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

OU812

don ramo wrote: »

really have you not seen iron man 2 and 3, cause they were bad, weakest of the franchise by quite a distance,

like i said this isnt as good as the first but its still a solid film, a few tricks and whatnot get overused, its definitely got issues, but like i said a solid film

the question i always ask is how its gonna stands up to repeat viewing, and unlike iron man 2 and 3, im almost certain im gonna rewatch this at some point in the near future,

I enjoyed both of those, I think 3 suffered from change of director, but it still stands up.

Maybe I wasn't in the mood for it, but I just didn't enjoy it despite looking forward to it.

LoonyLovegood

Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »

Ya, I'm aware of that.

It came across terribly on screen though, you could take it the wrong way easily which just shows poor writing. I think there's a gap between what you rightly inferred and what was actually up there being said. For example, some women undergo procedures for health reasons that mean they can't have kids in future. That doesn't make them ruthless monsters.But then that's the basic logic behind Widow's story. It's not a simple issue and shouldn't have been tacked on. Clunky and ill-advised. You're not wrong, but that scene sure as hell wasn't right.

As someone who can't have kids, that scene was completely wrong. I mean, I'm 21 and have accepted it. But if you've a sixteen/seventeen year old girl who's been told she can't have kids, and you see Black Widow calling herself a monster, it's gonna hit home for the very wrong reasons.

expectationlost

sheehy83 wrote: »

Yes

but because they were loading all of his people onto the carrier to escape the floating island.

they'll be back to bombing people next week

The Moldy Gowl

Anyone see this in 3d??

OU812

Was speaking with my dad earlier. Surprised me that he'd gone to it as he's not the demographic.

Asked him what he thought & his opinion was it was pointless. It didn't advance the characters at all.

I think he hit the nail on the head.

Jon Stark

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Anyone see this in 3d??

I did, and also saw the original in 3D. I thought AoU was a step up in quality in 3D, not the murky mess AA was at times.

goz83

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Anyone see this in 3d??

Yeah i just got back from watching it. Not a 3D movie imo. Lots of action, but very little engagement. They failed to tie the story together and I am not hard to please with these types of movies, but it wasn't great tbh.

Jon Stark

OU812 wrote: »

Was speaking with my dad earlier. Surprised me that he'd gone to it as he's not the demographic.

Asked him what he thought & his opinion was it was pointless. It didn't advance the characters at all.

I think he hit the nail on the head.

Aye I'd agree with that, surprised that they left

Cap and Tony on good terms given what's to come.

pmasterson95

Jon Stark wrote: »

Aye I'd agree with that, surprised that they left

Cap and Tony on good terms given what's to come.

Isn't Downey not signed for the next Captain America movie? It will prob happen then tbh.

Jon Stark

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Isn't Downey not signed for the next Captain America movie? It will prob happen then tbh.

Yeah but the whole point of Tony creating Ultron was at odds with the team. He says as much. Wanda strikes on it as well. The pay off for the fall out was set up but they didn't follow through.

pmasterson95

Jon Stark wrote: »

Yeah but the whole point of Tony creating Ultron was at odds with the team. He says as much. Wanda strikes on it as well. The pay off for the fall out was set up but they didn't follow through.

True but it will eventually in that movie. They just held it back for now.

Polo_Mint

Saw it in 3D today. Took a while to get going but enjoyed it.

Penn

I saw AOU in the cinema on Thursday, and even though I liked it, I didn't think it was as good as the first.

Saw it again Friday. Then watched a pretty good cam version last night. And today, I watched the first Avengers again.

I have to say, I think I was wrong. I think AOU might be the better film. It's a much more solid film, a lot of the action is better, Ultron was a more interesting character than Loki was in the Avengers. The characters are all fleshed out much better.

It's obviously not without its flaws, and I'd still rank Guardians of the Galaxy as the best Marvel film to date, but having watched it three times now, I think it's quality.

The biggest complaint I would have about it would be FRIDAY. Jesus... a computer modulated Oirish accent trying to enunciate... It really sounds horrible

FunLover18

Bad Horse wrote: »

I saw AOU in the cinema on Thursday, and even though I liked it, I didn't think it was as good as the first.

Saw it again Friday. Then watched a pretty good cam version last night. And today, I watched the first Avengers again.

I have to say, I think I was wrong. I think AOU might be the better film. It's a much more solid film, a lot of the action is better, Ultron was a more interesting character than Loki was in the Avengers. The characters are all fleshed out much better.

It's obviously not without its flaws, and I'd still rank Guardians of the Galaxy as the best Marvel film to date, but having watched it three times now, I think it's quality.

The biggest complaint I would have about it would be FRIDAY. Jesus... a computer modulated Orish accent trying to enunciate... It really sounds horrible

Yeh, I'm looking forward to watching it again.

Osmosis Jones

I thought Whedon did quite a good job with the movie. As people have said there wasn't a lot of character development but that's tough to do with 9 or so characters in the film, the big development is usually saved for the solo movies and rightfully so. In fairness to Whedon he did try and spend time on the characters who don't have their own movies (Hulk, Black Widow and Hawkeye). The crossover movies like this are supposed to be big events and that's exactly what it was.

