Mass Effect 3: The Extended Cut Delivers!

Last month I finally posted an article about the ending to action/RPG Mass Effect 3 and how it was fundamentally broken as a means of effective storytelling. This came after months of fan-outcry over the abrupt, plot-hole ridden denouement that left them with virtually no closure, no catharsis, and no hope. Well, developer BioWare heard the message loud and clear, and earlier this week, they released a piece of DLC at no additional charge known as the Extended Cut. While the nearly two gigabytes worth of content does not actually change the ending, it does clarify some things and elaborate on others. And it works. It works surprisingly well. WARNING! SPOILERS TO FOLLOW.


Many of the "fixes" are easy enough to spot. Plot holes are filled with addition scenes of injuries occurring and orders of retreat being issued. The scene with the Catalyst is extended, giving Shepard time to ask questions and get a better sense of what's going on and what the implications of his decision will be. This scene and this character now feel much more like a part of the Mass Effect universe as a whole, rather than something tacked on at the end in order to bring about the conclusion. An epilogue scene was also added, expanding on the implications of your final decision and how this will affect the galaxy at large, while some of the visuals show the results of previous choices, such as the Genophage storyline. This goes a long way to adding some closure, as well as making the different endings more distinct and individualized. And finally, we see the Normandy repaired and take off, dispelling the fear that your beloved crew was stranded forever.

The most important change, however, is a bit more subtle, I believe. In the original ending, it appears that the Mass Relay network explodes, for seemingly no reason, after the Crucible fires. The implications of this completely break the ME universe. Space travel becomes limited, galactic unity becomes splintered. That's before you realize that an exploding relay will go supernova. Entire planets and civilizations are destroyed. This one detail starts a change reaction that leaves the galaxy broken and (for all we know) doomed. The Extended Cut reveals that the relays do not explode. They are actually carrying the Crucible's energy, relaying it across the network before dispersing it into their individual areas. This leaves them broken but intact and (we are told) repairable. Not only does this negate the above doomsday scenario, it creates a solution that is much more consistent with ME lore. The relays have always been your tactical secret weapon. The Mu Relay and the Conduit were instrumental in your quest to stop Saren. The Omega 4 Relay was both a mystery to be solved and a tool to stop the Collectors. Making the entire relay network part of your solution to the Reaper threat feels thematically appropriate. The science-fiction genre is all about using technology to solve your problem. The ending is now consistent with this idea.

While I have not yet experience all the new epilogues, the ones I have seen have been very good. My renegade picked Control, and then basically became a god. His essence replaced the Catalyst and took over the Reapers. He now uses them to build his ideal utopia and enforces it across the galaxy. It's empowering in a creepy, fascist sort of way. But it fits my renegade because that guy was an asshole. My paragon chose Destroy, ending all synthetic life. But the technology can be rebuilt. And it now seems clear that Shep survives this scenario and will be found when others get onto the Citadel (via the still active Conduit in London). Also, knowing now that the relays dispersed the Crucible's energy, and that the Geth consensus is located in dark space "between stars," it's easy to imagine that at least some of them escaped. That sense of hope is one of the big difference between the original ending and the Extended Cut. If the other choices play out just as well, I will be more than happy. I will be thrilled.

But what's perhaps most interesting to me is how well all of this fits. It's seems to me that this content should have been there to begin with. The extended conversation with the Catalyst, for example, is almost certainly from a previous recording session that was later cut. The question is why? The first answer one thinks is there was simply a time crunch to hit their deadline and their publisher, the notorious EA, would not give them an extension. And most gamers/conspiracy theorists would believe that, I think. But I'm more inclined to believe something else. I think it was cut not for time, but for pacing. In a movie, if the world was about to end, the hero doesn't stop to ask questions. It slows the action down, it releases dramatic tension. No, the hero just does whatever it is they have to do. Pacing. But pacing is a purely cinematic concept, which is why I think this was the real reason. The trend in video games for the past few years has been to make games more cinematic. This is largely because games, as an art form, do not have their own language yet. Games are still a relatively new medium, and as in the early days of cinema when they borrowed the language of theatre, games are borrowing from the language of cinema. This ending controversy is a clear example that video games are ready to move beyond this. Games are an interactive experience; they put the player in the driver's seat. But at the (original) end of ME3, players lose their identity, their individuality, and their ability to coherently interpret the scenario they are interacting with . . . all for the sake of pacing, for making the game more cinematic. The Extended Cut fixes this by putting the player back in the driver's seat and allowing them to experience the game as a game. This solution is crying out for video games to develop their own language, their own way of telling stories and sharing experiences. And BioWare has always been at the forefront of story-driven gameplay. Hopefully they got the message.

