Kanedas Bike

Disagree. In Iron Man he took some pretty major damage from the Iron Monger. In Iron Man 2 I think they set the whole movie up to show that Hammer and what he was doing with his own suits and later modified drones could not hold a candle to the technology Stark developed for the Iron Man suits. He took a lot of damage from Whiplash in the final battle and his suit effectively shut down in the scene on the roof w/Pepper. I wouldn't be surprised to see all of the respective Avenger characters get their asses handed to them in one way or another to solidify the need for them to be on a team. -b.

Or do the exact opposite of what anime52k8 (what the hell is that creepy avatar??? ). Honestly it depends on what you mean by "preserve". The easiest way is leave them in their respective boxes forever, but I guess the answer to your question depends on what type of paces you plan to put your collectibles thru (display vs. play). -b.

I have faith that Whedon will be able to pull this off, most of his work has included ensemble casts and he's done well with them. Sure there are big name actors (most of whom are relatively new on the scene) in this particular cast, but not a log of big name egos. -b.

Just sent payment in for my (2)!!! -b.

@ Kicker - Nice! Love the effect. -b.

Hurry up and take my money Ami-Ami! -b.

I wish this would just die already. It'd take nothing short of a miracle for any live-action adaptation of Akira to be any good. -b.

They could go with more characters from the '86 movie; Cyclonus, Springer or Arcee and of course Galvatron, I think would all be welcome additions. If you wanted to stick with TV then perhaps an Iron Hide or Prowl, hell even a MP Optimus from Beast Wars would be more interesting than another Starscream (which wasn't that bad to begin with). -b.

A good looking movie was what I expected. There's a difference between that and what I feels/felt mattered. -b.

Agreed. There are so many other characters that would be worthy of a Masterpiece entry. But a second Starscream is not one of them... -b.

Awesome. So then like someone said earlier where's the statue of Ashley? -b.

Again, let me say that I don't necessarily disagree that a lot of the film's plot could have been constructed better. I don't share some of your views on how, but that's irrelevant. As I read and then re-read your post it occurred to me that maybe a lot of your dislike came from the fact that the filmmakers essentially lied to you about making the movie "oh so much better than ROTF". And this is were my point about expectations comes into play, I didn't expect them to and looking at how the first two movies turned out it would have been unreasonable for me to do so. I mean hell, it's Michael Bay. Name one movie he's ever directed that was more plot/story/character-driven than effect-driven. And with that I knew what I was in for a movie filled with top level CGI robotic eye-candy that was going to be paper-thin on plot and character. -b.

Did they ever establish what was cannon with regards to Ashley and Kaidan? -b.

Jenius, I don't disagree with most of your observations...but what did you expect? It's not like Bay was going to change is overall formula for DOTM over ROTF. I keep reading everyone's critique on these movies and I always wonder what their expectation was going into it. And yeah, I enjoyed this for what it was. Plot holes with a mediocre story? Yep. So-so acting? Yep. Big special-effects around alien transformable robots lots of military action, cute chick and way too much Shia? Yep, yep, yep and yep. I mean really, the Transformer films are what they are. Set your expectations accordingly. -b.

Speaking of... Edit to add spoiler tags. -b.

To be fair there's not much they could have done differently to avoid the comparisons to JC's The Thing. I mean the setting is exactly the same as the original (Antarctic, research base, etc.) and they had some pretty established cannon with regards to the fate of some/all of the characters that had to be adhered to. The more I chew the fat on this one the more I think a direct sequel might have been a better bet. I did for the most part like the movie, and maybe my enjoyment was a victim of my love of JC's movie and high expectations but it wasn't a bad film and if you enjoyed the first then I think you'd enjoy this one too. -b.

Just came from an early showing. I wanted to enjoy this so much more than I did. It wasn't bad but most of what everyone else on the boards has said rings true for me too. If anything I ended up kind of disappointed that I didn't come from a big-screen showing of JC's The Thing instead... PS - nice job WM, the ship design was cool. I wish we'd had been able to see more of it, so here's hoping to a video release with lots of extras -b.

New Trailer is up at Apple...and it looks awesome! http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/marvel/avengers/ -b.

^ "...or tied to the fvcking couch" - Awesome. -b.

Oh yeah? My 1/48 VF-1A Low Vis v1 and 1/60 VF-1S Low Vis are looking at you... -b.

Awesome. -b.

Yeah, but the canopy is purple and the eyes on the skull are a millimeter too far apart!!!! All jokes aside, looks great and I'll have my pre-order in as soon as it opens. -b.

Yamato has been making Macross items for what, 12 years or so? And how long has Hasbro been making toys? Not making excuses but Yamato is barely out of the garage kit stage and some of these comparisons aren't exactly fair. -b.

Honestly, not sure how anyone is drawing conclusions on this whole "wing" issue from one or two magazine photos. But even if the wings do curl or bend or whatever ever so slightly is it really that big of a deal? Sometimes you guys take scrutinizing these items (be it from Company Y or B) to a whole new level. -b.

If you factor in shipping then you're north of $ 300. AND if one was to purchase from a site like BBTS or off of eBay then you're looking at another mark-up. Re: the recent prototype picture, not a huge fan of the VF-17 per say but damn Yamato can design some good looking toys. -b.