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

Jon Stark

I can understand where Whedon was coming from saying he wanted more characters to beef up the new Avengers. As I said I was a fan of AoU but the ending with the new line up left me cold.

I agree with what was said earlier about War Machine especially. Cheadle is a poor fit at this stage.

DoYouEvenLift

Surprised this didn't beat avengers 1 at the box office opening weekend, was totally sure it would have.

Nervous Wreck

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Surprised this didn't beat avengers 1 at the box office opening weekend, was totally sure it would have.

They reckon the mayweather fight may have drawn people from theatres over the weekend.

Fysh

Foxtrol wrote: »

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.

I won't speak for others, but for me it felt kind of empty - that whole thing sequels have of doing "the same, only more of it" where what they should aim for is "something that gets the same reaction as the first one, without just retreading old ground". So we get the same mind control mcguffin as the first one (but it's ok, because Hawkeye lampshades it with a joke ), the same "OMG this huge airborne thing is going to crash into the ground and kill loads of people" thing, the same third act with a huge brawl against an army of individually kind-of-crap CGI enemies, and even some of the same jokes (ending a fight scene with a sucker punch from the left of the screen, only this time Hulk is the one who gets punched).

Also, as others have said, I never really got the feeling that Ultron was a genuine world-ending threat. He spends his whole time trying to get nuclear launch codes, but never seems to think of doing anything like disrupting municipal power grids, interfering with power stations, messing with traffic lights, downing communications networks or any of that stuff.

I couldn't put my finger on why, but a lot of the dialogue and jokes in particular felt kind of stilted to me - the scene where they take turns trying to lift Mjolnir was a perfect example of how things should flow, but a lot of other parts just didn't really feel right somehow. A lot of Vision's dialogue just felt utterly tin-eared to me.

Part of this is that I'm really not interested in buying into the whole "interconnected universe" thing and that's part of the appeal of what Marvel Studios are offering. So while I would say this film has its flaws, I don't think it's an absolute waste. It's just that I'm now definitely sure I'm not the target audience for what Marvel Studios are selling. Such is life. So long as I get something like The Raid now and again I'm happy

SarahBM

I am starting to feel like I am the only person who loved this movie. I love the way it ties in with all the other marvel universe stuff, I loved all the little cameos, the mention of Jane and Pepper etc. I really liked the part where Scarlet Witch was working her mojo on each team member and you got a little flashback/fear insight.
I also thought Ulton could have been a bit more evil evil, if you know what I mean, but I did enjoy his character and his perspective.
I guess like a previous post said, if like me you follow Agents of Shield, Agent Carter etc, then AOU pays off.
I loved the soundtrack too.

PS soooooo disappointed that I waited til the end of the credits for nothing.

Foxtrol

Fysh wrote: »

I won't speak for others, but for me it felt kind of empty - that whole thing sequels have of doing "the same, only more of it" where what they should aim for is "something that gets the same reaction as the first one, without just retreading old ground". So we get the same mind control mcguffin as the first one (but it's ok, because Hawkeye lampshades it with a joke ), the same "OMG this huge airborne thing is going to crash into the ground and kill loads of people" thing, the same third act with a huge brawl against an army of individually kind-of-crap CGI enemies, and even some of the same jokes (ending a fight scene with a sucker punch from the left of the screen, only this time Hulk is the one who gets punched).

If you're going into this movie expecting it to veer dramatically from the original I can see how you'd be disappointed. I think that's more down to your expectations rather than an issue with the movie.

I could take any two movies from the same genre and make similar vague comparisons.

Also, as others have said, I never really got the feeling that Ultron was a genuine world-ending threat. He spends his whole time trying to get nuclear launch codes, but never seems to think of doing anything like disrupting municipal power grids, interfering with power stations, messing with traffic lights, downing communications networks or any of that stuff.

Ultron was never going to be a world ending threat, we all know that most of the characters survive as there are movies over the next few years that they star. The best Ultron was going to do was off one or two of the lesser Avengers and he succeeded. On this I actually hope Marvel keep quiet about Phase 4 so that we don't know the fate of the bulk of the cast. Just having that will ramp up the suspense.

I couldn't put my finger on why, but a lot of the dialogue and jokes in particular felt kind of stilted to me - the scene where they take turns trying to lift Mjolnir was a perfect example of how things should flow, but a lot of other parts just didn't really feel right somehow. A lot of Vision's dialogue just felt utterly tin-eared to me.

