So, like, why is the hulk some uncontrollable rage-beast who tears the heli-carrier apart, but later in the movie he's an under-control ally/team player?

because they completed his loyalty mission after the heli-carrier incident

I seriously overthink movies, I spent some time pondering this as well but ultimately I was able to accept it. By my guess it's probably several factors:

At the end of the movie, it's Bruce Banner's choice to come. He isn't tricked or coherced into showing up for the fight.

Bruce Banner 'calls' for the change into Hulk. It wasn't an accident/explosion/pain type reaction.

Stark's arguements convinced him.

I think there's actually a logic and rule set to the movie hulk. If Banner transforms by accident, say he's injured or mad or drugged or something else like that, he'll turn into a mindless rage beast. But if he transforms on purpose, via meditation or by intentionally letting the anger flood out, he can control it. Not perfectly, as we see, there's still a storm of madness between Banner and the rest of the world, but he can at least "aim it", as said in the prior movie.

-That said, did I hear correctly that Ruffalo's been snatched up into a contract for more Hulk movies? I could be down with that.

When it comes to the Hulk, you gotta think of it this way: It's like being really hungry. If there's not much to choose from, you'll eat whatever is there. If there is a variety of things to choose from, you will eat whatever you want to eat most.

"I'm always angry." Direct from the horse's mouth.

I just saw it. I thought more people were comic book nerds here so I'm amazed this hasn't been said yet. Unless i missed it.

OMG Skrulls

What Skrulls?

lol, the alien bad guys, the Chitauri were used in place of the skrulls because i guess some other production company owns the rights to the skrulls .

unless you are referring to Thanos who does look a LOT like a different colored Skrull.

is there an echo in this thread?

The end bit after the first part of the credits (before the scrolling credits) the big bad turned around and smiled. he was a Skrull.

oh, I see. It's Thanos.

The corrugated chin threw me off.

Edit 2: how does one do a strikethrough?

And you chastised us for not knowing he was a Skrull when it was YOU WHO DID NOT KNOW THIS TRUTH!

Sorry that the guys most distinctive feature is exactly the same as an entire races most distinctive feature. Mistaken identity.

I could see how you could get that confused. To me, just because it was a singular guy, who looked exactly like Thanos, and he smiled when the Chiaturi leader said something about "courting death", I was able to deduce that it was Thanos.

Not to mention the glowing eyes. Last I heard, Skrulls don't have glowing eyes. And of course, Skrulls are green in their original forms.

and he had a sticker on that said HELLO my name is Thanos. ok... so maybe not that.

Wow. Finally saw it. Okay, great movie, but I have two major complaints:

1.) The 3D was terrible. Terrible, terrible, terrible. Michael Bay terrible. I know it was done in post, but usually the conversions aren't this bad. The stereo separation was random and insane and physiologically impossible, lots of glitching and artifacts (especially in high-contrast scenes.) I walked out of the theater with a splitting headache and I still have it - and that never happens to me. Ever! And I play games in 3D at home and do crazy stuff with the depth and stereo separation! I never get headaches, but this movie gave me a bad one. I ****ing hate studios doing parallax 3D in post. It doesn't ****ing work. **** this 3D fad and the dumb**** producers who buy into it. Film it directly in 3D or GTFO. ****.

2.) Nobody else complained about the 3D, so I thought it would be good. **** you. **** you, Koobie. **** you, everybody who saw the movie in 3D and didn't complain about it.

Also the Hulk's character development was abrupt and poorly explained.

But other than that, good movie.

**** 3D.

That's really odd, Jon. Is it possible the projector wasn't set up correctly? I know what bad post-production 3D looks like and this definitely wasn't it. I saw Drive Angry in 3D, which apparently was filmed in 3D, and was somehow worse than The Avengers.

It's an easy fix. Don't see post-converted movies in 3d. That's what I did.

'Bad' is subjective. That it was post-production 3D is a fact.

The projectors weren't the problem. Besides owning home 3D, I've also done research on 3D displays so I have a pretty good eye for the terrible things they've done. The horrible mistakes aren't quite as obvious as Transformers 3 (which was '2 inch spaceship hovering a foot away' bad) but at least Transformers 3 didn't give me a headache.

Or carry a pair of 2D glasses with you, just in case.

I think my biggest complaint with 3D is the dimming that it causes. It seems like either they don't or can't do anything to compensate for this.

I think I'm just going to start voting with my dollars. James Cameron 3D, hell yeah. Peter Jackson seems to have a good handle on it too, based on his vlogs. Anybody else, though? **** 'em.

Edit:

The main reason for the dimming is because they would need to buy more powerful, shorter-life, hotter bulbs (a.k.a. $.) Since the entire reason we're stuck with this fad is so the theaters can boost ticket prices without facing a customer backlash, spending more money on bulbs would defeat the purpose.

The dimming also helps to cover up artifacts by reducing contrast. The screen and filters aren't perfect, so you always have some ghosting between the two views. It's always there, but you can only see it in scenes that have high contrast. In low-contrast scenes, the ghosting is obscured by the intended image. Unfortunately The Avengers is riddled with this because Joss Whedon really loves putting bright lights on actors in dark rooms.

Don't forget Scorsese.

i saw it in 3D the first time and i didnt notice any of the artifacting or headache inducing things(but then i was horribly drunk), but there were some obvious shots that just looked horribly gimmicky. saw it in 2D the second time and enjoyed it much more.

I guess. I never saw Hugo, but if Cameron says that Scorsese can do 3D better than he can, I'll believe it.

The 3D in Hugo really was that good.

i dont know how i feel about 3D. this is only like the 3rd movie i've seen in 3D, and frankly the only time i've seen things seem to "come out of the screen" was in the opening credits of The Avengers with the glowy blue stuff. the effect for me is just added perception of depth. As if i could reach into the screen if i wanted to.

oh yeah i thought the 3D was painful too, sorry for not sayin' so I guess

3D always gives me headaches.

I thought it was fine.

-That's me, though.

I thought the 3D was below average. The 3D sparks seemed ok, but any flying craft seemed to lose scale and ended up looking like they were pasted in.

I have yet to see a single 3D film.

Don't start here. Watch The Hobbit in 3d this December.

saw non imax and non 3d just now, i enjoyed very much even though i didnt see iron man 2, thor, the hulk or captain america

Yeah, if you have a basic concept of what the characters are, I don't think you really NEED to see the other ones. It would help to have seen Thor, though.

Incredible Hulk and Captain America are both very good.

-Go see them.

That was sort of my impression, the characters I was semi-familiar with from outside sources, but the villian I had no idea



Too many movies to see already =/

Iron Man 1, Captain America, and Thor are all really good. Iron Man 2 and Incredible Hulk are okay, but tbh they are very skippable.