Avengers Assemble: Wherein I say a lot about something I don't really have much to say about.

[rheasilvia]

Several weeks ago, I watched Avengers. I thought it was rather fun, but don't have stronger feelings about it than that. There was one plot hole which irritated both me and the unfannish friend who watched the movie with me, however.

So, about the Hulk… The first time Bruce hulked out, the Hulk tried his damnedest to kill Natasha in his uncontrollably destructive rage. But the second time, he actively worked with the Avengers. Not only did he not attack them, he also went out of his way to save Tony. Uhm, sorry, movie, but for a change as drastic and vital as this, there really needs to be an explanation.

Dear translators, may I have a word?
What the hell, people. In German, "remember" is a transitive verb, for god's sake.* Two gods shouting at each other should not use such suspect grammar, especially not twice in a row. That didn't so much throw me out of the scene as catapult me out, causing me to bounce and leave skid marks.

* Heee, pun!

And now for some random opinions and observations.

• My unfannish friend noted without prompting (!) that Loki's actor was clearly the best of the bunch, and that he looked wonderfully insane. She did not agree with me that he needed more screentime, though.


• My unfannish friend also noted that she felt the banter and snark was overdone. To her, she explained, people who are banter-y and snark-y in serious situations don't seem courageous and funny and macho in that "I laugh in the face of danger" way. Instead, they seem unaware of the seriousness of the situation. In other words, they do not seem like people of intelligence and competence.


• I must say, I definitely see her point.


• She did agree with me that in some cases, banter can be used as a defence mechanism to cover up insecurity and fear, and if it's clear that this is the function of the banter in question, it's fine. (See also: Tony Stark.)


• The way the movie staged the Stuttgart scene made it seem like Schäfer Securities (or whatever the exact name of the company was) is established in the Marvel universe in some way. Which – incidentally – is also the only reason I can think of for choosing Stuttgart, of all places.


• Steve made my skin crawl less than I had feared. I did have to suppress giggles every time he actually wore that costume, however, especially when he had the cowl up (this detracted from the drama of several scenes for me). Fortunately, he himself had his own reservations, which made it easier for me to take.


• Thor throwing out the "he's adopted" line did not work for me at all in terms of characterization.


• Hawkeye was much cooler than anticipated.


• So was Bruce.


• I also liked Tony.


• My unfannish friend thought Thor was hotter than a hot thing. I don't get it, but then I'm weird that way. ;-)


• I didn't see any Steve/Tony in the movie, which I am glad for (it's complicated). I am not glad that I am unable to read the pairing, though, because it seems to be the main one in the Avengers fandom right now, and I'm sure some of the fanfic is excellent.


• The flying helicarrier thingie was pretty ridiculous (read: suicidal) in terms of practicality. But I suppose coolness outweighs pragmatism. ;-)


• My unfannish friend loved the big dramatic showdown battle. I take this to mean that it was good. (I am usually rather bored by lengthy fight sequences, regardless of how well-done and how special-effecty. But I acknowledge this is a quirk not shared by the majority of cinema-goers. *g*)


• My unfannish friend wondered what the purpose of gagging Loki was. I assume it was twofold: A - to prevent him from verbally casting spells, and B - as a symbolic gesture to commemorate his cognomen "Liesmith". However, considering that the movie did not actually show Loki doing anything more dangerous with his mouth than smirking, I agree that the gag did indeed not make sense.

One more thought, this time with added X-Men First Class reference.

• You know how the critters in the big dramatic showdown battle were all encased in metal? I couldn't help thinking that Erik would have made extremely short work of them…


• Bet someone at SHIELD is contemplating travelling back in time right now, solely in order to kick the asses of those idiots who fired missiles at someone who could have been a one-man alien-invasion-defeating super-army. Hindsight, how thou art 20/20.

ALSO, why oh why does nobody - including professional screenwriters - *ever* get the Early Modern English pronouns of address right? I'm looking at you, Anthony Stark. It is really not that hard. I still have an unfinished fannish tutorial on the correct use of "thou" and "you" somewhere on my harddrive... maybe I should dig it out and finish it.