Of course, that's how I interpret it, anyway.

Regardless of how you feel about the original ending, the Extended Cut offers great additional content, and as a free DLC, there's no reason why you shouldn't pick it up. Thank you, BioWare, for listening to your fans and responding. You knocked this one out of the park!

Brave

If my last post tells us anything, it's that audiences have come to expect a certain quality from any Pixar film. Unfortunately, Brave does not live up to those lofty expectations. When the movie ended, my friend turned to me and said, "Well, it was good for a DreamWorks movie." I would add that it wasn't even as good as the best DreamWorks movies (ie: Kung Fu Panda, How to Train Your Dragon). It's not that the movie is bad, it's just horribly, horribly mediocre.

Brave tells the story of a young Scottish princess, Merida, who just does not get along with her mother, Queen Elinor. Merida wants to be free and run wild, while Elinor wants her to settle down and be a lady. After a handful of defiant acts of independence, Merida runs away, invokes some magic to change her fate, and you can probably guess the rest from here.

The first few minutes of Brave are exhilarating. Merida is fiercely independent and full of wild, exuberant energy as she explores the Scottish Highlands. She's set up to be one of the more memorable Disney princesses. But the movie is quickly bogged down in cliches. The entire supporting cast is made up of big, dumb caricatures. The comedy is slapstick and the editing is frantic and choppy, making this movie most suitable for children under the age of ten. It's as if Pixar thought we'd lose interest if there wasn't a quick cut or a loud crash ever ten seconds. In all honesty, we probably would, as there's nothing very interesting on screen for most of the movie.

The biggest disappointment is that the story fails to engage its audience on any emotional level. Now, as this is decidedly a mother/daughter movie, I'll allow for the possibility that's I've lost something in the translation. The conflict is definitely there, but the resolution is so forced it's dumbfounding and nearly laughable. It also introduces themes (such as betrothal vs. marriage for love) that have heretofore not been addressed by the narrative. This leads me to feel that the core conflict was not resolved, and that Merida and Elinor's reconciliation is only temporary.

It's disappointing to see Pixar, a company known for its excellence in family entertainment, release something so shallow and droll. If you're wondering where this would fit on the list I created in last week's post, I would have to say down at the bottom, just above Cars.

You'll enjoy this movie if you are four years old, or if you want your four-year-old to be quiet for a solid 90 minutes. I can't recommend this movie to anyone else.

Countdown to Brave: My Favorite Pixar Movies

This Friday, Pixar will be releasing their latest animated feature film, Brave, and I'm excited. Quite frankly, there's a lot to be excited about; the Scottish Highlands, a red-haired heroine, and BEARS! But also I'm excited because of Pixar's history of excellence and seeing what they have in store next. So, since we're waiting, I thought it'd be fun to rank all previous Pixar films from least to greatest. Let me stress that this is my own, personal list, and only reflects my opinion, and is not in any way fact. So let's get started!

11. Cars
Remember how I said I would be ranking every previous Pixar film? Well, I lied. I never saw Cars 2 because the first one was so disappointing. It's the only Pixar film that I did not enjoy in some way. This movie is just bland, with cliche characters, boring narrative, and a universe comprised of a giant one-note-joke: everything is a car. By half way through the movie, this concept has lost its originality, and it doesn't help that virtually every gag relies on it. Cars is the one black mark on Pixar's record, and the unfortunate reality of merchandising means that this franchise is not going away . . . ever.

10. A Bug's Life
This was Pixar's second go at a feature length film, and it didn't quite capture the same magic as Toy Story. This was due, mostly, to its cast of rather forgettable characters. Does anyone remember who Molt was? How about Manny? Luckily, it had a compelling story, which recently was pointed out to me as an adaptation of Kurosawa's 7 Samurai, one of my favorite films.

9. Up
My problem with Up is that it hits its emotional peek way too early. Admit it, you cried during the opening credits of this movie! I did, too. Why did Pixar make us cry in the opening credits? Probably to prove that they could. But after that seven minute emotional roller coaster, nothing else in the rest of the film is as impressive. I guess I just identify more with the young Carl, when he still had hopes and dreams. But my parents really like this movie. And it's still leaps and bounds ahead of what most other animation studios are doing.

