The Avengers: Age of Ultron [ SPOILERS FROM POST 599 ONWARD ]

Otacon · 29-04-2015 4:50pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So far who has been the best Bruce Banner? I'd definitely think Ruffalo is among the best. Though Ferrigno is still number one!

Ferrigno was never Banner.

Mickeroo · 29-04-2015 4:51pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So far who has been the best Bruce Banner? I'd definitely think Ruffalo is among the best. Though Ferrigno is still number one!

Ferrigno never played Banner, that was Bill Bixby :P though it was David in that series not Bruce.

29-04-2015 4:59pm

Doh! You know I haven't seen it in the longest time, so I just associated him as Banner.

humanji · 29-04-2015 5:01pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, OK.

I always felt sorry for that version of Hulk. Did anyone ever see the original Animatronic Hulk? Before they went with full CGI.

https://youtu.be/_rGQZDYNpa4

If you're interested, you should really do Steve Johnson FX on YouTube and Facebook.

Was that used in Ang Lee's Hulk?

Mechanical Clocktail · 29-04-2015 5:04pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

Ferrigno never played Banner, that was Bill Bixby :P though it was David in that series not Bruce.

They thought Bruce sounded too gay. I'm pretty sure that was the actual reasoning.

29-04-2015 5:09pm

humanji wrote: »

Was that used in Ang Lee's Hulk?

As far as I'm aware, it wasn't. They instead went with full CGI. It was supposed to be more a proof of concept more than anything else, I believe.

Steve Johnson FX have done a few other amazing ones, but I might create a new thread for those instead as isn't really suited to here.

pixelburp · 29-04-2015 5:26pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

I like Ang Lee's Hulk, it wasn't perfect but at least they tried to do something different with it, you'd never see Marvel take risks like that now. It was a pretty weird film at the end of the day.

I think the main problem was that they chose the wrong film to make an oddball, introspective tale about a father/son relationship. Maybe that's there in the comics, but I think people primarily wanted a lot of 'Hulk smash!', not 'Hulk works through unresolved Daddy issues!'. And even then, that tone was also completely at odds with the goofiness like the mutant poodles and those cheesy comic-style scene transitions. As you say, a really weird film, but at least they tried.

As for taking risks, I could see Marvel taking risks again once one of their interchangeable MCU productions tanks at the box-office.

pmasterson95 · 29-04-2015 8:25pm

Ferrigno still sounds out Hulk while Ruffalo does the Banner parts.

dr.fuzzenstein · 29-04-2015 8:49pm

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Ferrigno still sounds out Hulk while Ruffalo does the Banner parts.

Sorry, come again?

edit:

So he did, now cover me in eggs and flower and bake me for 40 minutes, I had no idea!

Wedwood · 29-04-2015 8:50pm

Ang Lee's Hulk is certainly an acquired taste. Its an odd movie, but has its moments, like the desert battle.

The Edward Norton starring Incredible Hulk a few years later was far more closer in content to the comic books, loads of 'Hulk Smash' moments, I'm surprised it wasn't better received.

Maybe the Bixby/Ferrigno TV series (which bore virtually no resemblance to the comics) has changed what people expect the Hulk to be, something a big budget movie can't be, namely a low key reboot of the Fugitive.

Gbear · 29-04-2015 9:54pm

Wedwood wrote: »

The Edward Norton starring Incredible Hulk a few years later was far more closer in content to the comic books, loads of 'Hulk Smash' moments, I'm surprised it wasn't better received.

Like a lot of these films I really loved when they rationed the action and used it to link bits of tense "human" action.

The finale was just a pile of explosions, again.

Having him running around the favelas and finally flipping out in the drinks factory was a great way to build it up.

Tim Roth was a good villain, but when he stopped being Tim Roth, it kinda defeated the purpose.

Dempsey · 29-04-2015 10:13pm

Age of Ultron?? Looked like his rise and fall happened over the course of a weekend!!

