What do you think he is? Some piddly lord of thunder?
Running up and punching things isn’t necessarily a bad choice, depending on how hard you can punch. Suppose that your target is something as tough as a battleship. Even another battleship has a tough time damaging a battleship, and for a mere tank, or any man-portable conventional weapon, fuhgeddaboutit. But some of these guys really can punch hard enough to do significant damage to a battleship (Hulk certainly, and probably Thor if we include “hitting with a hammer” in the same category as “punching”). Or options like flying through the battleship’s armor and punching out the engines, which Vision could do.
Spider-man: Homecoming lowered the stakes. It was a nice change of pace. All he was trying to do is stop a thief.
Regarding the military and NYC: Bwah-hah-ha!
First, the nearest nearby military bases aren’t that big. Second, Manhattan is an island, which would make mobilization into the combat zone very difficult. Even assuming SHIELD has VTOL transport capabilities and has shared them with the military (and that those capabilities are at the nearest bases to Manhattan), there is nowhere to set down until Central Park. Third, mobilizing large forces takes considerable time and resources. The Avengers were already fighting before even the off-duty service members could have been called in for emergency duty. Then there is time to equip, plan logistics, travel time, etcetera and so forth. By the time the OP’s “army guys with machine guns, rocket launchers, and so forth” arrived, the aliens would have been entrenched.
The movie isn’t what is lacking in logic and coherence. Well, scratch that, it does lack those, but not for this reason.
Also, sure Thor has the lightning. But Thor is the type who much prefers to get up close and punch/hammer things, his ego is bigger than Hulk’s biceps, and he’s only slightly less as impulsive as the Hulk. If Hulk is taking out big armored flying things, Thor wants to do so also. Plus, he might simply have left his post to give Captain America and Black Widow a short breather. I’d have to watch again to confirm that, though.
This is part of why Spider-Man: Homecoming was so good. The bad guy was stealing stuff and had to be stopped.
It was great.
Iron Man started out much the same. The bad guy wasn’t threatening the entire world or anything but Stark knew that letting him get the suit technology out there was a bad idea. But once you get a couple heroes together, you need something for them to do besides stopping thieves or random nogoodniks. Or you have someone like Thor where “God stops counterfeiter” isn’t really a compelling plot.
OP:. Isn’t this like watching pretty much any crime movie and asking “Why don’t they simply phone the police?”
I just reread Spider Man Annual #4. It was one of the ultimate comics for me, having been given to me before a cross country flight when I was 7. I could feel the power in it just taking it out and seeing it. But that power isn’t in the drama of the story.
If the torch and spidey fight you know no ones going to get hurt. For any credibility the torch would have to try and incinerate Spidey and he would have to try to kill the torch before it happened. That’s the way fights really happen.
And the actual villains can’t be hurt for the most part either.
So the basis for these dramas isn’t very interesting. I saw the first spidey movie and the fight scenes at the end were the most incoherent, frustrating tornado of effects, never slowing down sufficiently for a human perceptual system to grasp. I haven’t seen any more.
It’s like most any fiction of any kind. Damn near every sitcom ever written could be solved by two characters simply talking about whatever that episode’s situation is. Most every heist movie involves people of singular intelligence and talent putting tons of effort into committing a crime when the same resources into doing something legal would make them about as much money without the risk of prison or death. As mentioned, most horror films involve people stupidly bungling around in a deadly situation.
Same sort of illogical stuff occurs in science fiction such as Star Trek. If you can transporter beam someone then obviously death has no meaning.
But if you have a superhero, they will have superpowers, and will be fighting a villain also with powers. People will want to see those powers in action. That’s kind of the whole point, especially now that we have the VFX technology to make it seem convincing.
“I, Captain Valiant, can fly and I have superstrength and a healing factor.”
“I, Doom master, have the ability to shoot bolts of dark energy, project a forcefield, and enhanced reflexes. Also, I have soldiers.”
Thrill as these two titans settle their differences with a debate, Oxford style!
RESOLVED: Doom master should not bring the world to its knees.
You libruls just never gave him a chance. So much for the tolerant left.
Obviously technique and technology couldn’t have moved forward in 15 years.
…you’ve just compared a movie from Marvel Studios with a movie from a completely different studio to a movie trailer. There is a huge difference between the three things you’ve compared. Lets eliminate the trailer for starters. We have no idea of the context of that particular scene. So you can’t use it as an example of “ridiculous and blatantly obvious flaws in login (logic?) and coherence” because nobody has seen the damn movie.
Plenty of people have responded to show that the “flaws” that you saw in the Avengers weren’t really flaws at all. Nobody has responded to show that the flaws in the X-men movie weren’t flaws because the X-men movie just wasn’t very good and the scene you point out is one of the principal reasons why. The only connecting tissue between these two “marvel” movies are the fact that they both use heroes and villains from Marvel Comics. You are really just talking about superhero movies.
You’ve never read a movie review before? You’ve never read the comments section? You’ve never been on twitter? People point these things out and they argue and they debate these things all the time.
Superhero comic books are extremely trope-y, and it’s those tropes that define the genre, IMO. By and large, the Marvel movies do a pretty good job of delivering on those tropes (or, in some cases, like Guardians of the Galaxy and Thor: Ragnarok, turning them on their ears).
If you don’t care for the things that make superhero comics what they are, you probably won’t care for most of the films, either.
Wow, you mean Fantasy and Science FICTION aren’t real?
And that makes them “stupid”?
Yeah…
That isn’t what he said at all, but congratulations on being that guy.
Your first part is right. I read only part of the OP.
Congrats on being the “That Guy” that guy. :rolleyes:
Because the military weapons against the invading alien hordes were completely ineffective?
Except that Romanov was shooting them with pistols. And silly Hawkeye using a bow and arrows. Good thing they didn’t invade at the Battle of Agincourt, eh? 
And you’d think that, after about 5 minutes of the Avengers killing these things, the cops and some bystanders would be collecting the alien weapons and using them against the invaders too.
In defense of the superhero genre, the basic premise is superheroes are overwhelming force applies in an intelligent and discriminant manner. It wasn’t just a nuclear missile that destroyed the Chitari fleet; it was Iron Man steering the nuclear missile specifically at the fleet. The plan, absent Iron Man, was to blow up all of New York City in order to kill the invaders. That’s a pretty high ratio of collateral damage.
Sometimes a really big problem can be solved by punching it in the face. Superheroes are the guys who can deliver that punch. That’s why characters like Captain America or the Black Widow or Hawkeye have value; not because they can deliver huge blasts of power but because they can deliver a small attack right where it’s needed.