8. Ratatouille
This film is a bit of an enigma to me. It does so much right and yet does so much wrong. This is the first animated film I can remember with a dynamic camera. The POV shots of mice scurrying through the rafters are exhilarating. Paris at night is bright and colorful. It's a gorgeous movie! And then the rat tugs on the human's hair and finds he can control him. What? Why are you adding a fantasy/magical element so late in the movie? How does it even work? Can he control all his motor functions this way, or just the ones needed in the kitchen? It's a cheap, unexplained plot point that drags the rest of the film down with it.

7. Toy Story
A lot of you might be surprised to find this classic so early on my list. Toy Story was Pixar's very first feature length film, and while it was incredibly impressive for its time, I think it's clear they were still working the kinks out of their now tried-and-true formula. It's two sequels are clearly superior in terms of visuals, story, and character development. However, those achievements would not have been possible if not for the solid foundation established in this first film.

6. Toy Story 3
Did you ever think you'd cry at the end of a movie about toys? I never did. The emotional journey in Toy Story 3 is one of Pixar's greatest accomplishments, and it's the only one of their films to gross a billion dollars worldwide, making it one of the most successful movies of all time. The only reason why this film is not higher on my list is because, as the third part in the series, most of what they have to say has already been said. Toy Story 3, therefore, relies more on nostalgia than anything else. Despite that, it was a fitting close to a timeless series.

5. Toy Story 2
Is it strange that the Toy Story movies are all grouped together here? I think not. They're all the same thematically, and none of them do it better than Toy Story 2. This film takes the same ideas from the first one and expands them to new heights. It takes a closer, deeper look at all our old friends and introduces a few new ones. All the while, the theme of friendship is never lost. Truly, a classic.

4. Monsters, Inc.
There are moments where Monsters, Inc. comes dangerously close to being the same one-note-joke that Cars was: "oh, it's a world of monsters, where everything is just like our world, only with monsters." Luckily, Monsters, Inc. elevates itself above that with a group of amazing characters and a stellar story. It's also the first Pixar film that truly tugs at your heart strings. Sure, Toy Story 2 had the sad song with Jessie, but that was a subplot and forgotten for most of the movie. In this one, it was part of the whole narrative. The monsters revealed in themselves a lot of our own, human fears and emotions, making them some of the most real characters Pixar has ever devised.

AND THE TOP THREE ARE . . . .

3. The Incredibles
If any Pixar film is screaming for a sequel, it's this one. The Incredibles throws a whole new twist into the superhero genre (a category which I am biased towards). It takes a deep, character centric look at superhero lifestyle, the perks, the pitfalls, and the consequences, offering perhaps a more complete picture than has ever been given in this genre. It's also a story about family, trust, sticking together, and what makes us special. The James Bond elements are just icing on the cake. It might be my love for superheroes that got it this high on my list, but it wouldn't be here if it weren't doing something incredibly right.

2. Finding Nemo
This film is as close to perfect as it could have gotten. Finding Nemo does everything right from characters, to story, to themes, to visuals. There's nothing I could possibly complain about in regards to this film. For a movie set mostly in the vastness of the open ocean, you have to hand it to Pixar for delivering colorful, varied set pieces that go far beyond blue water and white sand. However, the narrative excellence far outweighs the visual splendor. When I think of this movie, I remember the deeply emotional journey of a father looking for his son, and the gut wrenching moment when Dory realizes she's found her home.

1. WALL-E
If Finding Nemo was close to perfect, then WALL-E is perfection, a rare treat that only happens a few times every generation. Here, Pixar proves once and far all that they are the masters of their medium. Everything I said about Nemo doing everything right, the same applies to WALL-E, only here they do it with almost no dialogue. It's a heartwarming tale told almost entirely through the visuals alone. There's a scene where WALL-E is going through the spaceship Axiom and he comes across another robot, who's only job it seems is to pound keys on a lone console. The robot looks at him, and WALL-E waves. The other robot is confused, looking at his own appendages and slowly mimicking the action. When next we see this robot, he notices WALL-E, quickly brightens up, and emphatically waves at him. This to me is the entire movie in a microcosm. This little robot, seemingly so insignificant, has a positive effect on every life that he comes into contact with. Who'd have thought you could care so much about a robot, a piece of equipment. I never fail to tear up at the end of this movie.