The only reason the avengers didnt make quicker work of him was because of the Scarlett Witch messing with their fragile little minds. Very little tension when you know they wont kill one of their cash cows/main characters.

RedemptionZ · 29-04-2015 11:02pm

I didn't think it was as bad as some did, but Ultron really was an underwhelming villain by the end of the movie. Really boring characters, very little going on in the universe other than 'let's stop Ultron'.

After seeing the GotG, the Avengers just seems so much worse. At the moment the only villains I care about are

Thanos and The Collector

both from the GotG movies.

pmasterson95 · 29-04-2015 11:17pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Sorry, come again?

edit:

So he did, now cover me in eggs and flower and bake me for 40 minutes, I had no idea!

I struggled with phrasing I had said Ferrigno spoke but thats not really what Hulk does so prased it that way.

MisterAnarchy · 30-04-2015 12:06am

Wedwood wrote: »

The Edward Norton starring Incredible Hulk a few years later was far more closer in content to the comic books, loads of 'Hulk Smash' moments, I'm surprised it wasn't better received.

Its quite an underrated movie, I'd rate it as one of the best MCU movies .
Norton was very convincing as Banner and it was quite a dark film especially for Marvel.
The soundtrack by Craig Armstrong is also brilliant.

TerrorFirmer · 30-04-2015 12:18am

It's indisputably a very entertaining movie and well worth seeing for the visual spectacle alone, but like the first Avengers movie, it's all a bit hollow. They really need to take it a different direction, every recent stand alone movie for each of the avengers have been much superior films in every respect - Winter Soldier, Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, etc. Age is Ultron is too saturated with characters, far too one-dimensional and just feels like an empty vessel - there's no soul there.

Still a decent movie at the end of the day but needs a shake-up, it's already rather stale.

Also, I though the CGI was pretty flawless - except for the very beginning, which had a terrible cartoon quality to it.

James74 · 30-04-2015 12:24am

Anybody else think that they killed off Quicksilver to avoid the Days of Future Past problem of him being too powerful of a superhero?

Tefral · 30-04-2015 8:55am

Is anyone else watching Agents of Shield in this? I think this movie is starting to make a lot more sense when you incorporate the series also! I watched last nights episode and I can see that it fills in alot that leads to them finding Struckers Castle.

James74 · 30-04-2015 9:02am

Yep. I watched this week's episode then went straight from that go and see the film. Really worked as an excellent intro to the Avengers

attacking the castle.
Only issue is in hindsight, Skye handing out that amazing John Wick asskicking and gun-play just might be better than any of the hand-to-hand combat in the film.

flazio · 30-04-2015 12:27pm

Please remember that relevant episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. doesn't air in Ireland until this Sunday (and then a further 2 weeks until the UK see it) please don't spoil Agents, thanks.

James74 · 30-04-2015 12:36pm

Oops, sorry... spoilerfied now.

pmasterson95 · 30-04-2015 1:44pm

James74 wrote: »

Anybody else think that they killed off Quicksilver to avoid the Days of Future Past problem of him being too powerful of a superhero?

I think it could just be to avoid comparisons. I know DoFP cut a scene that involved him mentioning his twin. Maybe they agreed one twin each so Pietro had to die if they wanted Wanda?

Gbear · 30-04-2015 5:41pm

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Also, I though the CGI was pretty flawless - except for the very beginning, which had a terrible cartoon quality to it.

That was really baffling to me.

That entire scene was just a bag of dicks. Utterly ludicrous. I was really worried at that stage. It was like they hadn't finished the post-production or had badly edited it or something. It had an amateurish feel to it that the rest of the film didn't suffer from.

Once they got back to the Avengers Tower things picked up.

TerrorFirmer · 30-04-2015 6:25pm

Gbear wrote: »

That entire scene was just a bag of dicks. Utterly ludicrous. I was really worried at that stage. It was like they hadn't finished the post-production or had badly edited it or something.

It actually felt like the opening intro to an Age of Ultron video game.

