Escape to the Movies: You Are Wrong About Spider-Man 3

BehattedWanderer

Fell off the Alligator.
Jun 24, 2009
5,237
0
0
Just because it's supposed to be bad doesn't negate the fact that it's bad, though. Thematically it works, but as a piece in a movie, it goes on way too long, and there's never a counter realization that what he's doing hasn't made him cooler, it's only made him more obnoxious. Had he realized that on screen instead of just having a kind of bland "what am i doing" moment, it would have worked better. Sandman is a lot of visual fun, but his arc is absolutely terrible. The nonsense with Goblin Jr only exists because they suddenly needed a buddy team-up. Vulture would have been a hell of a lot more fun, but that wouldn't step to Doc Oc's performance in the previous movie where thematically appropriate lined up perfectly with both visual aesthetic and great charactization and arcing. I haven't seen ASM2 yet, so I'll hold off on saying whether it's worse than SM3, but I'll definitely agree that I'd take SM3 over TDKR.
 

Jacco

New member
May 1, 2011
1,738
0
0
Peter Parker is to Spidreman what Julie Andrews is to Mary Poppins and Judy Garland is to Wizard of Oz. He is THE Spiderman and always will be, no matter how much they try to change it.

I adore all three of the original movies, the third slightly less so, and I agree with him that The Other Edward Cullen plays it too cool and sexily to be "right."
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
V TheSystem V said:
I remember seeing this on my 14th birthday and thinking it was the best of the three. Got it on DVD the following Christmas, and did not like it as much as I had originally thought. Maybe because I wasn't with my friends laughing about bits of it as I had been in the cinema? I dunno.

Peter Parker dancing down the street is very hard to watch with a straight face, it's embarrassing. Venom was underused and shouldn't have been used unless Raimi was dedicated to focusing on him and him alone (my opinion). Sandman was great, but I was pretty damn annoyed at the retconning of Uncle Ben's death. It made Peter's first act as Spider-Man (apprehending his uncle's killer) completely pointless. Yes, the guy was responsible, but not the actual killer, so placing Sandman as the killer completely negates that scene from the first Spider-Man.

The birth of Sandman scene was amazing, though.
My basic attitude is that if Marvel gets Spider-Man and The X-men back they should consider doing "Secret Wars". To be honest the whole problem with doing Venom is that he was written into the comics in a very strange way, and was a bit of a surprise. That is to say during "Secret Wars" Spider-Man gets his costume ripped and uses a machine in the base The Beyonder gave the heroes to repair it. The costume the machine creates for him is a black one which enhances his powers. He doesn't really figure out what it is until he gets back to earth. Given that The Beyonder created the "Warworld" where Secret Wars took place from pieces all over the multiverse the thing is that Venom could have been from pretty much anywhere, or anywhen, perhaps even created by the machine itself.

Unlike Bob I think Venom is okay, and honestly when you consider it's origins and how it was pretty much "born" symbiotically attached to Spider Man, it's obsession with him is obvious. Also as he's learned more about the world, watching Venom grow and adapt has been interesting, as despite his predatory nature he's taken several turns as an anti-hero over the years, going so far as to try and take out it's own "children" due to the threat they pose to humanity.

I don't know if it ever came up in the comics, but I've kind of felt that finding what world Venom was from originally, or the origin of the technology that made it into a costume could be interesting, since everything in that world was supposed to have come from somewhere.

I also think that in general "Secret Wars" was one of Marvels better events/crossovers, and while very old (and from a time when Marvel was in a different state) on a lot of levels I liked it better than the whole "Infinity Gauntlet" thing, which ultimately seemed to use the same schtick for the finale (bad guy gets infinite power, winds up unable to handle it and defeats himself). Of course it was a VERY simplistic set up and storyline as well, which was part of the appeal and probably also why it would work for a movie even if people would criticize it for being really shallow as a result. Still if they were going to do a cinematic Spider-Man in the marvel continuity, they could introduce him in his own film, cross him over into Secret Wars, and then do the whole Venom story arc as his next movie.

I'll also say that I thought Brock wasn't bad, and to be honest he's always been the best Venom, a guy you start out thinking would be really bad, but actually isn't, though he does utterly hate Peter Parker. It's also ironic that the whole reason he has powers is specifically that the symbiote empowering him is obsessed with/has a love on for, the guy Brock most hates, even if the Symbiote is in a jilted rage.
 