Part of this is that I'm really not interested in buying into the whole "interconnected universe" thing and that's part of the appeal of what Marvel Studios are offering. So while I would say this film has its flaws, I don't think it's an absolute waste. It's just that I'm now definitely sure I'm not the target audience for what Marvel Studios are selling. Such is life. So long as I get something like The Raid now and again I'm happy

I think your last paragraph in the nub of the problem for a number of critics of the movie. You're simply not going to an Avenger movie that isn't interconnected, you're not going to get an Avenger movie that focuses heavily on character development of one or two characters (though I don't accept there wasn't character growth), or that doesn't have a CGI heavy third act. It's like going into a Rom-Com and being annoyed that there weren't enough explosions.

Fysh

Foxtrol wrote: »

If you're going into this movie expecting it to veer dramatically from the original I can see how you'd be disappointed. I think that's more down to your expectations rather than an issue with the movie.

I could take any two movies from the same genre and make similar vague comparisons.

Well, for me the go-to comparison is The Raid, because the action fil of 2012 for me was the Raid hands down by a country mile. The Avengers wasn't even second, that was Dredd

And while The Raid 2 was last year, it serves as a good contrast to The Avengers - it's a very different film, is a good bit longer and has a much wider cast. But the core appeal (brutal, visceral action) remains, and has been expanded upon from the first film.

I didn't feel that any of the action sequences in Age of Ultron moved beyond what the first film had, and when the MCU films already feel kind of templatey (particularly with regard to "and the third act will be a mostly CGI brawl against generic-looking bad guys") that's not a good thing. And especially not with the reuse of concepts and jokes from the first film I mentioned.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Ultron was never going to be a world ending threat, we all know that most of the characters survive as there are movies over the next few years that they star. The best Ultron was going to do was off one or two of the lesser Avengers and he succeeded. On this I actually hope Marvel keep quiet about Phase 4 so that we don't know the fate of the bulk of the cast. Just having that will ramp up the suspense.

That doesn't work for me - I wasn't sitting in the cinema thinking "Well they have RDJ etc on contract so they can't kill him off", I was sitting there thinking "for how much they keep saying Ultron is really dangerous he's not really done much, has he? I mean basically, he attacked Avengers Tower, then goes and nicks some vibranium. That barely even merits being on their radar..."

I do agree that them constantly rolling out the future plans is a bit of an issue. As with the comics, there's a feeling that you'll never quite get oayoff to a given story so much as a never-ending stream of new things to get excited and hyped about (and never mind that the end result didn't live up to the anticipation).

Foxtrol wrote: »

I think your last paragraph in the nub of the problem for a number of critics of the movie. You're simply not going to an Avenger movie that isn't interconnected, you're not going to get an Avenger movie that focuses heavily on character development of one or two characters (though I don't accept there wasn't character growth), or that doesn't have a CGI heavy third act. It's like going into a Rom-Com and being annoyed that there weren't enough explosions.

I don't think those are fair analogies All I wanted, really, was an action film that drew me in and entertained me. I wasn't looking for Locke-esque character analysis or an entirely standalone thing. I just wanted something decent where the flaws of the previous film would be addressed and I'd get good action (including a third act that felt meaningful instead of just "here's the mandatory 25 mins of basically the same CGI sequence, may as well go for a nap until it's done" as a third act) and funny quips. I didn't get that. And at least part od the reason I felt bored by the film was that other action films like The Raid have raised the bar, at least for me.

I'm not sure any of that can be considered an unreasonable expectation. It's certainly not a mistake I'll be making again, at any rate.

dr.fuzzenstein

Fysh wrote: »

Well, for me the go-to comparison is The Raid, because the action fil of 2012 for me was the Raid hands down by a country mile. The Avengers wasn't even second, that was Dredd

The Raid is a very, very different movie from the Avengers!

Osmosis Jones

Scarlett Witch's introduction when she was getting into the minds of the Avengers was great, I just wish they played on her horror-esque qualities a bit more. The scene at the start when she does that quick backwards walk through the doors genuinely freaked me out a little, just wish we'd seen more of that stuff.

Bacchus

Mitch Connor wrote: »

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?