Well, that's it! Thanks for indulging me with my list. But what about you? What's your favorite Pixar film? Do you think Brave will be a new favorite? Comment below!

Moonrise Kingdom

I have not seen a Wes Anderson film since The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou which I thought was brilliant and can't fathom why I've skipped all his other films until now. But that all changed yesterday when I saw Moonrise Kingdom, the story of two pre-teens who fall in love and runaway together, even though they live on a small, undeveloped island (which I assume is located somewhere on the east coast). Despite its understated exterior, this film is heartwarming and endearing. So grab a red cap, a compass, and a thirst for adventure!

In many ways, this is nothing new for Wes Anderson. And that's not a bad thing. Moonrise Kingdom does for boy scouts/wilderness explorers what Life Aquatic did for marine science documentary filmmakers. It often seems like we've stumbled upon an inside joke between Wes and . . . well, probably himself. The seriousness in which he captures seemingly banal tasks (essentially glorified camping) is at once comical and charming. Yet, as in most Wes Anderson films, this subtle, understated subject is merely a backdrop for much deeper issues such as love, friendship, marital infidelity, and death.

The younger actors handle the material very well. Bruce Willis and Edward Norton slip into the Wes Anderson style of things as if they've been doing it forever. The cast is rounded out with champs like Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, and Jason Schwartzman. All-in-all, a stellar cast that yields some great performances.

I would recommend Moonrise Kingdom to anyone who likes Wes Anderson's films. If you "don't get" his other movies, than you should already know that you won't enjoy this one. If you've never seen one, this is a good place to start.

Prometheus and "What is 10.11.12?"

Prometheus received a lot of hype, and opened to relatively mixed reviews. Those who like it sights its striking visuals and inspired performances. Those who don't like it sight is predictable story. But the biggest argument seems to center around the question of whether it's a true prequel to the Alien franchise or not.

Cards on the table: I enjoyed this movie and I believe it is a true prequel.

I thought this was a great looking movie. Amazing sets and sweeping vistas offset the decidedly gray pallet. Granted the environments were not nearly as creepy as the ones in Alien, but that was a very claustrophobic film while this one is much more open. Performances are top notch across the board. Most people single out Michael Fassbender, but I felt the standouts were Idris Elba and Noomi Rapace.

What's interesting about the story is that it's an origin story, and it's a story about origins. Everything in Prometheus speaks to the theme of "where do we come from?" Why create organic life? Why create synthetic life? Prometheus offers no definitive answers, but it gives us a glimpse. I thought this was a strong choice, because - let's be honest - there was no master plan for how it all got started when they set out to make the first Alien. That whole movie was inspired by the grotesque artwork of surrealist H.R. Giger. Making the story about origins justified the need to tell an origin story at all.

Yup, that's the stuff nightmares come from.

But is it a true prequel? Many out there are quick to say "No!" They feel that while the story does take place in the same universe as the Alien franchise, it does not directly influence the events in that first film.

It has no characters from Alien?
That's true. The closest thing to a returning character is we finally get to see Peter Wayland, head of the infamous "Company." But these characters still influence the mythology of Alien.


It's on a different planet?
Yes, the ship from Alien was on planet LV-426 while Prometheus takes place on LV-223. But in Alien the ship was a derelict. It was not from that planet. Now we know where it was from, where it was going, and what it's mission was.

It doesn't show the story of the "Space Jockey?"
Not really. It's not the same Space Jockey that we saw in Alien. But there are certain things we can assume. In Prometheus, David said that there were "many" ships on the planet. If we assume each of those ships has at least one Jockey frozen in cryogenic stasis, then there are many Jockeys. Obviously one wakes up to resume his mission only to fall prey to this new breed of alien that's been created. He dies and crashes onto LV-426. Or maybe he tries to harvest the alien as a weapon. Same result: death and crash. As for what he says about the Jockey being fossilized, fossilization takes place in the ground when minerals replace bone. The Jockey was neither under ground, nor were his bones exposed. Fossilization could not have taken place. Quite simply, Tom Skerritt was wrong.

Obviously, there's still some missing details, but there's enough to go on in order to make sense. What's great about this is it does not succumb to the worst part of all prequels. Remember how disappointing Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith was? That's because everyone had their own idea of how or why Anakin Skywalker would turn to the Dark Side. Nothing that movie did could have been as cool as what we imagined ourselves. Prometheus forgoes the details that would doubtlessly leave us underwhelmed, but still gives us enough to understand what happened. I feel the banner headline for this movie is: MEDDLING SCIENTISTS MAKE UNIVERSE WORSE FOR EVERYONE.