Lupine

New member
Apr 26, 2014
112
0
0
Kumagawa Misogi said:
Vivi22 said:
Kumagawa Misogi said:
And Bob confirms he has really bad taste.
You know, I don't agree with Bob on much, but if there's one thing I can get behind him on it's that Spider-Man 3 isn't as bad as people thought it was, and that Venom was mildly interesting one time when he first appeared in comics. Every appearance after that he's been a boring, one dimensional character that Marvel can never seem to decide whether he should be a villain or a hero, all the while not realizing that the only thing that ever made him interesting was his stalker-esque original portrayal. Not by being a "dark and edgey," version of Spider-Man.
I have never read the Spiderman comic were Venom first appears till recently. I knew Venom first from the 90's cartoon that was fantastic, the 90's may have sucked for comics but their cartoons were awesome.

And that's why I was really disappointed with Venom in Spiderman 3 in the cartoon's Peter Parker is terrified of Venom, an opponent who his spider-sense does not work against, an opponent who knows who he is, who knows who his loved ones are. The film did not convey that, did not have time to convey that.

As to the sand-man I found his motivation and character arc cliché and the portrayal dull rather than threatening.

For a film with 3 villain's only the first fights against both the 2nd GG and the sand-man were okay, the 2nd fight against the sand-man just happened out of nowhere and the rest of the long film was rather empty and either dry or cringe worthy.
I feel that the movie sort of misses the point. It missed the point not of what Peter Parker thinks is cool or dark and gritty as anti-heroes go, but rather it misses the point of what The Symbiote and by extension Venom is.

The point of Venom isn't "evil spider-man", the point of Venom is "the evil inside of spider-man". Peter Parker is a hero, but he didn't actually decide to be a hero. Peter Parker's guilt toward his Uncle's death is what finally drives him toward the heroic path and while I don't think that makes him any less heroic, it is something to realize and remember.

Peter Parker didn't want to be a hero, he wanted to make money, gain fame, and woo women. His guilt forces him away from chasing after these things, but Venom is just the reason to bring all of this back to the spotlight. The Symbiote brings out the worst in its host. You don't turn into a monster, it brings out the monster already lurking inside you.

Peter shouldn't be trying to be cool, he should be violent, volatile, and completely blind to what he is and what he's doing. Anti-villain is not where the symbiote leads and it would have been interesting to see Peter hit rock bottom and then dig himself out to pull the pieces of his life back together. And just as that's happening, boom frightening stalker Venom with his superior physical presence, intimate knowledge, lack of spider sense triggering, and basic freakishness. I realize Raimi really didn't want to do Venom and the studio forced it on him, but lemons and lemonade honestly. If I couldn't make the movie I wanted I'd have made the stuff shoveled on me as great as I could manage.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
Lupine said:
Maybe, but I personally greatly prefer Venom's original portrayal as a basically good but lonely creature that merely wanted to bond with others especially Peter to survive and for company and only became a villain due to a combination of being rejected and bonding with the absolute worst guy possible at the worst possible time rather than the retcon that he was pretty much Satan and addiction personified as a black goo from the very beginning. I actually like the Symbiotes as both heroes and villains more than most Marvel characters due to how deep and complex they tend to be, but Venom seems to be the weak link in that regard.
 
Feb 28, 2008
689
0
0
No surprise that this comes so close after lambasting Amazing Spiderman 2. I think the film appears much more fondly in comparison to what Bob judges was about to happen when they rebooted the franchise. For myself, I think that the third film was completely disjointed, with some scenes that were just plain awkward and bizarre, and which suffer from the same villain bloat that the latest film is criticised for. I much, much preferred Amazing Spiderman 1; it was a far more coherent and well-told origin story, and better than all but the second Spiderman of the first trilogy.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,082
1,849
118
Country
USA
Rachith Sridhar said:
I don't hate spiderman 3 for the emo crap or the random dance sequence. I hate it coz it doesn't make sense to me.
I actually like the emo stuff a lot, especially emo parker vs. GG Jr. out of costume. The dance part was terrific.

But no, it made little sense. He appears to "forgive" Sandman because he can't kick his butt. In the comicbook, BTW: He beats Sandman with a vacuum cleaner.