ShazGV · 30-04-2015 6:53pm

I didn't notice how cartoony it was the first time around, but when I saw it a second time, I couldn't help but see it after reading the posts here. Definitely the worst CGI of the film.

micks_address · 30-04-2015 9:03pm

Off topic but did anyone else see this in the imax last Friday? I went with my son to the 130 screening. They had the speakers so loud for the trailers it was deafening.. The volume settled down for the film but my ears were sore due three days.. Been to a number of films in imax and never had that.. Watching iron man 3 and think I prefer it to ultron..

Tomagotchye · 30-04-2015 9:09pm

Watched it today. Basically a poor rehash of the first film. I did not enjoy it. Too many characters - all vying for the same screen time which weakens the plot considerably.

Hulk annoys the hell out of me. Banner clearly has control. I mean Black Widow rode on his back for christ's sake! He is in control when it suits him and yet I'm still submitted to long phases of "I can't trust myself" or "I can't get angry."

Hawkeye's got a lot of extra time in this film, probably to make up for his utter uselessness in the last one. Cringe dialog from him. Whole film felt forced.

Saying that, I'll watch the last one and chalk this up to a typical 2nd film stutter.

01-05-2015 12:17am

I went to see this last night. I enjoyed the first Avengers movie immensely, great fun, but Age of Ultron just left me bored at times.

Aside from a good performance by Spader, Ultron was a mess; His creation, his motives, his moods, his end-game, all a mess that added up to nothing but 'Because he's the bad guy'. Was he even that dangerous individually to the Avengers? I never felt like one of them was remotely in danger with him. Once I saw Cap take an Ultron laser blast to the chest and just walk it off, I knew this Ultron wasn't the one which was sold in the trailers.

There was a chance to create a bit of drama within the group once they found out that Stark was responsible for Ultron's creation, but after a few grumpy looks from the rest of the team and a brief throat-grab by Thor, all was forgiven and forgotten. There didn't seem to be much remorse from Stark either, or any hint of a "Shít, maybe I'm not infallible after all" sort of depth to the character. Also, they hinted at some emotional depth to Ultron when he freaked out and sliced off Klaw's hand at the mention of Tony Stark's name, but that was the end of that and apart from an initial brief altercation at Avengers' Towers when Ultron first appeared, he and Stark/Iron Man didn't face-off again.

It's all a bit inconsequential and by the end of the movie, everything seems just the same as it was at the start with very little to no character progression or growth. This seemed to be a rehashed but lesser version of the first movie. You can almost see someone piping up a bit of courage in a creative meeting, let's call him Clarence - "But sir with respect, is the climax with centrally-controlled drones flying all over a city and our heroes fighting against the odds to stop them not very similar to the end of the first movie?" Then everyone just stares at Clarence before the boss says "Clarence you idiot, this time the city is in Europe and flying...it's fúcking flying Clarence!! Plus these are Ultron drones, the first movie had Chitauri aliens. Clear out your things, you're done here Clarence."

I'm not a diehard Marvel fan, but I think that fact should make it easy enough for me to enjoy these movies and it has done that so far for the most part. Example; I won't lose my shít because some character I've loved for years in the comics was done differently in the movies, I won't lose my shít when the Mandarin

turns out to be a stage actor

. All I look for from these movies is fun and a semi-decent story. There were glimpses of those elements in Age of Ultron, but only glimpses and I'm not surprised to hear that Whedon said something very like "She was a tough one to bring home". Sadly there were just too many things that detracted from my enjoyment, or didn't even get my enjoyment going in the first place, and I found this movie clunky, rushed and largely forgettable unlike the first Avengers. Thor and the mystic cave bath? I don't even...

This is not a terrible movie or even a particularly bad one, just disappointing and a bundle of missed opportunities IMO. If after 3 years of waiting you just want to check in with our heroes and watch them do battle with a 'monster of the week' (week, not 'Age') amidst some flashy set-pieces, then grand. If you were looking for something a bit meatier, something that leaves you eager and thirsting for the next installment, then this is not that Avengers movie, not for me anyway.