What does this mean?

What's really curious though is what happens after the movie. At the very end of the credits, the above image scrolls across the screen. When I saw this, I turned to my friend as said, "What the hell is going to happen in October?" The real question is why are they starting a viral marketing campaign after the film's release? Going to the timeline web address, we see that that's the date Weyland Corp is recognized as a legal entity. Some quick research brings up the site What is 10.11.12. All that's there is some stuff about Nietzsche and a short video of Guy Pearce's Peter Weyland before his TED Talk from the previous viral campaign.

What does all of this have to do with Prometheus or Alien? I have no idea. What is going to happen on 10/11/12? I have no idea. But my interest is certainly peeked. Some are suggesting the bluray release or a sequel announcement. Others wonder if the sequel has already been filmed and we'll see the first teaser. We'll just have to wait and see.

I would recommend Prometheus, especially if you enjoy Sci-fi, but I would preface it with don't expect the same creepy factor that Alien had. Avoid this movie if you don't like gross, slimy things.

Mass Effect 3: The Ending

Much has already been said about the ending to the video game Mass Effect 3, an action-RPG know for it's attention to story, character, and "hard science fiction"-- a sub-genre that emphasizes technical detail and scientific accuracy. Most are quick to point out the plot holes, character inconsistencies, departure from established themes, vague (if any) resolution, and lack of meaningful choice (the core concept that drives the gameplay). Some say that fans deserve a more fitting conclusion to the series that they've supported for almost five years. The other side argues that (developer) BioWare should stand by the artistic integrity of their team and the game they've created. Some fans have crafted a theory that discredits the final events in the game. Even business giant Forbes weighed in on the controversial conclusion. But all these points are specific to Mass Effect alone. I've yet to see anyone analyze the ending as an effective means of storytelling on a basic level. That is, until now. Spoilers? You bet!

For those who might be unfamiliar with it, above is a basic diagram of the dramatic structure. And at first glance, Mass Effect 3 seems to line up nicely. There's a good setup in the exposition, plenty of rising action as more conflicts and obstacles pile on top of each other, a thrilling climax in the final confrontation with The Illusive Man, and . . . that's where most fans are lost. But regardless of how you feel about the Catalyst, it does wrap up the remaining conflicts, the purpose of the falling action. And, yes, the resolution is a bit vague, but it makes its overall point: at great personal cost, Commander Shepard defeats the Reapers, saving the galaxy from the Cycle. Banner headline: YOU WIN! So it's all good, right?


Well, let's dig a little deeper.


Most stories are broken up into three acts (notable exceptions: tv shows and Shakespeare's plays use a five act structure). Act One contains the exposition, Act Two the rising action, and Act Three the climax, falling action, and resolution. Screenwriter and author of Save the Cat Blake Snyder describes this structure as Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis. Act One, the Thesis, sets up the world as we know it. Whether it's ancient Egypt, modern-day America, or a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, it establishes the known world of the story and the rules there-in. Act Two, the Antithesis, is the upside-down world or the bizzarro world. The known rules no longer apply. Moses is banished into the desert. Neo is out of the Matrix. Luke discovers Yoda. Act Three, Synthesis, the hero takes what they've learned in Act's One and Two, and uses that to create a third new world. Moses leads his people out of Egypt. Neo controls the Matrix. Luke saves his father from the Dark Side. This structure seems to follow Joseph Campbell's "Hero's Journey" quite well. Let's take a look at Mass Effect 3 using this structure, first as a stand-alone story, then as part of a trilogy.

You might be thinking that it fits this structure, especially the ending. After all, it's called Synthesis, and "synthesis" is one of the final choices in the game. In fact, the game even suggests that this is the best choice to make. But is the ending a true synthesis in the way that Snyder and the three act structure mean it, as a combination of thesis and antithesis?