Sandman was not credible at the end. Why terrorize the city and an innocent girl? The man we are shown wouldn't do that.

The most uncomfortable part for me is the beginning, when Parker isn't a nerd: he's a jerk.

All that isn't enough to put me off the movie entirely. It was better than the Thor movies, better than the Amazing Spiderman, better than the Hulk movies, at least as good as Iron Man 2.

Deserves some respect.
 

Ghadente

White Rabbit
Mar 21, 2009
537
0
0
I'd take the original 3 spidey movies over these new ones any day, and agree that Toby is way better choice for spider-man. Is there someone out there better? maybe. We could only wonder who Marvel would cast.
As for the movie spider-man 3, I was disappointed sure, but I wouldn't say its a bad movie. Too cluttered and ithink the casting for Venom was the worst. Eddie Brock is suppose to be the opposite of Parker, the Jock type. At least that's what i remember. That is why he makes a great nemesis for the dorky peter. Topher is decent and all but makes for a poor Vemon, both in and out of the Symbiote; Smaller and less frightening.
 

KikReask

New member
Mar 25, 2014
14
0
0
Meh, like I said, I was never a fan of Spider-Man and I really didn't like any entry in the original trilogy. But I hated this one the most. Oh sure it had good action and a good cast with the exception of Maguire, but so did the Star Wars prequels. I thought the first two films were embarrassing to watch with someone else, but the third movie was just overall embarrassing. Hell I thought the first Amazing Spider-Man film was far less embarrassing to watch, but still a little bit embarrassing. And while I may not be a fan of Spider-Man, I still loved the idea behind Venom, and they completely ruined him in this movie, and while I'm not a fan of the rebooted series at all, I am surprisingly hoping the Venom movie doesn't suck.

Still don't like Spider-Man 3, or any Spider-Man movie regardless. Give me The Dark Knight Rises anyday. At least it has an intimidating villain.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
JimB said:
Ashoten said:
Bob hates the Amazing Spider-Man because it is a big company's (Sony) project to make a bunch of films like a product. However Bob has no problem lording mountains of praise on the Marvel movies that are the same thing.
Are you unaware that he said in Tuesday's video what he considers the difference to be, or are you just ignoring as irrelevant? If the latter, then why?
Silverspetz said:
Ashoten said:
Bob hates Amazing Spider-man because it is a big company (sony) project to make a bunch of films like a product. However Bob has no problem lording mountains of praise on the Marvel movies that are the same thing.
Did you somehow miss the numerous times Bob has explained the difference between Sony and Disney in this regard? One company uses gimmicks and continuity wisely while focusing on delivering a solid stand-alone movie FIRST. The other one constantly blunders in the storytelling department because they are more interested in throwing in the gimmicks and callbacks to hook comic-book fans, and it is detrimental to their movie.

See this is where that little thing called "explaining" comes in, and it didn't take 20 paragraphs either.
Well the explanation doesn't satisfy me.
I do see the streams of critics that agree with Bob (for different reasons or not) that say "The Avengers and TDKR work as movies, TASM doesn't" but I still think it's bullshit. Maybe I'm just crazy but I hold them all to the same standards, I can say they're all bad movies; but some I enjoy others I don't.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Lovely Mixture said:
Well the explanation doesn't satisfy me. I do see the streams of critics that agree with Bob (for different reasons or not) that say "The Avengers and the Dark Knight Returns work as movies, but the Amazing Spider-Man doesn't," but I still think it's bullshit.
Okay, why do you think it's bullshit? Please demonstrate where you think Mr. Chipman's claims about the Amazing Spider-Man 2's plot, characters, and pacing are incorrect, and why you think so.

Lovely Mixture said:
Maybe I'm just crazy, but I hold them all to the same standards.
Are you claiming Mr. Chipman doesn't? If so, what is your basis for saying so? Please cite examples of his own words and the standards he has claimed to judge the movies by.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
JimB said:
Lovely Mixture said:
Well the explanation doesn't satisfy me. I do see the streams of critics that agree with Bob (for different reasons or not) that say "The Avengers and the Dark Knight Returns work as movies, but the Amazing Spider-Man doesn't," but I still think it's bullshit.
Okay, why do you think it's bullshit? Please demonstrate where you think Mr. Chipman's claims about the Amazing Spider-Man 2's plot, characters, and pacing are incorrect, and why you think so.
Talking about the first one.
I didn't say he was incorrect. I'm saying his his justification for his hatred for the movvie is ultimately fruitless because the same problems apply to other superhero movies he has reviewed. He's allowed to enjoy/not-enjoy whatever he wants, I'm just critical of self-righteous review style.