I don't think the message would be affected (of the old heroes moving on from the Avengers). Thor is doing his own thing in Asgard for his next solo movie and then he'll return for Infinity War which makes sense. Iron Man is at the end of his journey with the Avengers which sets him up for Civil War. Hawkeye, the mere mortal that fought robots on a floating city, has gone home. So for them, they have moved on. Black Widow wanted to move on but ended up left behind by Banner so has nothing else but "the fight". Captain America is in a similar boat, his only place in the world is as an Avenger.

What happens next with Hulk is a big question but his story was told well in AoU. My guess is that he comes back at the darkest hour in Infinity War.

The only one whos "message" could be screwed up by future movies is Hawkeye. They made a big deal of him fighting a fight bigger than he was cut out for and wanting to go home to his family. So, including him in the action in Civil War or Infinity War would undo that.

I presume at the end of Civil War we will have a little rejig of the Avengers lineup again (without it being an Avengers movie). I reckon it will be the current set of Avengers minus

Captain America

(spoilered just in case, but it's speculation) plus Spiderman & Ant Man. They may not even do a scene like at the end of AoU announcing that lineup but it will be implied.

Infinity War will probably start out with this set of Avengers and we'll set the old heroes return for one last hurrah.

Mark Hamill

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?

Scarlet Witch pulled out his heart/power-core with her mind (in the train cart, after Hulk throws him our out of the jet)

Mickeroo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Scarlet Witch pulled out his heart/power-core with her mind (in the train cart, after Hulk throws him our out of the jet)

He survived after that in one of the minion robots, it was vision that dealt the final blow in the woods over looking the town after their little philosophical chat.

Thargor

Well that's me done with Marvel films now I think, Ill probably see any new Xmen but apart from that they're just a waste of time, saw this today and it was the most pointless film Ive ever gone to the cinema to see. Boring sh1t CGI fight after CGI fight, punching punching punching for hours with no meaningful effect, its pure tedium.

Saw it this afternoon and left the cinema with an overpowering sense of meh. I disliked the first film and found it a rather dull and uncinematic film and as such had no expectations for part two. Age of Ultron is no doubt a superior film but it was hard to care about anything that was happening and Ultron felt like the weakest villain to date though Spader was an inspired choice to voice him. For such a powerful villain he lacked any sense of menace or in fact power and his minions were dispatched far too easy. There's going to be a point where Marvel realise that they cannot recycle the same ending film after film, at this stage the whole large I objects above the earth threatening it has been done to death and I never get the sense during the ending that there was any immanent danger.

The best aspect of the film was Scarlet Witch though that's down to the Olson's performance. Her reaction to a certain death was the film's strongest moment and is the kind of moment that the film should have been built around. I'm sure that I could go into detail about the film but I honestly didn't care enough about any of it to bother. It was another dull and familiar Marvel tale which had the look and feel of filmmaking by committee. There wasn't a single moment, bar the one mentioned, that stood out. The Avengers job is to keep Earth safe which is an apt description to how Marvel has handled their trademarks. If you've never seen a blockbuster before then you might be impressed by The Avengers: Age of Ultron but for everyone else above the age of 13 it's just another bland 140 minutes where none of our heroes are ever in real danger as the filmmaker desperately tries to set up a half dozen sequels.

Also, meant to ask but was I the only one who thought that the opening attack on the castle was a cinematic for the game adaptation?The CGI was woeful and felt like it would be more at home during that end fight scene in Blade 2 than in a film released in 2015

Cantona's Collars

We must have all been at the cinema today,it was ok but no great advance on any of the other Marvel movies centred on Thor,Cap etc.It was just missing that 'something'.Ultron's minions were merely screen filling cannon fodder.

Found this pic though from the post credits clip.

Turtyturd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Also, meant to ask but was I the only one who thought that the opening attack on the castle was a cinematic for the game adaptation?The CGI was woeful and felt like it would be more at home during that end fight scene in Blade 2 than in a film released in 2015

I didn't really notice the bad cgibut reading through here there has been a few mentions of it. One thing the grates on me though is Captain America on the motorbike it's just so jerky and unsmooth looking.

Turtyturd

Turtyturd wrote: »

I didn't really notice the bad cgibut reading through here there has been a few mentions of it. One thing the grates on me though is Captain America on the motorbike it's just so jerky and unsmooth looking.

The slow motion scene of the team flying through the air was cringe worthy and felt like something you'd find in a chessy direct to VHS action film from the early 90s. The CGI in the opening scene was pretty poor and really stood out as over all the FX work was rather great and a step up from the first film. I think that what Marvel needs to do is start allowing more interesting film makers to take the reins as what they're doing at the minute is simply hiring people that can't stand up to them. Whedon is a damn good film maker but it's obvious that he was repeatedly beaten down and forced to compromise and as such the whole film is soulless.

