skylynx
Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Posts: 94
|
Post by skylynx on May 4, 2015 16:51:36 GMT -5
I saw it this weekend and loved it. Loads of great character stuff (esoecially Hawkeye) and the action scenes were gripping. This one seemed darker yet with a lot more humour and funny lines. Not better than, but definitely on a par with the first one I think. Captain America has now been cemented as my favourite Avenger.
|
|
|
Post by henrythemorerecent on May 4, 2015 19:11:47 GMT -5
Just listened to an interview with Joss Whedon, and on top of all the quotes and interviews I've read since this movie came out, he again stresses the fact there was stuff he had to cut that was "beautiful" and he didn't want to cut as well as why all that Thor stuff made no sense.
This is really frustrating. For so many reasons. People will go see an Avengers film regardless of its length. The more the better I say. You look at films like Nolan's Batman series. He said himself, NO deleted scenes. Everything thats in the movie is what he wanted in there. Then on the complete flipside you've got Transformers. Films that, despite basically unanimous critical panning, still make money and are 3 hours long.
So why on Earth would a studio that has nothing but passionate fans force Joss, basically the person who made this franchise the monster it is with the first film, be forced to cut things that actually add to the story and development? If anything they should have given complete control to him.
Again, it seems like no suprise that Joss is now out of the picture, especially after the Edgar Wright situation.
I enjoyed this film for the most part but its definitely on the pile of "Won't watch again". But now I'm definitely going to buy it once its released so I can see what was cut. Hopefully its offered as more of an extended cut than just deleted scenes.
|
|
|
Post by BarefootRoot on May 5, 2015 6:44:41 GMT -5
so having slept on it a couple days now I feel like I came off a little too harsh. I will still admit to being a little disappointed, but it was by no means a bad film, and I think I came across as a hater in my "just walked out of the theater" post sunday. While I don't plan on seeing it again in theaters, if they add in all Joss's stuff they cut for the digital (I buy most of my movies on Vudu these days) or blu ray release I will likely get it to see if the additional material fills in the gaps for me. It's entirely possible it will grow on me. I really didn't care for the original Thor film, but watched it twice and by the end of the second watch I actually liked it quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on May 5, 2015 15:07:31 GMT -5
Loved it; wonderful second chapter in the series. I didn't particularly adore a couple of the choices made, for instance who ended up taking the bullet, or the direction they went with Clint (which seems very, very un-Clint Barton, to me), or the lack of an after-credits scene, or all the time spent on Brucetasha, but all-in-all I think it was a massive success. Thor was hilarious, Ultron was brilliant, the Vision stole every scene he was in, and the last little bit at the new base got me really excited. Can't wait for the next installment.
|
|
|
Post by lennyreid on May 5, 2015 16:11:58 GMT -5
Another fantastic Comic Book movie. As I was attempting to stop my giant smile from piercing the bag of popcorn the guy next to me had after Vision's first 5 minutes on screen, I was once again reminded of how lucky we are that any company would give a comic book fan millions of dollars to make this stuff. We have to enjoy it while it lasts.
Too much good to list. I have to disagree with a previous statement comparing it with Man of Steel's disregard for casualties. I felt there were countless nods to the reason they were doing all this stuff. Building checks, character speeches about saving people, and a set piece that was all about saving civilians en-masse.
That being said there were a couple of moments where there were obvious deaths that weren't addressed - the van chase... yeesh! - but Ultron did a lot more than MoS to address what heroes are there for. Just respectfully disagreeing, with a lot of love for MoS, AoU, and the board.
