Marvel Studios has just released the official theatrical trailer for The Avengers. Firefly and Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon helms this action blockbuster, which finds S.H.I.E.L.D operative Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson, Jackie Brown) leading a team of superheroes to do battle against fallen Asgardian god Loki (Tom Hiddleston, Wallander).
Joining them is an impressive ensemble cast including Gwyneth Paltrow (Se7en), Cobie Smulders (How I Met Your Mother), Stellan Skarsgård (Good Will Hunting), and Clark Gregg ((500) Days of Summer). The Avengers also utilizes the vocal talents of Paul Bettany (A Beautiful Mind) as Stark's loyal computer assistant Jarvis and Lou Ferrigno (I Love You, Man) - returning to the character that made him a star - as the voice of Banner's decidedly short-tempered alter-ego.
This official trailer shows off quite a bit more than the teaser attached to the end of Captain America: The First Avenger; Whedon is attempting a scale of action far larger than anything he did on television for Buffy, Angel, Firefly, or Dollhouse - the quick glimpses of destruction even seem to exceed the action from Whedon's Serenity theatrical feature. More importantly, the trailer gives a better sense of the interplay between the Avengers, particularly the contentious relationship that puts Stark and Rogers at odds. In addition, the footage displays more of Ruffalo's Hulk in action than viewers have previously seen.
The Avengers' U.S. release date is scheduled for May 4th, 2012.
Update: The following is the final theatrical trailer.
The Avengers fought just Loki alone in Avengers #1, September 1963, when the membership was Iron-Man, Hulk, Thor, Wasp, and Ant Man. (Before Cap was discovered under ice in issue #4 and joined the team.)
The Hulk was done by WETA this time, with ILM doing the rest of the movie. I have high hopes he will look good, after seeing what WETA did with Gollum in Lord of the Rings and some of the creatures in Hellboy 2. This looks like its going to be a fun movie!!
The Hulk was the only part that excited me. The rest is hard to tell. It could be great, it could be hollywood mainstream. Loki, I do like though and would be enough of a villian. Remember, each avenger's ego is a villian in itself which is what I want to see this movie for. To see how they fight amongst each other and then come together to get each other's back. Their weaknesses will allow the audience to pick a favorite too. Although, marketing will tell us that Iron Man will kinda play the lead of the avengers where in my opinion the HULK can steal the show.
GOD DAAMN IT YES!!!!! Umm, sorry for that outburst. I get the feeling there is way more to the movie then the trailer is showing. Like what is everybody looking up at??? This movie better be over 2 hours and 30 minutes!
I love the effort that Marvel has put into setting up this movie. They have given us strong origin stories for Thor, Captain America, and Iron Man. The Incredible Hulk was not really an origin story, but still great. Give me a great universe like this over 100 boring 1 off summer blockbusters any day of the week.
My thoughts exactly. 3 great movies coming out in 1 year. The last few years have lacked in terms of great blockbuster movies. 2012 should not disappoint.
This could still be a hit or miss. I hope that Hawkeye and the Black Widow really maintain their own inner destiny and produce. Loki, as mentioned in issue #1, can still manipulate and exploit the Avengers to no end. This has a chance to truly become great, as long as the story holds.
Paramount has the logo in it since they have a deal in place to be the distributor for the Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor movies with Marvel before Marvel was purchased by Disney. The Avengers is the first Marvel movie that Disney is actually distributing itself. I think the deal with Paramount was only for the first 3 movies of each of those heroes. If they ever get to a 4th on any of those, they would be released by Disney.
Could Dark Knight actually have some competition? Would be nice to see something of that caliber again. This looks awesome especially considering how unimpressed I was with the new Spiderman reboot trailer.
I wouldn't call it competition. Just more greatness at the movies in 2012.
I haven't been this excited about a year at the movies in a decade (2002). That year featured Spider-man, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Star Wars: Episode II, & Harry Potter And The Chamber of Secrets.
Well I was simply referring to competition at the box office and later blu ray sales. I don't count "Dances with Smurfs", in my book Dark Knight is number 1. But you're right, it's nice to be this excited about an upcoming movie again.
For the earlier poster who mentioned multiple villans. Let's not forget the mess that was Spiderman 3. (I know multiple villans was not ti's only problem but it sure didn't help. Especially since Raimi did not want to include Venom in the first place).
I thought that Disney paid Paramount for the rights to this film and Iron Man 3 for $ 115 million dollars. Why is still Paramount logo on the trailer and here. Maybe Disney logo appears in the next trailer or at the theatre in the 4th of May next year.
Yeah Edward Norton is not back as the hulk and we have known that for awhile. Whats even worse is the guy who is playing him Mark Ruffalo or whatever his name is has really long hair and doesnt even look like bruce banner. Everything else looks pretty cool though...
So, at 1:02, is that Bruce Banner at the back in purple, or Hawkeye?
(And frankly, Joss Whedon can OVERDO the wisecracking in-geek deconstructionist rib-nudging wisecracks a tad, as he did with the X-Men 1 script and recent comics...Yes, they're mostly characteristically coming out of Tony Stark, but still. He did give us that "Struck by lightning" line, after all.)
What surprises me is that they are filming in a 1:85:1 ratio. All previous films have been 2:35:1, which is what I prefer for these kind of movies. I downloaded this trailer in HD and watched it through my PS3. It seemed confined seeing these characters like that
"Shame wolverine and some of the x men couldnt feature in it."