Spader did a great job with what he could as Ultron but I wish they would have made him a more menacing character, they really seemed to undermine all the villains.

The killing of Quicksilver was poorly done, it was meant to be a big low point in the film but he just wasn't on screen enough for anyone to care that much.

My biggest problem with AoU is

Thor, his role in the movie made no sense and it seemed like he was just there to advertise Ragnarok. I still have no idea what the bath in the cave was about

Overall I really enjoyed the film, the action sequences were done very well, it gave insight into some of the more distant characters lives and some of the jokes were great. Helped to set up movies to come

although Cap and Stark ending on seemingly good terms has thrown me off, they were heading in the right direction to CW through the film and then by the end they were friends again.

FunLover18

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

The killing of Quicksilver was poorly done, it was meant to be a big low point in the film but he just wasn't on screen enough for anyone to care that much.

My biggest problem with this was that earlier in the film

we saw Quicksilver take Klaw's gun, unload every bullet and line them up in a row in a second and when Hawkeye shot the floor beneath his feet we also caught a glimpse of how fast/slow the bullet was moving from his POV.

Penn

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

My biggest problem with AoU is

Thor, his role in the movie made no sense and it seemed like he was just there to advertise Ragnarok. I still have no idea what the bath in the cave was about

Scarlet Witch can't choose what she shows you, so whatever she showed Thor was part of Thor's own subconscious and fears. But he snapped out of the dream before he could figure it out. The pool in the cave is a place where he could re-enter the dream and finish it. There, he realised the sceptre contained the mind gem and that the tessarect, aether (from Thor 2) and orb (from GOTG) were infinity stones too. With 4 of the infinity stones having surfaced in the last few years, he realised that serious trouble was coming, even greater than Ultron.

I think a lot was cut from the film which probably shouldn't have been. Early trailers showed a woman in the cave who likely would have explained things to Thor (and therefore the audience)

Osmosis Jones

Bad Horse wrote: »

Scarlet Witch can't choose what she shows you, so whatever she showed Thor was part of Thor's own subconscious and fears. But he snapped out of the dream before he could figure it out. The pool in the cave is a place where he could re-enter the dream and finish it. There, he realised the sceptre contained the mind gem and that the tessarect, aether (from Thor 2) and orb (from GOTG) were infinity stones too. With 4 of the infinity stones having surfaced in the last few years, he realised that serious trouble was coming, even greater than Ultron.

I think a lot was cut from the film which probably shouldn't have been. Early trailers showed a woman in the cave who likely would have explained things to Thor (and therefore the audience)

Cheers, helps clear things up a lot, as said they could've done to explain it better.

cloud493

Apparently the actress for the voice of friday was also in angela's ashes :pac:

LoonyLovegood

I think I read somewhere that Whedon ended up cutting roughly an hour's footage from the film. I can think of an hour I would have cut out of it, but how and ever...

pmasterson95

Quicksilver was a waste. He could have just grabbed Clint and kid and be gone. Even some of the promo stuff from Johnson/Whedon acknowledged Pietro to be at least as fast as a bullet.

Seeing him then shot to death is a daft waste and nullifies his powers.

Nervous Wreck

*Spoilers*

Quicksilver being faster than bullets is fine. When he got shot he was either in the process of or just recovering from carrying 2 people as fast as he could out of the line of fire. I think it's fair to assume that the effort involved slowed him down, particularly seeing as how he was seen at several points of the movie taking a moment to catch his breath.

Zero-Cool

Ye might want to use spoiler tags in those posts as it doesn't say Spoilers in the thread title.

Sad Professor

Spoilers from this post onward. If you haven’t seen the film and/or don’t want to be spoiled, now is the time to bow out.

Loughc

With regards Tony and Cap ending the film on good terms, that's actually a good thing, that's the way they were in the comics before Civil War, they'd have some serious fights but make up easily enough and then obviously when Civil War kicks off they both go in massively separate directions.

pmasterson95

Sad Professor wrote: »

Spoilers from this post onward. If you haven’t seen the film and/or don’t want to be spoiled, now is the time to bow out.

Thank you!

Jon Stark

Yeah look film has been out 4 days, if you're worried about spoilers then maybe stay out of the thread.

pmasterson95

Jon Stark wrote: »

Yeah look film has been out 4 days, if you're worried about spoilers then maybe stay out of the thread.

I think Quicksilvers fate is very widely known at this stage aswell.

Sudden Valley

Any word on whether there is another avengers film planned? The ending kind of had it as an end of an era. Although I enjoyed the movie I'm always left underwhelmed when the final battles have the enemy all being cGI, as was the case in Avengers 1, Humans vs Humans or even humans dressed as Orcs, or even ewoks, just get been invested in the whole thing.

ceegee

Sudden Valley wrote: »

Any word on whether there is another avengers film planned? The ending kind of had it as an end of an era. Although I enjoyed the movie I'm always left underwhelmed when the final battles have the enemy all being cGI, as was the case in Avengers 1, Humans vs Humans or even humans dressed as Orcs, or even ewoks, just get been invested in the whole thing.

Yeah, next Avengers will be a two parter, due out in 2018 and 2019