JimB said:
Lovely Mixture said:
Maybe I'm just crazy, but I hold them all to the same standards.
Are you claiming Mr. Chipman doesn't? If so, what is your basis for saying so? Please cite examples of his own words and the standards he has claimed to judge the movies by.
I didn't mean to claim that, I have no way of telling if that's the case. I do think it's hypocritical of him to point out plot errors/conveniences in certain movies that he hates (TASM) and ignore them for movies that he thinks are great (The Avengers).

tl;dr I don't agree with how he holds standards, but I can't say he's wrong.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Lovely Mixture said:
Talking about the first one.
That is an error on my part. I apologize. Thank you for correcting it.

Lovely Mixture said:
I'm saying his his justification for his hatred for the movie is ultimately fruitless because the same problems apply to other superhero movies he has reviewed.
That's fine. I'm just asking you to tell me which specific problems you're talking about and what specific other movies he's given positive reviews to have them.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
JimB said:
Lovely Mixture said:
Talking about the first one.
That is an error on my part. I apologize. Thank you for correcting it.

Lovely Mixture said:
I'm saying his his justification for his hatred for the movie is ultimately fruitless because the same problems apply to other superhero movies he has reviewed.
That's fine. I'm just asking you to tell me which specific problems you're talking about and what specific other movies he's given positive reviews to have them.
Ok.
In in his TASM review he's critical of the fact that Gwyn Stacy is Dr. Connors assistant, he cites this as plot convenience. It is, fine, I agree.

He cites this as a reason the movie is bad and why he didn't like it.

In his Avengers review he makes no comment on how
1. The subplot with SHIELD's weapons is abandoned
2. No is suspicious at all that Loki doesn't try to escape while Thor, Tony, and Cap are all fighting.
3. Nick Fury makes his rousing speech in front of two of the Avengers
4. Bruce manages to control his rage somehow by the end of the movie with no explanation other than this one liner.
 

Silverspetz

New member
Aug 19, 2011
152
0
0
Lovely Mixture said:
JimB said:
Ashoten said:
Bob hates the Amazing Spider-Man because it is a big company's (Sony) project to make a bunch of films like a product. However Bob has no problem lording mountains of praise on the Marvel movies that are the same thing.
Are you unaware that he said in Tuesday's video what he considers the difference to be, or are you just ignoring as irrelevant? If the latter, then why?
Silverspetz said:
Ashoten said:
Bob hates Amazing Spider-man because it is a big company (sony) project to make a bunch of films like a product. However Bob has no problem lording mountains of praise on the Marvel movies that are the same thing.
Did you somehow miss the numerous times Bob has explained the difference between Sony and Disney in this regard? One company uses gimmicks and continuity wisely while focusing on delivering a solid stand-alone movie FIRST. The other one constantly blunders in the storytelling department because they are more interested in throwing in the gimmicks and callbacks to hook comic-book fans, and it is detrimental to their movie.

See this is where that little thing called "explaining" comes in, and it didn't take 20 paragraphs either.
Well the explanation doesn't satisfy me.
I do see the streams of critics that agree with Bob (for different reasons or not) that say "The Avengers and TDKR work as movies, TASM doesn't" but I still think it's bullshit. Maybe I'm just crazy but I hold them all to the same standards, I can say they're all bad movies; but some I enjoy others I don't.
Ok, so WHY do you think their explanation is bullshit? Do you have some other conclusion about how these Movies make sense from a narrative or character perspective, or how their constant dropping of plotpoints that they clearly don't intend to resolve until later Movies isn't detramental to the story being told right now? Bob IS holding these two companies to the same standard because he is judging them both against the same criteria to see how well they succeed at accomplishing the end goal.

EDIT: Just saw your post on the various plot-conveniences in The Avengers and I agree with JimB. Two of those Points were perfectly resolved in the Movie, the third isn't really relevant to a discussion about plot-conveniences, and the forth could have been explained better in the Movie but isn't really a plot-hole or inconsistency for those who have paid attention.