Blame Sony for making a crappy X-Men spinoff, Wolverine solo, and F4 reboot just to prolong their grasp on those particular licenses for the next 5-10 years. Original deal was for 20 years IIRC, but the licenses revert back to Marvel if they're not used for X number of years--hence the spinoffs, remakes, and regurgitation.
"Blame Sony for making a crappy X-Men spinoff, Wolverine solo, and F4 reboot just to prolong their grasp on those particular licenses for the next 5-10 years. Original deal was for 20 years IIRC, but the licenses revert back to Marvel if they're not used for X number of years--hence the spinoffs, remakes, and regurgitation. "
What does Sony have to do with Wolverine, X-Men, or Fantastic 4? Sony has not made any movies with those characters. Also First Class was not a crappy spinoff.
while i do miss edward norton (first time i saw him was in america history x and i love his bruce banners) i want to give the chance to mister ruffalo.the guy must be courageous to step in along with robert downey who did a christopher reeves of himself with tony stark, chris hemsworth, who portrayed a really good thor, and as much as i hated him in the fantastic 4 ,chris evans ,was gold in captain america im my opinion.it could have been worst , they could have changed war machine a third time.(wish he have some sort of a cameo). im really happy to see loki back to bring the magic again in all the word's meaning. i hope the movie is 2:30 hours long, so we can have breath taking action scenes without losing character devlopment. because its mostly where this movie will shine. the interaction between those heroes, their values agains other's. if i could ask only one thing, i would love to see the hulkbuster armor. and i would also love to see hulk ripping it into shit.
The most depressing part of yesterday's Super Bowl was watching the movie trailers. There wasn't a single trailer that didn't look as if the movie was something I hadn't already seen many times before. Nothing original or unexpected from any of these retreads. I'll skip them all.
Wow... just incredible. It's like a wet dream for a comic fan to see all these characters together in a live-action film. May 4th can't come soon enough! I'm drooling in anticipation for Prometheus, too!
@CyberpunkCentral - underneath it all, yes, Disney is running the show for "The Avengers", and other related films. However, the House of Mouse brokered some sort of deal with Paramount which allows for Paramount's logo to be displayed on all marketing/promotional materials.
Its a BIG movie, why not fill the screen? (when it releases on bd, it will fill up your plasma or lcd flat panel screen). Or do you just love those black bars so much. Remember AVATAR, just saying.
You may want to read more about aspect ratio. Movie with black bars have more picture information than the one without black bar.
But to answer your question: I have a CIH PJ set up. The movies with black bar are huge and awesome while the ones you referring to are smaller just like at the movie theater.
That is not always true. People will tell you it but some times it is not. For instance it is true for movies like Armageddon, Twister, Multiplicity, Alien Batman Begins, The Dark Knight. But not true for movies like Ocean's Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen, The Matrix, some of Independence day, The Rock, Terminator 2. It really just depends. Don't even tell me that i'm wrong. cause in younger years i found this out that the "full screen" version of some movies is almost the widescreen with the black bars removed. like if Ocean's Eleven were framed 1.85:1 everything filmed would be on screen, but its 2.40:1 covering up much of the bottom of the fullscreen version. im just saying.
Great trailer by the way I hope it is included on the Bluray when its released, I hope Disney doesn't destroy what Paramount created, so far all of Marvels Paramount Movies have had their trailers included, and this trailer is one of the best and i liked how they used the Avengers "A" in May, that was awesome, it would be a shame not to have that on the bluray. The movie is just missing Edward Norton.
@seigneur_rayden I have a 140inch 16:9 screen which I use with my projector and I have to say that 16:9 is much more immersive, especially for 3D. Yes, I agree that you get a lot more information in the 2.35:1 ratio due to the additional width, but the height really immerses you in the movie. Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing your setup, but I never understood the reason for going for a CIH setup. Clearly, you are not limited height-wise. Why not get a 16:9 screen of the same width? That way, you not only get the same size for CinemaScope movies, your 16:9 movies won't be smaller. You won't see the black bars in the dark anyway. Movies like The Dark Knight and Legacy become a lot more immersive when they switch to the 16:9 IMAX ratio(Yes, I know IMAX camera provides extra height without sacrificing the width.)
This was a great trailer and can't wait to get it on Blu-ray!
If you read carefully, my comment said "when viewed properly".
Why CIH? You should ask yourself also why do Movie Theaters have CIH?
I guarantee you if you ever go CIH, you will kick yourself for not having done that earlier.
CIH recreates the theater experience. The scope movies are in all their full glory.
A scope image on a 140 16x9 screen is not the same size as a scope on a 140 scope screen.
The latter will be bigger.
Well, if you view the 16:9 movies properly, they are immersive as well :-P
Actually, my wall on which the image is being projected is 12 feet or so and hence this is the maximum width I can have, but I can have a lot of height. I don't understand the point of limiting the height. 2.35:1 movies will have the same size as a scope screen with the same width and 16:9 movies will look bigger. With a scope screen of the same width, 2.35:1 movies will look the same but 16:9 movies will look smaller.I don't see any advantage of a scope screen. Instead of getting a 140inch scope screen, I would rather get a 16:9 screen of the same width.