|
|
|
Post by henrythemorerecent on May 5, 2015 17:27:35 GMT -5
Another fantastic Comic Book movie. As I was attempting to stop my giant smile from piercing the bag of popcorn the guy next to me had after Vision's first 5 minutes on screen, I was once again reminded of how lucky we are that any company would give a comic book fan millions of dollars to make this stuff. We have to enjoy it while it lasts. Too much good to list. I have to disagree with a previous statement comparing it with Man of Steel's disregard for casualties. I felt there were countless nods to the reason they were doing all this stuff. Building checks, character speeches about saving people, and a set piece that was all about saving civilians en-masse. That being said there were a couple of moments where there were obvious deaths that weren't addressed - the van chase... yeesh! - but Ultron did a lot more than MoS to address what heroes are there for. Just respectfully disagreeing, with a lot of love for MoS, AoU, and the board. Oh I definitely agree there was more time (time in general) spent showing civilians getting to safety. This wasn't an issue for me in MoS, but I understand the issue for others. Sort of speaking in MoS' defence and my own though, the destruction in Metropolis was limited to a section of the city (silly defence I know, but I'm getting to my point) There were multiple human characters to ground you there and worry about/care about (Lois, Perry, Lombard, Colonel Hardy, Dr. Hamilton) and the city is familiar to most of us. While being a fictional city, it's very much a typical place we have all been to at some point eg NY, Chigaco, London, Sydney, Mlebourne etc. Metropolitan.
Thats what I mean by convenient writing. Conveniently the Avengers third act happens in a fictional Eastern European town with absolutely no human characters to relate to or care about. The city a carbon copy of many of the poorer countries in Europe so sure maybe all of them are evacuated to safety. But basically their entire lives are obliterated. And so we come to my biggest problem with the movie - Tony Stark and Bruce Banner created the villain. It all comes back onto them.
Which, on a side note, is another bit of convenient writing. They kill the villain. Their mission is to kill the villain. But it doesn't bother everybody because its a robot. Dehumanizing the villain makes it easier to accept the real world consequences.
So comparing it to Man of Steel (which as I type I realise is a stupid thing to do and kind of against my general attitude to these movies and the constant comparing of DC to Marvel) but say what you will about the destruction, Superman is not responsible for Zods actions. Zod is his own person making his own decisions. And in the end Superman has to make a decision which he very clearly is not happy about and that is to kill Zod.
I feel bad. I'm saying all this having enjoyed Age of Ultron. But again as I've said probably too many times on this forum, as someone who has to keep defending a film I loved with all the nitpicks and problems others had against MoS, I am hearing much more accepting and excusable arguments for Avengers with similar plot devices/events/decisions. None of which would bother me at all anyway if not for the fact that they weren't acceptable in one film but now are in another.
Stepping slightly away from MoS for a second, its like that "nitpick" SO many people seem to have with Dark Knight Rises, where Bruce escapes the prison and makes it back to Gotham. And to this day you still hear "they should have made a reference to how he got back! it makes no sense! He has no money or Alfred" Now personally, it makes perfect sense: Because he's Batman. I just assume things like that don't need to be told because he can do things like that.
Then you look at Avengers. Those Thor scenes and his disappearing act make zero sense. According to Joss Whedon it'll be in the extended version. But still, they cut it. So the general audience will only see the theatrical cut. Vut he just disappears, goes to a cave, next thing you know he knows what to do. Zero explanation. But the defence I'm hearing for that? "It's a superhero movie. You don't need to explain things like that."
There's a serious amount of double standards that I only bring up because, again, it was such a big issue at one time for one movie, but now for some reason it isn't for this one and I just can't make sense of it as someone who just wishes fans could all get along. It's that thing I hear Kevin Smith say of Star Trek fans saying "Hey look at those Star Wars geeks over there".
|
|
|
Post by lennyreid on May 6, 2015 3:45:38 GMT -5
Another fantastic Comic Book movie. As I was attempting to stop my giant smile from piercing the bag of popcorn the guy next to me had after Vision's first 5 minutes on screen, I was once again reminded of how lucky we are that any company would give a comic book fan millions of dollars to make this stuff. We have to enjoy it while it lasts. Too much good to list. I have to disagree with a previous statement comparing it with Man of Steel's disregard for casualties. I felt there were countless nods to the reason they were doing all this stuff. Building checks, character speeches about saving people, and a set piece that was all about saving civilians en-masse. That being said there were a couple of moments where there were obvious deaths that weren't addressed - the van chase... yeesh! - but Ultron did a lot more than MoS to address what heroes are there for. Just respectfully disagreeing, with a lot of love for MoS, AoU, and the board. Oh I definitely agree there was more time (time in general) spent showing civilians getting to safety. This wasn't an issue for me in MoS, but I understand the issue for others. Sort of speaking in MoS' defence and my own though, the destruction in Metropolis was limited to a section of the city (silly defence I know, but I'm getting to my point) There were multiple human characters to ground you there and worry about/care about (Lois, Perry, Lombard, Colonel Hardy, Dr. Hamilton) and the city is familiar to most of us. While being a fictional city, it's very much a typical place we have all been to at some point eg NY, Chigaco, London, Sydney, Mlebourne etc. Metropolitan.
