75 replies to this topic

[Hank Cannon]

I saw this on Facebook and was surprised how strongly the combination affected me. I really liked the Avengers, but the kludge of two things I liked invoked goosepimply fanboy overload.

[Lucian Von Dooom]

That was cool.

[Stephen G]

umm...HOLY CRAP.

That was incredible.

[Christian U]

I'd watch the shit out of that series.

That said, I'd rather have another season of Firefly

[steveuk]

It reminds me to watch 'Firefly' again, again.

[Todd Gross]

"Avengers" Passing $600M Domestic Today

[steveuk]

Jeremy Renner 'not happy' with Avengers role
New Bourne star reckons that his character of Hawkeye wasn't as well developed as the others

Jeremy Renner has said that he was unhappy with how his character of Hawkeye came across in superhero smash hit 'Avengers Assemble'.

He adds that he 'did not sign up for' what happens to his character, after he is brainwashed by the evil Loki, played by British actor Tom Hiddleston.

"For 90% of the movie, I'm not the character I signed on to play," he told the LA Times. "It's kind of a vacancy. [He's] not even a bad guy, because there's not really a consciousness to him.

"To take away who that character is and just have him be this robot, essentially, and have him be this minion for evil that Loki uses... I was limited, you know what I mean? I was a terminator in a way. Fun stunts. But is there any sort of emotional content or thought process?"

Renner was also disappointed that Hawkeye was the least developed of the team in terms of character.

"Is [Hawkeye] working for SHIELD or not? There's a lot of unanswered questions, even for me."

Renner is currently starring in 'The Bourne Legacy,' out today, having taken over from Matt Damon in the Bourne series.

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/jeremy-renner--not-happy--with-avengers-role.html

I thought Hawkeye was handled well as a proper intro to the general audience but I get what he's saying from his POV. He wants to act, not just kick-ass and that's not what these films are really about for many characters.

[Dave Wallace]

Interesting comments - especially since it implies that his role in the movie changed considerably between him signing on for the project and him filming it.

Unless he signed on for the role without having seen a script or having been told what his character's role would be - in which case, he can't really complain.

Either way, I thought his character was developed reasonably well given that he was a new character fighting for screentime with several other established heroes. Making him a villain early on in the movie gave him a chance to show how deadly he could be, and the character development in his scenes with Black Widow was handled pretty well. Plus, he gets some great moments in the final fight. So I don't think he has much to complain about.

[Steve Sensible]

Sounds like somebody's angling for more to do / a bigger pay-day next time round.

[steveuk]

I think he's a serious actor and he knows this kind of thing is great as a career move, but if he's going to take a role as a troubled soldier with a lot of issues he much prefers something like 'Hurt Locker' to a movie like 'Avengers'.

One of the things that puts me off 'The Bourne Legacy' is that I doubt he wanted to do it all that much?

[Martin Smith]

He has some fair points. Hawkers isn't especially Hawkeye for most of the film.

[garjones]

I can understand it. I think it worked well for the film overall but as an actor I can see how it would be frustrating not being able to express the character for two thirds of the film.

He should get a better chance next time though, his character was the main one that needed set up. Black Widow was given a decent role in Iron Man 2 but the brief cameo in Thor really told you nothing more than there's a guy with a bow and arrow (and he doesn't even shoot it).

[Christian U]

Well, it's nice that he cares about the character (even though it's a bit weird to complain so publicly about this). I'm sure he'll get a better outing next time.

[Johnny Henning]

It's likely he was cast before the script was even in any shape for him to know what he would be playing. I have to say that I didn't see his character the same way he did. When he was working for Loki, I still felt that was Hawkeye. Loki wasn't controlling him like a puppet. Instead, Cliff was using his mind and skills with total loyalty to Loki - the same as he does when he's working with SHIELD and The Avengers. In the end, I thought it gave his character something distinct to work with. From now on, he'll have to question whether he is making his own choices or if he's being manipulated even when, especially when, he's working for Fury.

[steveuk]

It's likely he was cast before the script was even in any shape for him to know what he would be playing. I have to say that I didn't see his character the same way he did. When he was working for Loki, I still felt that was Hawkeye. Loki wasn't controlling him like a puppet. Instead, Cliff was using his mind and skills with total loyalty to Loki - the same as he does when he's working with SHIELD and The Avengers. In the end, I thought it gave his character something distinct to work with. From now on, he'll have to question whether he is making his own choices or if he's being manipulated even when, especially when, he's working for Fury.

That's pretty much what I thought too with the slight difference that Hawkeye is not a yes man.

When he's got control of his own thoughts he's a hard working team player but also proactive and willing to argue. Mind-controlled Hawkeye was definitely missing that aspect.

But to return to agreeing; the legacy of that experience is definitely something Whedon could build on for the next film. If he wants to?

[Chris D]

Yeah, I can kind of see where Renner is coming from, but at the same time felt like Hawkeye got a pretty decent introduction to audiences. You were made to understand that he's very skilled and dangerous and worthy of standing side by side with the likes of Iron Man, Cap, Thor, etc. He did probably have the least satisfying character arc, but I think the whole mind control thing can be used as good set-up for a future character arc.

[Jacowboy (Jonathan)]

Same as everyone... I see where he comes from, but I thought his character was handled rather well in a movie with so many characters AND RDJr... Plus he got some of the coolest action scenes on the movie, and for me at least, it left me wanting to see more of him, which is something I can't say about any of the other characters... I really want to know more of Hawkeye on the 2nd movie, so I'd put that in the "win" column.

Meh, as long as it doesn't devolve into a Ed Norton debacle, it's fine...

Oh and BTW, I thought Evan's Cap was the least explored character in the movie... Both Hawkeye and Widow got a surprising amount of plot and screen-time all things considered.

[garjones]

Oh and BTW, I thought Evan's Cap was the least explored character in the movie... Both Hawkeye and Widow got a surprising amount of plot and screen-time all things considered.

Apparently a lot of Cap was left on the cutting room floor and will be in the mooted 3 hour version.

[Stephen G]

Wow - I'm really surprised some of this. I loved Renner's portrayal of Hawkeye. His whole seeing everything - using the literal interpretation of being a "hawkeye" was truly awesome. And the back-story we have of Widow and he worked really well. Maybe he wanted more - but from my standpoint of viewing the movie, he was fantastic.

[Jacowboy (Jonathan)]

Maybe he wanted more

Well in that case he's not really the smartest bulb in the bunch, if he didn't realise he was gonna be competing for screentime with Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, RDJR, Sam Jackson, Mark Ruffalo, Tom Hiddleston AND Scarlett Johanson, and should've probably passed on the role =S