You know what I just realised by looking at that photo? That this article, which was published around the time that Avengers 1 came out, was totally right.

Mind. Blown.

https://maskofreason.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/very-good-writing-why-loki-won-in-the-avengers/

Mickeroo

Deleted User wrote: »

The slow motion scene of the team flying through the air was cringe worthy and felt like something you'd find in a chessy direct to VHS action film from the early 90s. The CGI in the opening scene was pretty poor and really stood out as over all the FX work was rather great and a step up from the first film. I think that what Marvel needs to do is start allowing more interesting film makers to take the reins as what they're doing at the minute is simply hiring people that can't stand up to them. Whedon is a damn good film maker but it's obvious that he was repeatedly beaten down and forced to compromise and as such the whole film is soulless.

That was actually the bit I liked in that sequence

I don't think it's as simple as getting someone who will stand up to them, by Whedon's own account he did stand up to them but had to compromise with them to keep stuff he wanted. If someone took a hard line with them they would simply get someone else to make the film who will be more willing to compromise like what happened with Edgar Wright.

Tefral

Deleted User wrote: »

You know what I just realised by looking at that photo? That this article, which was published around the time that Avengers 1 came out, was totally right.

Mind. Blown.

https://maskofreason.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/very-good-writing-why-loki-won-in-the-avengers/

Ties into something I asked earlier in the thread! Makes sense really?

cronin_j wrote: »

I agree. One of the things that struck me also is how did Thanos get his hands on the Gaunlet when it's clearly in Odins vault in the first Thor?

One thing that doesnt add up for me then is that SIF was sent to earth by Odin in Agents of Shield to arrest the Kree and the Inhumans! If it was really Loki, why would he bother? Or has Odin actually taken back the throne, something we might see in Thor 3?

Also, doesnt Odin give up his eye for the power to see the future to stop Ragnarok? When Odin was killed in the Comics the Odinforce passed to Thor, surely if he was killed this would happen?! My bet is he has somehow locked him away...

Thargor

Thanos has a different gauntlet, the one in Asgard is right handed, his is left handed, or vice versa.

Mr Freeze

Thargor wrote: »

Thanos has a different gauntlet, the one in Asgard is right handed, his is left handed, or vice versa.

Ya, I thought he had just take the one from Odins vault. I thought Loki just let him in or something.

So does he need both?

At the end of AoU, that gauntlet looks like it has a full set of gems/stones.

Does the one in Asgard have no stones in it? I assume it has none and what's turning up in all the marvel films.

Tefral

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Ya, I thought he had just take the one from Odins vault. I thought Loki just let him in or something.


At the end of AoU, that gauntlet looks like it has a full set of gems/stones.

The one at the end of AOU was definitely empty..

Mr Freeze

cronin_j wrote: »

The one at the end of AOU was definitely empty..

Really?

In the pic above that Zerks posted...is that not the different stones all glowing with the gauntlet?

Thargor

Was it? What about the pic above of the end credits scene?



Is that not them?

Mr Freeze

Thargor wrote: »

Was it? What about the pic above of the end credits scene?

Is that not them?

Thats the one...

Loughc

Thargor wrote: »

Was it? What about the pic above of the end credits scene?

Is that not them?

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Really?

In the pic above that Zerks posted...is that not the different stones all glowing with the gauntlet?

That pic was photoshopped, the glove in the movie itself was actually empty. He said himself, "He'll have to do it himself" in reference to collecting the gems himself as his minions haven't been able to retrieve one for him yet dispite numerous attempts.

Penn

zerks wrote: »

We must have all been at the cinema today,it was ok but no great advance on any of the other Marvel movies centred on Thor,Cap etc.It was just missing that 'something'.Ultron's minions were merely screen filling cannon fodder.

Found this pic though from the post credits clip.

Just to avoid confusion, that image isn't from the post credits scene. The gauntlet in the post credits scene of AOU was empty. That image is from the teaser when they were announcing the Phase 3 films, including Avengers: Infinity War.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv2NRpG76Pg

Mr Freeze

Loughc wrote: »

That pic was photoshopped, the glove in the movie itself was actually empty.

Ah, I thought that was the actual image from the end of AoU, not a photoshopped one.