Thats what I mean by convenient writing. Conveniently the Avengers third act happens in a fictional Eastern European town with absolutely no human characters to relate to or care about. The city a carbon copy of many of the poorer countries in Europe so sure maybe all of them are evacuated to safety. But basically their entire lives are obliterated. And so we come to my biggest problem with the movie - Tony Stark and Bruce Banner created the villain. It all comes back onto them.
Which, on a side note, is another bit of convenient writing. They kill the villain. Their mission is to kill the villain. But it doesn't bother everybody because its a robot. Dehumanizing the villain makes it easier to accept the real world consequences.
So comparing it to Man of Steel (which as I type I realise is a stupid thing to do and kind of against my general attitude to these movies and the constant comparing of DC to Marvel) but say what you will about the destruction, Superman is not responsible for Zods actions. Zod is his own person making his own decisions. And in the end Superman has to make a decision which he very clearly is not happy about and that is to kill Zod.
I feel bad. I'm saying all this having enjoyed Age of Ultron. But again as I've said probably too many times on this forum, as someone who has to keep defending a film I loved with all the nitpicks and problems others had against MoS, I am hearing much more accepting and excusable arguments for Avengers with similar plot devices/events/decisions. None of which would bother me at all anyway if not for the fact that they weren't acceptable in one film but now are in another.
Stepping slightly away from MoS for a second, its like that "nitpick" SO many people seem to have with Dark Knight Rises, where Bruce escapes the prison and makes it back to Gotham. And to this day you still hear "they should have made a reference to how he got back! it makes no sense! He has no money or Alfred" Now personally, it makes perfect sense: Because he's Batman. I just assume things like that don't need to be told because he can do things like that.
Then you look at Avengers. Those Thor scenes and his disappearing act make zero sense. According to Joss Whedon it'll be in the extended version. But still, they cut it. So the general audience will only see the theatrical cut. Vut he just disappears, goes to a cave, next thing you know he knows what to do. Zero explanation. But the defence I'm hearing for that? "It's a superhero movie. You don't need to explain things like that."
There's a serious amount of double standards that I only bring up because, again, it was such a big issue at one time for one movie, but now for some reason it isn't for this one and I just can't make sense of it as someone who just wishes fans could all get along. It's that thing I hear Kevin Smith say of Star Trek fans saying "Hey look at those Star Wars geeks over there".
I hear you, man. I don't understand how militant some people can get with this DC/Marvel thing in the comics or the movies. I do see the double-standard with a lot of people but if you explore that for the movies, it comes down to the creative team and how the film is delivered. Snyder and Goyer - while very good at their jobs - lack something in the character nuance department which is a HUGE part of comics and therefore a big deal for comic book fans. You'll find this nitpicking is solely in this community as MoS was a massive success everywhere else. Ultimately it matters less to people that Stark and Banner create Ultron if a few character boxes are checked in the writing. A little time for remorse and hand-wringing in the script goes a long way.
|
|
KidOmega
Fearless Defender
Heh, who knew being an Xmen was this much fun?!
Posts: 6
|
Post by KidOmega on May 8, 2015 11:58:26 GMT -5
EDIT: I hope this post isn't out of place, it was the first Age of Ultron thread that I saw, if I find another one that this is more applicable to, I will move it there, until then: TADA!
I just wanted to comment on the discussion of Black Widow and Hulk's relationship in AoU.