Would you believe I started writing this entry to talk about 3D films? I didn't think I had anything much to say about Avengers. Well, next post. :-)

Comments

[anotherslashfan]

What the hell, people. In German, "remember" is a transitive verb, for god's sake.

Word. That totally threw me, too. But I guess this (mis-)use is already common in certain parts of the German-speaking regions.

[rheasilvia]

When I complained about this at work, some colleagues said that it's a dialect form in parts of Northern Germany (I thought it was an Americanism). I'd also heard a colleague use the verb in an intransitive form before, and shamed him into repenting. ;-)

Language changes, I know, but some changes are just so horrible that they should be resisted for as long as possible. The translator who did this has a lot to answer for. *narrows eyes*

[the_shoshanna]

So, about the Hulk… The first time Bruce hulked out, the Hulk tried his damnedest to kill Natasha in his uncontrollably destructive rage. But the second time, he actively worked with the Avengers. Not only did he not attack them, he also went out of his way to save Tony. Uhm, sorry, movie, but for a change as drastic and vital as this, there really needs to be an explanation.

When Bruce Hulks out on the carrier, Loki is affecting him (and all of them) through the spear; I think we're supposed to infer that this makes him even more rage-filled than usual. Still, I had the same problem, and friends have patiently explained to me that Bruce's "I'm always angry" line indicates that he has always had at least the theoretical ability to control "the other guy" more than it seemed in previous Hulk-outs.

I'm not so sure I buy this,considering that he was so afraid of "the other guy" that he tried to commit suicide. But they were convinced by it, so I offer it fwiw.

[rheasilvia]

Ah, I see... I didn't infer any of that, and I agree that it isn't satisfactory as an explanation. Bruce never gives the impression that he can control "the other guy" to any degree at all, before that last instance of hulking out; Bruce is always shown as completely horrified of him, and willing to do anything at all to prevent the Hulk from appearing again. The Hulk is always presented as a catastrophe, something that must inevitably cause incredible destruction. This all seems far too extreme if Bruce actually *can* control him under normal circumstances.

It also makes SHIELD's countermeasures for the Hulk more suspect, because it tips their motivations over into "we don't trust anyone who controls such power and routinely devise methods to take them down" territory, where before it's merely been "we must guard against the worst-case-scenario of an uncontrollable, destructive force appearing".

That's not to say that your friends' interpretation isn't the intended one. I find it entirely possible that it is. This is the fourth different explanation I've heard for The Hulk Plot Problem, though; very many viewers are trying to find an explanation because they thought things didn't add up. So really, whatever was meant to be the explanation, it should definitely have been made clearer in the movie.

[lilacsigil]

My interpretation of the Hulk incident (which should definitely have been clearer in the movie!) was that Bruce saw Hulk as totally separate from him, a monster of rage and pain, and thus that's what Hulk was. When he fell into the warehouse, the old man told him that he carefully manouevered to avoid landing in a populated area and hurting anyone - Bruce realises for the first time that when the Hulk is not in pain/fear he is not monstrous. Therefore when he willingly transforms in a situation where he hasn't been already hurt or scared, the Hulk is not monstrous and brutal.

This makes a lot more sense if you know the comics storyline where Bruce (as a child) was abused by his father over a long period of time and, as an adult, constantly suppressed his anger so that he wouldn't be like his father. When he developed a literal alter ego, it became a rage monster, and Bruce was terrified of it. As he slowly came to terms with what had happened to him and his own emotional response, the Hulk developed more of Bruce's personality rather than just being a child's idea of adult rage.

Either way, I agree: it needed to be better explained in the movie.

[rheasilvia]

it needed to be better explained in the movie.

YES! It says a lot that there are so many different interpretations, and everyone who saw the movie feels the need to fill in the blanks by finding a plausible explanation of their own for the unexplained. :-)

I like yours a lot, particularly because it gives a special significance to the landing scene with the old man, which I liked quite a bit. And the comics background does indeed add a lot to it... too bad there was no chance for the film to go into that.

[onyxlynx]

ALSO, why oh why does nobody - including professional screenwriters - *ever* get the Early Modern English pronouns of address right?

Not enough were raised as Anglicans/Episcopalians before the Book of Common Prayer was modernized.

Seriously.