In Mass Effect 3, the first act is the events leading to and immediately following the initial Reaper invasion. It establishes a thesis world of impending doom. The galaxy is divided. Old grudges (Krogan and Salarian/Turian) prevent cooperation. And those most able (Asari) are unwilling to help. The second act, the antithesis or upside-down world, shows those divides beginning to break. With every completed mission, more peoples are flocking to your call. Century old differences are put aside or even resolved! Hope, however small, is kindled. So how does the third act wrap it up; what's the third synthesis world that you create? After doing the impossible and amassing the largest interstellar force in the galaxy, Commander Shepard alone decides between three choices, some of which sacrifice your new found allies, all of which sacrifice the unity you're created heretofore. Some of the minor details are forgivable; a story that involves choice and user-interaction will always involve decisions that are morally questionable. But it's the destruction of the Mass Relays (the one element of the ending that no choice can avoid) that undoes the effects of all your previous efforts. Without them, the galaxy is once again divided, each race is isolated, and all peoples must look to their own survival.


This isn't synthesis. This is Prethesis. This effectively undoes everything previously established by the story. It hits the reset button and demands a fresh start oblivious to the lessons learned in order to get to this point. It's the same when you look at the series as a whole.


Mass Effect 1 establishes a thesis world of a large, galactic community with complex issues and political pitfalls. We learn that this community is under threat of Reaper invasion, and thus, annihilation. Mass Effect 2 gives us the antithesis, the upside-down world where Shepard breaks into unknown territory, exemplified by the new location of the Terminus Systems and by working for Cerberus. But Mass Effect 3 doesn't give us a synthesis world where Shepard uses his newfound freedom to get the job done and save the galactic community. No, instead Shepard is forced back into his/her old job and effectively destroys the galactic community you were fighting for. When you look at it this way, is the banner headline still: YOU WIN?


There's been plenty of nitpicking regarding this ending, and there will continue to be, but the ultimate failure is that at the most critical moment Mass Effect 3 could not engage its audience in any meaningful way. It's just bad storytelling. Granted, the forthcoming "Extended Cut" could potentially change everything. But the unfortunate truth is that Mass Effect, one of the most important series in story-driven video games, will forever be remembered for its bad ending.

Now, to throw a little salt on the wound, imagine that this whole mess could have been avoided with just a little bit of peer review.

But what do you think? Were you satisfied with the conclusion? Are you excited for the Extended Cut? Do you think the fans are whining or entitled?

The Avengers

Okay, this isn't going to be so much of a review as much as me just nerding out about how awesome it is. My actual review is simple: go see it, it's awesome! If you've already seen it, go see it again because you probably didn't notice all the awesome that it has! Seriously, I love this movie. I'm a fanboy, and this movie went beyond my wildest expectations. If I could marry this movie, I'd be shopping for a ring. Okay, let the nerd-gush begin. There will be spoilers, so you've been warned.

• Isn't it awesome how they made Agent Coulson a fanboy, and that he like represents us in the movie? Like he's our representative in the Avengers. And then it's his death the brings the team together, and it's like a symbolic statement that this movie would not have happened without the fans.
• And did you notice that Cap was all like, "Tony Stark, you're nothing without your suit of armor," and then when Tony confronts Loki he has to do it without the armor!? HOLY SHIT!
• And then when Hulk takes down the first of those flying-snake-thingies, and Iron Man blows it up, and Cap totally shields Black Widow from the explosion, because that's just like what his character would do! And they don't have to cut to it and like hit you over the head with like, "oh, he's Captain America and he's saving people." NO! This movie's like, "this is so second nature for him, we're not even going to worry about it." THAT'S how much they get these characters.
• Isn't it cool how Loki is so much more evil in this movie than in Thor? He's like ten times as evil! I mean, in Thor all he really did was lie to people and cause some mischief, but now he's whacking people with his spear, ripping out people's eyes, and calling Black Widow a mewling quim.
• And then at the end, the Council dude was like, "Is that was this was all about, a statement?" And Nick Fury is like, "A promise." But what promise is he actually referring to? Is he talking about some oath to protect earth or something, or is it more symbolic of like the promise to the fans that Marvel made at the end of the first Iron Man?
• And it's so sweet how the last shot of the movie-proper is Tony and Pepper in Stark Tower going over the designs to add a Quinjet hanger to the tower, and then the camera pulls back and the only letter left on the building is an 'A' and it looks just like the 'A' in the Avengers logo!

Ladies and gentlemen, all of this is called payoff. Payoff is when a movie establishes something early on and then it comes back at the end in a fulfilling way. This whole movie is payoff. It's four years and five previous films worth of payoff! And this is only a small portion of what makes The Avengers an awesome movie. I highly recommend everyone go see it.

Like right now.