After listening to the podcast, Bob, you brought up the point that it seems like they are simply shipping off Black Widow with every character on the team. And I get that, I thought that at first too but I think they set up some defence against that in this movie. She was a secret agent with shield, it would make sense that she has deeper connections with all the characters on a personal level. Thor and Banner (for example) don't have the relationship that Romanov and Banner do because as a secret agent, Romanov had to build the interpersonal relationships with individual characters where people like Thor, and Iron Man and Cap didn't have too.
Almost like in the comics, where Marvel sets up a very tier based world. You have the godlike heroes but at the same time you have the more human heroes who have the ability to interact with everyone in a more personal setting rather then being relied on to be the "big gun". Black Widow is essentially a support character within the shield framework and it only makes sense that playing that role, that she would be able to form those relationships whether romantic or not.
In AoU, they set up the idea that her and Clint have a lot of backstory history, like they were going to name her daughter/son after her! When Romanov went to Clints farm she was clearly familiar with the setting and I read it as she may have possibly been the one to help set that up for his family considering her role in shield and the sheer connection she has to his family; she has clearly been aware of his family and been involved with them in the past. Looking back at the first Avengers movie, that could explain the arrow necklace! It could have simply been a gift from Hawkeye's family to her.
Her relationship with Cap in The Winter Soldier is the most suggestive in terms of being shipped off, but again because she is able to form these close relationships it makes sense that she may or may not have had a thing with him considering the circumstances. Looking back at it, her character is almost portrayed as if she is controlling Cap by being more suggestive in how she acts in contrast to AoU where she strips down that secret agent appearance and is very real and down to earth with both Banner and Hawkeye (and his family).
I'm not a fan of shipping, I'm actually the last person that will ship a character with another character because it often feels out of place and simply as if out of necessity but looking back at all the previous movies, while shocking, Banner and Romanov makes sense considering both characters and their role within the team and shield. For once, I'm actually in support of and a "shipper" of two characters!
|
|
|
Post by hermanthegerman on May 9, 2015 1:03:21 GMT -5
I think overall it was a ok film. The opening scene was something that really bothered me. Very bad cgi and I could not get into the film. The exact opposite of Star Trek Into Darkness, where you are thrown into the film, but there it works.
I think the whole movie was very rushed, it is not a sign of qualitiy to have to watch it again to get all the stuff out of it...as long as it is not a David Lynch movies...its a popcorn action superhero movie!
I did not really liked the portrait of black widow, because Marvel built so strong female characters in the comics and in this movie they treat her like DC/Marvel did it in the 90s. I think that was clearly a step backwards.
Most of the character interaction felt forced to me, and there tooooo many running gags...I guess I really like the dark and serious tone of the DC Movieverse better. The sillyness takes me out of the movie. I did not take Loki serious in the first movie, because funny villians just work for me, if they are insane mad funny, like the joker. Ultron again went in that funny direction...
What I liked was the farmhouse scene...because there was way too much action before that. I think the story itself was very thin and 80% of the movie felt like battling. I would have wished the movie itself was better written and there would be more storypaths...and not this poor: oh we have to separate Thor from the group, we throw him in a cave and there he bathes for no reason. And then he comes back smashes the hammer on the flor and says: yes we can trust that robot, because of the stone on his forehead, it was in my vision. For noncomicbookreaders this must have been soooo awkward. If you would minimize the action a bit there would have been more time to really tell a stroy and let the plot develop.
That said, I did not hate the movies...it was ok, I had some fun, but overall i have high expactations. The movie had very great potential, but chose the easy funny and actiony path.
|
|
|
Post by BatFonz on May 12, 2015 7:06:44 GMT -5
Really enjoyed it, Its wonderful to see these characters on film and doing them justice.
8/10
Good Action sequences. Vision was a revelation. [My] Ultron doesn't do one liners - probably the only thing which actually took me out of the movie.
I really liked the introduction of Scarlet Witch and the way they showed her movement etc... straight out of a horror film, thought that was very cool - I wonder if the reason they only did it the once that way is because it might have felt too much through the whole movie.
|
|