Furthermore, none of those things are anywhere Close to the kind of sub-plots that get dropped in ASM/ASM2 for the sake of setting up future subplots.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Lovely Mixture said:
In his Avengers review he makes no comment on how:

1. The subplot with SHIELD's weapons is abandoned.
Abandoned how? The only device that provides fuel for the weapons is taken to another planet at the end of the movie. What else do you think needed to be said about it?

Lovely Mixture said:
2. No is suspicious at all that Loki doesn't try to escape while Thor, Tony, and Cap are all fighting.
Nick Fury is. He explicitly says, "Why do I get the feeling [Loki] is the only person on this boat who wants to be here?" If the three superheroes don't think of it, given that they're all three riding high on testosterone and mistrust for one another, I think it makes sense.

Lovely Mixture said:
3. Nick Fury makes his rousing speech in front of two of the Avengers.
Uh...I'm sorry, I don't get it. What does this have to do with the Amazing Spider-Man or plot convenience?

Lovely Mixture said:
4. Bruce manages to control his rage somehow by the end of the movie with no explanation other than this one liner.
It's explained in the Edward Norton movie, the one whose title I actually kind of forget. The Hulk is only uncontrollable when Banner fights the release process. As Banner hypothesizes aloud in the previous movie before jumping out of the helicopter, and as seems to be proven by his behavior protecting the humans atop the roof from the fire and the way he smiles at the movie's end prior to a transformation, the Hulk can be controlled to a degree if he's invoked deliberately rather than fought against. I'll grant that the Avengers could have taken a moment to go over that, since Norton's movie is the one the audience is least likely to have seen prior to the Avengers and the point might be lost, but I can't condone calling it a plot convenience.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
Lovely Mixture said:
This is typical of Bob. If he decides he doesn't like something, he'll rage about it's problems to an excessive degree, most all of which are very nitpicky while ignoring any good points it might have. On the other hand, if he does like something he'll sing it's praises while dismissing any flaws it has, even if it's filled to the brim with the very same flaws he'd whine about forever with a movie he hates.
 

Crimsonmonkeywar

New member
Oct 27, 2013
120
0
0
I guess i can take Bob's review a bit more serious
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJUk8ZHckxo

the only opinion i trust. All that said, I still am not a fan of the Rami films and especially SM3
 

Mr. Q

New member
Apr 30, 2013
767
0
0
OK, I've been saving this comment/rant all weekend, Mostly because I have a job that demands most of my free time these days. Plus, I wanted to think what I have to say rather than post a piss-off rant and get in trouble over it.

I will agree with MovieBob mostly on his view of Spider-Man 3.

Is it a flawed movie? Yes.

Is the movie a victim of Sony and Avi Arad's inept actions to make more money? Yes.

Was Venom and Gwen Stacy needlessly shoehorned into a movie that didn't need them at all? Yes.

Was the retcon of Uncle Ben's death the dumbest thing to do with this movie?! FUCK YES!

That said, there are good qualities in this movie and one point that the Internet likes to *****/parrot about but we'll get to that later.

First off, unless someone else comes along to knock it out of the park, J.K. Simmons will always be THE definitive J. Jonah Jameson in my book. The same can be said for Rosemary Harris' rendition of Aunt May (sorry, Sally Field). James Franco does a good job with his role as Harry Osborn crossing over into the dark side (although, the amnesia part and his "New Goblin" look sucked royally but that's because of too many cooks in the kitchen). Despite Captain Stacy and his daughter Gwen being shoehorned into the movie, James Cromwell and Bryce Dallas Howard did their best with what they're given. Topher Grace's version of Eddie Brock has a lot more depth to his comic book counterpart. Although, the same can be said for the animated version from {i]Spectacular Spider-Man[/i]. Speaking of villain's that got a better rendition from their comic book version, Thomas Haden Church as Flint Marko/Sandman was a great character. I've always had some issues with the Sandman in the comics, mostly because he was a just thug given superpowers (but I did like his brief stint as a former criminal trying to become a hero until that got stupidly retconned out). But Church's Sandman has a reason for what he has to do (I.E. wanting a better life for his daughter) and being blessed/cursed with his new abilities adds more complexity to his criminal life.

