothing really. It was more like Ironman 2.5 than a film on its own. Very disappointed, I was hoping for so much more.
Cobie Smulders is the Agent with the bit part (ex Model) and would have been a better black widow. SJ has the lower body of a 45 yr old mother of 3.
I think part of the problem for me is that the CGI in films has made anything possible and so many of the action scenes become completely devoid of any grounding in reality...and so the suspense of "will they make it" is removed. It's like Tom and Jerry, chop of their heads and a new one will pop back!
SPOILER
A good example was Hawk Eye shooting his arrow at Loki - the shot was impossible and the reaction of Loki impossible. Even impossible in "their" world. May as well have been watching Itchy and Scratchy!
I think part of the problem for me is that the CGI in films has made anything possible and so many of the action scenes become completely devoid of any grounding in reality...and so the suspense of "will they make it" is removed. It's like Tom and Jerry, chop of their heads and a new one will pop back!
SPOILER
A good example was Hawk Eye shooting his arrow at Loki - the shot was impossible and the reaction of Loki impossible. Even impossible in "their" world. May as well have been watching Itchy and Scratchy!
s1962a said:
The whole 3D debate reminds me of HD a few years ago. That seemed to polarise people, with some saying they didn't see the point of it.
ks lady magazine.
JonRB said:
It's going to be interesting / a shame if they bring the Fantastic Four into the Avengers franchise given Chris Evans plays both the Human Torch and Captain America.
That won't happen. Not at the moment anyway. Marvel Studios made the recent batch of movies building up to and including The Avengers, but they don't own the movie rights for some other Marvel characters. These were sold off to other studios at some point in the past.Spiderman is owned by Sony, X-men and Fantastic Four are owned by Twentieth Century Fox, etc.
So until Marvel gets the rights back for these characters, there won't be any crossover as the movies are made by different studios.
Big Worm 1 said:
Spiderman is owned by Sony, X-men and Fantastic Four are owned by Twentieth Century Fox, etc.
Sony remade Spiderman as to not lose the rights. FF needs to be remade as well or TCF will lose them, some hope that they don't and then FF will revert back to Marvel in a couple of years and can enter canon.The Major said:
the bit where hulk smashed up loki was quite funny, got a laugh out of me, aswell as hulk hitting thor.
Loki so makes that scene.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff