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

rossc007 · 05-05-2015 6:50pm

brianregan09 wrote: »

Chitauri were nothing but an aimless army controlled by Thanos , He probably thought gamble one get 2 back kind of thing as he is trying to assemble them all together , His gamble didn't pay off

But he'll be back to rip the gem out of Vision's head one would presume in the 1st Infinity War Movie

Thanks for that! So there are 6 of these thing right? 2 in the Avengers AoU and 1 in GotG, does Thanos have the other 3 in his glove already?

FunLover18 · 05-05-2015 6:52pm

rossc007 wrote:

Thanks for that! So there are 6 of these thing right? 2 in the Avengers AoU and 1 in GotG, does Thanos have the other 3 in his glove already?

One in Thor 2 as well. 4 accounted for.

brianregan09 · 05-05-2015 7:32pm

Time Gem and the Soul Gem are the only two left i'd imagine Doctor Strange and maybe Antman will be they'll be revealed , I just hope its not the plot of the Black Panther movie

humanji · 05-05-2015 7:37pm

I don't really know any of the space characters, but I thought I heard that Adam Warlock has one of the gems in his forehead, like Vision. And Warlock may possibly be Peter Quill's father, so that would have the second Guardian's of the Galaxy movie take care of one of them. And I'd imagine the other one would be used to explain Dr Strange's powers.

johnny_ultimate · 05-05-2015 7:38pm

Joss Whedon, amidst deleting his Twitter account, has been opening up a little bit about some of the frustrations he faced dealing with Marvel this time around. Seems they weren't keen on some of the moments when Whedon actually attempted some characterisation:

"The dreams were not an executive favorite either — the dreams, the farmhouse, these were things I fought to keep. With the cave, it really turned into: They pointed a gun at the farm's head and said, 'Give us the cave, or we'll take out the farm' — in a civilized way. I respect these guys, they're artists, but that's when it got really, really unpleasant."

These sort of things seem like evidence of the 'studio first, director second' Marvel approach, and really leaves a sour taste in my mouth anyway. These films, Age of Ultron perhaps even more than any so far, feel like compromised films, where the director is trying to express themselves while being confronted with these silly extended universe plans. James Gunn fared the best so far, although still felt like his style was neutered somewhat by the Marvel formula. We can only imagine what went on with Edgar Wright sadly.

I'm sure Whedon still has plenty of nice words about the people who gave him these big opportunities, undoubtedly. Nonetheless that sort of creative interference is not something that fills me with optimism for the studio's upcoming slate of films.

brianregan09 · 05-05-2015 7:46pm

humanji wrote: »

I don't really know any of the space characters, but I thought I heard that Adam Warlock has one of the gems in his forehead, like Vision. And Warlock may possibly be Peter Quill's father, so that would have the second Guardian's of the Galaxy movie take care of one of them. And I'd imagine the other one would be used to explain Dr Strange's powers.

Yeah you're spot on Warlock has the soul gem in his forehead and his coccoon was spotted in the collectors place in Guardians ...and the cocoon was busted open after the explosion so it is possible he's out there now in the universe so to speak and they did say Quills father wouldn't be the same as he was in the comics so it could be anyone

As for the time gem i reckon thatll be in Antman for some reason or another i just have a feeling

Icaras · 05-05-2015 8:03pm

I think this would have made a really good iron man film instead of an avengers film.

brianregan09 · 05-05-2015 8:10pm

I agree with ya , which makes the movie all the more wrong when Antman creates Ultron in the comics

Gbear · 05-05-2015 9:54pm

Greyjoy wrote: »

i found Malekith a fairly bland villain but at least they established him as a genuine global threat. For a film titled "Age of Ultron" it seemed to take place entirely in that made-up eastern european country over the course of a week. They could have done a little more to highlight Ultron's threat worldwide - even just a quick montage of news reports of Ultron's bots fighting & defeating various international police & armies.

One thing the Dark Elves and Thor in general has as well is a cool art style.

Their ships were deadly, having big blade yolks used to cut down towers and things, and being invisible and all that, the elves themselves had those creepy Michael Myers masks, there was that giant fella who burnt a stone thing into his side and turned into a giant demon. There were those cool (albeit easily dispatched) rock monster from the 2nd film and the giant antlered yolk from the first as well. They had those black hole grenades as well.
The two Thor films have been the most visually interesting of the lot for me.

Iron Man, Avengers, even GoTG - it's all just doods. Metal doods, Iron Man looking doods, Iron Man doods with slightly pointy Ultron ears, Hydra. You probably couldn't spot the difference in silhouette.

Ultron himself looked fairly cool, but it's all a bit generically sci-fi cyborg men.

B17G · 05-05-2015 10:19pm

RedemptionZ wrote: »

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'.

+1. Poor overall. Nothing stood out for me whatsoever. Not a patch on the first, and way behind efforts such as the Winter Soldier.

05-05-2015 11:48pm

I was just reading something on Reddit about September 11th attacks when I remembered how there were some scenes that almost mirrored that in this movie. Anyone else feel the same?

Foxtrol · 06-05-2015 3:37am

I'm not sure what some people were really expecting from this.

It's a summer blockbuster, where they're trying to give screentime to an every increasing ensemble cast so that they keep inline with source material and to make the franchise viable going forward.

Some have complained about character development but I think we saw that from most of the team (maybe Cpt and excluded).

As far as menace goes, it's hard to build menace when we know that most of the cast are signed up for future films and the world is obviously not going to end at this point.

I'm a big Whedon fan but I think his complaining is a bit rich. I'm sure many of the other directors for Marvel have been hamstrung to fit in pieces that led into his movies. Just because he is now jumping ship he shouldn't complain that he had to make a few sacrifices for others. As a viewer if the price I pay is the odd scene that appears out of place in order to have an intertwined Marvel Universe I'll happily accept it.

Was it the best movie I've ever seen? No but it is one that I enjoyed and will watch again many times in the future. Given how easy this could have turned into a complete clusterf*ck (a lot of the time by following what posters here believe would have made the movie better) I believe everyone involved in the movie should be applauded!

Brief_Lives · 06-05-2015 7:35am

Well said...

.ak · 06-05-2015 10:37am

I actually preferred it to the first one. I actually thought this one was less cheesy and more comic-booky. Held my interest for longer. The first one was all a bit too wishy-washy.

Rubber_Soul · 06-05-2015 11:19am

I missed him posting it at the time, but Andrew Ellard who is a UK based script editor did a series of tweet notes for AoU the other day. His notes are usually pretty interesting.

https://storify.com/ellardent/avengers-age-of-ultron-tweetnotes

Mitch Connor · 06-05-2015 11:31am

StarshipPooper wrote: »

I missed him posting it at the time, but Andrew Ellard who is a UK based script editor did a series of tweet notes for AoU the other day. His notes are usually pretty interesting.

https://storify.com/ellardent/avengers-age-of-ultron-tweetnotes

Not so sure, to be honest.

The movie is about the need for and acceptance of removal/change of the avengers?

ON a personal level for each character I get it. Stark doesn't want the pressure of being Iron Man along. Widow and Banner want a more simple life without avenging. Hawkeye wants to be with his family. Thor wants to save his own planet from an impending doom.

But on a larger scale - the replacements are weak, and weaken the Avengers. You can't argue War Machine is an upgrade on Iron Man. Losing the power of Thor and Hulk would be massive too. Replacing BW and Hawkeye with Vision and Witch should be a big improvement though, should they have their actual powers.

I would also guess that the originals will be back in force for at least part 2 of Infinity War, so what would that say to the message of this movie?

bullvine · 06-05-2015 11:37am

If Michael Bay did a Superhero movie it would be Age Of Ultron. The best thing about the cinema was the trailer for Star Wars before it.

Tefral · 06-05-2015 11:43am

I watched it a second time in 2d and much prefered it. The first time in 3d i just thought it was an assault on my senses.

The 2nd time around i got to take in more. I felt underwhelmed coming out the first time, second time around I have to say I actually liked it.

.ak · 06-05-2015 11:54am

I don't go to see anything in 3d anymore. Head wrecking.

Zubeneschamali · 06-05-2015 2:04pm

The scene which reminded me strongly of 9/11 was Iron Man demolishing a skyscraper from the top down using the Hulk as a hammer, and the scenes of people covered in dust staggering away from the ruins.

Foxtrol · 06-05-2015 2:12pm

bullvine wrote: »

If Michael Bay did a Superhero movie it would be Age Of Ultron. The best thing about the cinema was the trailer for Star Wars before it.

Can you elaborate on this? It seems like a cheap cop-out insult to make about a movie.

If you’re just talking about the big CGI battle scenes then previous five Marvel Universe films are guilty of the same (AA, IM3, Thor 2, Cpt 2, GOTG).

FunLover18 · 06-05-2015 2:42pm

bullvine wrote:

If Michael Bay did a Superhero movie it would be Age Of Ultron. The best thing about the cinema was the trailer for Star Wars before it.

Yeh I really hated all the gratuitous, leering shots of BW and SW's ass and boobs ... Oh wait

Stone Deaf 4evr · 06-05-2015 4:32pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Joss Whedon, amidst deleting his Twitter account, has been opening up a little bit about some of the frustrations he faced dealing with Marvel this time around. Seems they weren't keen on some of the moments when Whedon actually attempted some characterisation:

These sort of things seem like evidence of the 'studio first, director second' Marvel approach, and really leaves a sour taste in my mouth anyway. These films, Age of Ultron perhaps even more than any so far, feel like compromised films, where the director is trying to express themselves while being confronted with these silly extended universe plans. James Gunn fared the best so far, although still felt like his style was neutered somewhat by the Marvel formula. We can only imagine what went on with Edgar Wright sadly.

I'm sure Whedon still has plenty of nice words about the people who gave him these big opportunities, undoubtedly. Nonetheless that sort of creative interference is not something that fills me with optimism for the studio's upcoming slate of films.

I would imagine that marvel are keen / nervous of the property being compromised, so are maintaining a tight enough leash on the directors, you need only think back on the legacy of directors who interpreted things too much their own way - Batman & Robin, The Punisher, Emo Spider-man and countless other blemishes on some great source material.

Stone Deaf 4evr · 06-05-2015 4:41pm

I saw the movie monday, and have been thinking it over since.

While I certainly enjoyed it, and though some of the action scenes were incredible, a few things are sticking out in my mind.

1. Don Cheadle is starting to look like an old man and is a poor fit for War Machine now.
2. I can't remember how ultron was finally defeated - which is odd, because didn't he fuse himself with vibranium?
3. Thor had very little to do, and the whole "pool of visions" was really glossed over - and why did he need stellan skarsgaard?
4. No Agent Coulson? really?
5. Nick Fury - hiding in barns , then boss of shield again? how? what?

I'd still recommend it to any marvel fan though, but the story is far more open to picking holes in than Winter soldier or any others.
I'd consider it the Iron Man 2 of Avangers movies - more of everything you like, but too much stuff crammed in to set up future films, and too much referencing of other movies in the franchise.

humanji · 06-05-2015 4:48pm

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

2. I can't remember how ultron was finally defeated - which is odd, because didn't he fuse himself with vibranium?

Ha, yeah now that I think about it, I can't remember at all. I have a vague memory about him melting? I don't think being made of vibranium was really brought to the fore.

3. Thor had very little to do, and the whole "pool of visions" was really glossed over - and why did he need stellan skarsgaard?

I think someone said that there's a load of cut footage that may appear in the bluray, that explains all that. I'd almost have preferred if they cut all that out and just had him shoot off to Asgard and then return later.

4. No Agent Coulson? really?

In fairness, he's only alive in the TV show. They'd have to explain it in the movies, and considering all that happened in the film, they'd only really be able to gloss over him. Plus, it would be strange to reintroduce him, but not being in the rest of the TV show characters.

Foxtrol · 06-05-2015 5:27pm

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

I saw the movie monday, and have been thinking it over since.

While I certainly enjoyed it, and though some of the action scenes were incredible, a few things are sticking out in my mind.

5. Nick Fury - hiding in barns , then boss of shield again? how? what?

Viewers of Agents of Shield have all the background to this.

Fury has been working behind the scenes with Coulson, who is Director of the remnants of SHIELD. Coulson was who gave the location to the HYDRA base that the Avengers attacked at the start and also re-built the helicarrier that was used in the final battle.

It’s a nice payoff for those who keep up with the other Marvel output!

FunLover18 · 06-05-2015 5:30pm

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote:

1. Don Cheadle is starting to look like an old man and is a poor fit for War Machine now.

He's 51, only a year older than RDJ and I think it makes sense they'd only trust senior army personnel with the suit.

senordingdong · 06-05-2015 5:59pm

Gbear wrote: »

.

Ultron himself looked fairly cool, but it's all a bit generically sci-fi cyborg men.

Funny you say that because I thought Ultron bore a resemblance to the sentinel x model from xmen last year.

The cave scene is getting too much flak imo.
A small addition like that brings huge scope to the bigger picture.

My only complaint was that too much was squeezed into this and it just barely came out the other side in one piece.
I think any more additional factors will butcher the next installments.

Fysh · 06-05-2015 7:11pm

humanji wrote: »

Ha, yeah now that I think about it, I can't remember at all. I have a vague memory about him melting? I don't think being made of vibranium was really brought to the fore.

Nope, that was the body that Hawkeye and Black Widow stole which later became the Vision.

humanji wrote: »

I think someone said that there's a load of cut footage that may appear in the bluray, that explains all that. I'd almost have preferred if they cut all that out and just had him shoot off to Asgard and then return later.

I agree, I hate this "oh, the next film/extended cut will answer it" attitude. I paid to see a film, I expect it to make sense. Unless Marvel plans to give everyone a free ticket/copy of the later film that answers this stuff, it's a legitimate criticism.

humanji wrote: »

In fairness, he's only alive in the TV show. They'd have to explain it in the movies, and considering all that happened in the film, they'd only really be able to gloss over him. Plus, it would be strange to reintroduce him, but not being in the rest of the TV show characters.

Well, the films and tv series are canonically the same universe so there's no reason they couldn't have brought him back. Though I'm glad they didn't, the film already felt crowded and on top of that, I don't understand the decision to draw attention to the absence of Gwyneth Paltrow and Natalie Portman's characters - to me it read as "Yeah, we're totally too cheap to pay them to come back but want to claim that the characters are still around".

Foxtrol · 06-05-2015 8:16pm

Fysh wrote: »

Well, the films and tv series are canonically the same universe so there's no reason they couldn't have brought him back. Though I'm glad they didn't, the film already felt crowded and on top of that, I don't understand the decision to draw attention to the absence of Gwyneth Paltrow and Natalie Portman's characters - to me it read as "Yeah, we're totally too cheap to pay them to come back but want to claim that the characters are still around".

He could have been included but given what is happening in the rest of the Marvel Universe it simply makes no sense that he appeared. He’s playing a behind the scenes supporting role to Fury and the Avengers, with Hill taking the role as Fury’s right hand man, while he deals with the pressing issues that SHIELD faces.

Again it’s natural that their other halves come up in a conversation in a social setting. We’d have posters complaining that it wasn’t normal that the characters totally ignored that they’re in relationships throughout the whole movie.

If this is the level that people are reaching for minor complaints I think it’s doing pretty well.

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

Comments

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