Having said that, I'm not too certain if Sandman and the Vulture would have been the right choice for part 3. Personally, I would have liked Spider-Man 3 to focus on Harry Osborn's slow turn into the new Green Goblin and the rise of the Hobgoblin. Here are my reasons why. First, Harry mentally wrestling with the idea of avenging his father by killing the only friend he's ever known would be interesting to see. It would have kept the audience guessing on whether or not he would succumb to this legacy of evil or break the cycle of madness. Second, I've always liked the Hobgoblin more than the Green Goblin but that's just my personal preference. The Hobgoblin's motives were more criminally methodical than Norman Osborn's lab accident induced insanity to become the ruler of the world. Rather than be obsessed with Spider-Man, he would turn his attentions to taking over the criminal underworld of NYC. Also, not only would Peter be in the dark about this new goblin's identity (as would the audience until the last portion of the movie) but he would have to worry on whether or not this goblin knows his secret identity after discovering one of Osborn's hidden Goblin lairs (that was part of his origin story in the comics). It would lead to a dramatic finale on the two goblins fighting it out with Spider-Man in the middle, wondering if he has an ally in this battle or another enemy he must defeat. And, just to be clear, I would like to see more closer renditions of the Green Goblin and Hobgoblin for the actors as oppose to that X-Games outfit Franco got stuck with. Finally, as a selling point, I would like to see a movie version of this cover...



Now that I have gotten that off my chest, let's get to the part that everyone keeps harping on about: Toby Maguire's rendition of Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Personally, I like Maguire's take on Peter Parker. He plays the role of a social outcast tossed into the chaotic life of a superhero perfectly. He's suppose to be an unlucky geek because, as Bob pointed out, that is what Peter Parker was like in the silver age comics, which was the director's intention for these movies. Yes, he's matured and gotten better with the opposite sex in the comics, but he is still the loveable loser he was in the past. He is plagued with doubts and past failures to live up to his responsibility (there have been some recent deaths aside from Uncle Ben and Gwen Stacy in the comics). He struggles to make ends meet (no big difference from anyone else suffering from the recession but he was getting by before that). Even when things are coming up roses for him, it usually turns sour somewhere down the road. He's Marvel's answer to Charlie Brown. One of the reason's I'm not on board with the Amazing Spider-Man movies is that Andrew Garfield is miscast for the role of Peter Parker. Hes too much of a pretty boy, appearance wise. He might work if he was portraying college era Peter Parker but Sony and Mark Webb went in the wrong direction with their Amazing Spider-Man movies.

I'd like to go on with my theory on why the Internet has a raging mad-on for Raimi's Spider-Man but this comment post is getting way too long and I'm gonna save that topic for later.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
JimB said:
1. The subplot with SHIELD's weapons is abandoned.
Abandoned how? The only device that provides fuel for the weapons is taken to another planet at the end of the movie. What else do you think needed to be said about it?
[/quote]

Shield is making weapons using the tesseract, Cap and Tony find this questionable.....then they forget about it.


JimB said:
Nick Fury is. He explicitly says, "Why do I get the feeling [Loki] is the only person on this boat who wants to be here?" If the three superheroes don't think of it, given that they're all three riding high on testosterone and mistrust for one another, I think it makes sense.
How convenient for Loki.

JimB said:
Lovely Mixture said:
3. Nick Fury makes his rousing speech in front of two of the Avengers.
Uh...I'm sorry, I don't get it. What does this have to do with the Amazing Spider-Man or plot convenience?
Fury lies to Tony and Cap about Colson having the cards in his pocket. This only helps Cap and Tony resolve their differences. Thor and Bruce are no present, yet this is referenced as the push they needed.

Lovely Mixture said:
4. Bruce manages to control his rage somehow by the end of the movie with no explanation other than this one liner.
It's explained in the Edward Norton movie, the one whose title I actually kind of forget. The Hulk is only uncontrollable when Banner fights the release process. As Banner hypothesizes aloud in the previous movie before jumping out of the helicopter, and as seems to be proven by his behavior protecting the humans atop the roof from the fire and the way he smiles at the movie's end prior to a transformation, the Hulk can be controlled to a degree if he's invoked deliberately rather than fought against. I'll grant that the Avengers could have taken a moment to go over that, since Norton's movie is the one the audience is least likely to have seen prior to the Avengers and the point might be lost, but I can't condone calling it a plot convenience.[/quote]

Then why was it presented as an issue in the movie as a first place?