Avengers: Disassembled

Okay, I’m about to raise the ire of a whole lot of people: I’m about to tear apart The Avengers.  Go ahead, get angry at me and get it out of your system now, but then read what I have to say, and tell me I’m not at least partially right.  Oh, and [WARNING: SPOILER ALERT].

First off, let’s discuss the biases in the movie.  So, the Avengers are made up of five white guys (okay, four white guys and one green one, I guess), one woman, and the baddest muthaf**** on the planet.  Quick question: where are Wasp and War Machine?  Let’s look at these two characters and wonder, shall we?  Yeah, Joss Whedon fought to keep Black Widow in the movie, but what most people don’t bother considering is that he was fighting the fact that the studio wanted Wasp on the team.  Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but if you’ve got a group of superheroes, would you not want a super-powered woman on the team as opposed to the one who just shoots a gun?  Or, better yet, would you not want both?  Both would be good, right?  So, why no Wasp? 

In fact, let’s take this a step further: why no Captain Marvel (NOT the Kree one)?  I’m not expecting full-powered Captain Marvel out of nowhere, but why not introduce Monica Rambeau?  Or why not introduce Carol Danvers, considering she was a member of the military before she became Captain Marvel.  It’s easy to do: for Carol Danvers, you introduce the character, possibly as an agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. recruited from the Air Force, during the introduction of the idea of intergalactic contact and combat.  This setup lays the foundation for the character getting her powers based on audience expectations.  The same can be done for Monica Rambeau: you’re already dealing with an intergalactic energy source which is on full public display for the entire climactic battle at the end of the movie.  You introduce the character as part of Harbor Patrol or the Coast Guard who has a reaction to the alien energy given off, and BOOM! Captain Marvel.

But this would be adding a new character which the movie would have to establish, in addition to dealing with the characters already present.  Okay, I get that.  Fair enough.  What about War Machine?  In the comics, War Machine was a member of the West Coast Avengers for years, not to mention being Iron Man when Tony Stark was absent in the ‘80s.  Jim Rhodes had already been established and fleshed out across two Iron Man movies, so that’s a non-issue.  Furthermore, at the end of the second Iron Man movie, it’s established that he is now in possession of the War Machine armour, as Stark simply let Rhodes simply fly off with it.  Now, please explain to me how having two Iron Man suits in combat during the climactic battle is a bad thing?  Especially considering that one of them would be piloted by a trained, experienced, and decorated Air Force colonel, a fact emphasized in the Iron Man films?  It would have been child’s play to invoke Rhodes’ military status and call him in on this situation.  Now the argument could be made that Don Cheadle wasn’t available, or was too expensive for the movie, but you know what?  That’s no excuse.  Marvel Studios has already set a precedent by replacing Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle, not to mention replacing Eric Bana with Edward Norton with Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner.

I do think The Avengers does a lot right: the ethnic and gender diversity aboard the Helicarrier; the fact that Black Widow outsmarts the trickster god; Maria Hill’s presence, if not her stated position as second-in-command.  It’s just that there were so many opportunities to do those sorts of things even better, which were simply passed up because Whedon wanted to recreate the conflict from the first issue of The Avengers as closely as possible (yeah, I saw what you did there, Joss).

On that note, let’s talk about Loki for a minute.  You know why he was such a good villain in Thor?  Because, on the surface, his motivation for genocide makes a terrifying amount of sense.  Loki sees the frost giants as a continuing threat to Asgard, despite learning his true parentage, and wants to prove his worth as both ruler of Asgard and son of Odin by eliminating that threat permanently.  Therefore, he manipulates everyone to his own ends, and Odin’s dismissal at the end isn’t that of a callous parent, but of a man saddened that his child thought that genocide was the only answer.  Underlying Loki’s surface reasons, the self-loathing from years of being in Thor’s shadow comes to a head when Loki learns of his true parentage, and the genocide takes on a disturbingly personal psychological aspect as well. 

Now, let’s look at Loki in The Avengers.  Yes, he’s still manipulative.  Yes, he’s still opposition to Thor.  Everything that made him relatable, however, is gone.  His reasoning (‘I’m here to free you from freedom’) is ridiculous and doesn’t trick anyone, his bloodlust actually goes against his characterization in Thor (see: the face-to-face confrontation between the frost giants and Thor, Loki, Sif, and the Warriors Three), and the fact that he is taking orders is something he would have railed against and attempted to overthrow at the earliest opportunity.  Loki in The Avengers feels like a character who is there simply to be the villain, not a proper character.

Speaking of proper characters, that brings me to Agent Coulson.  Ah, Agent Coulson.  Here’s my problem: he’s a likeable enough character, but he is also inconsequential.  Why would his death be the rallying point for the Avengers as a team?  Take a look at his relationships with the team members: Captain America barely knew him; there was no on-screen interaction between Coulson and Banner/the Hulk; his relationship with Thor was outright antagonistic for most of, well, Thor; and Tony Stark couldn’t even be arsed to learn Coulson’s first name.  So, why is he the one the Avengers rally around?  I ask, but, unfortunately, I already know the answer.  He’s a recurring character who isn’t an Avenger and isn’t Nick Fury, and thus can be killed off without enraging the fanboys, and we all know that the death of a minor character is Joss Whedon’s cheap attempt to pack an emotional punch (see: Buffy’s mother; Book and Wash).

Oh, about that cheap emotional punch?  Black Widow and the Hulk, ladies and gentlemen.  So, let me make sure I’ve got this straight: a woman who has been an assassin and spy from a single-digit age and who has seen and done things for various governments which would make James Bond queasy, not to mention is in the persistent presence of not one, but two demigods, a 90-something-year-old super soldier, and a ‘genius, billionaire, philanthropist playboy’, suddenly becomes a quivering, almost-catatonic mess when faced with the Hulk?  Does anyone else see a problem here?  Especially considering she openly asks for the Hulk’s return during the climactic battle?  Chalk another one up to Whedon’s weird (not to mention creepy) need to infantilize at least one of the women in his character ensembles (see: Willow; Kaylee).

Also, Whedon absolutely does not know how to handle Bruce Banner.  That’s all I’m going to say, as that’s a rant unto itself.

The funny thing is, despite everything, I really enjoyed The Avengers.  It was big, fun, and entertaining, but not particularly deep.  The thing is, I can enjoy it, but still admit to the problems with it, and that’s kinda the point, isn’t it?