Avengers: Age of Ultron (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
RougeAvenger81
Well-Known Member
When I saw the first trailer for this film and how menacing Ultron appeared and just the over all tone of the trailers, I was for sure the MCU was making a turn towards a more serious side of the films. (Knowing Civil War was coming as well). As I watched the film, although I enjoyed it and I'm trying not to pick apart films anymore as a fanboy, I couldn't help but sit there and think, wow The Winter Soldier was way better then this. And I didn't even expect the second Captain to be that good. Maybe it was my expectations getting the better of me, thinking Avengers was awesome, Cap 2 was even better that they were on an up swing that I got my expectations too high for the film. I don't know. Still can't place it.
Father
Sr Member
Joss has done some great things for the MCU. I would like to see a collaboration between him and the Russo brothers. I loved The Winter Soldier, but it too had its minor flaws.
Joss has been at this type of genre a lot longer and still has a lot to offer.
I agree that
(1) Ultron seemed a lot more menacing in the previews. If he didn't have the twins helping him in the beginning the movie would have been over in half the time.
(2) Spader's voice didn't bring all that much to the character.
The movie seemed to be more about all the inner conflict between the team rather than the overall threat to humanity that Ultron posed. It wasn't until they realized his "drop the big chunk of rock on the ground and cause an extinction event" that things got real.
The B-team ending wasn't horrible... my biggest heartache is always with War Machine. As cool as the armor is, the Iron Man sequels have put a very bad taste in my mouth for the Rhodey character. Mainly because of Cheadle, but also because he has no depth. He's borderline comic relief that stands in the shadow of Stark's greatness. The only reason he is War Machine is because he stole the armor. He didn't build it. He's a tool of the government. I assume by IM3 Tony built Rhodey another suit, so maybe that "stole it" statement doesn't hold much water.
I do not think Ultron is gone. But besides that, I loved his presence and portrayal. I've always had a fondness for the utterly psychopathic villain who thinks he's doing right, is charismatic, and just plows forward with a cheerful malevolence. Spader is brilliant at that, and I have hopes that Ultron will return, having learned from his first outing, and being more cold and relentless -- and harder to defeat -- than this time. Good villains have arcs, too. I particularly hope Jocasta comes into play as the "bride of Ultron" she was in the comics...
Enh. Rhodey kinda fell into the armor in the comics, too. He was Tony's friend, was authorized to wear the armor after a certain point, filled in as Iron Man to help maintain the secret identity or when Tony was incapacitated, etc. As in the movies, he and Tony had fallings-out and reconciliations, and it was during one of those icy periods that Rhodey took a set of Iron Man armor and turned it into War Machine. This happened, ironically, while the West Coast Avengers were around -- the in-universe "B-team" that got no respect and had to constantly fight to get taken seriously. I loved the final scene of the film for that very reason. "Hey!" I said to myself in the theater, "It's the West Coast Avengers!" More or less. In the comics, it was Hawkeye who formed the team, not Cap, but still...
And speaking of... I think Hawkeye is the single most under-appreciated MCU character. From what we've gotten so far from all these films:
• Coulson, Hill, and Barton are the S.H.I.E.L.D. agents with whom Fury has had th elongest working relationships and the closest ties (Hill moreso after the first Avengers film).
• Of those, Barton was the black-ops agent sent to eliminate the Black Widow, and not only did he decide to recruit her instead, he was able to countermand his mission objective and overrule Fury.
• Barton was the black-ops agent-on-scene where S.H.I.E.L.D. was studying Thor's hammer.
• Barton was the black-ops agent-on-scene where S.H.I.E.L.D. was studying the Tesseract -- and pointed out to Fury somethign no one else had realized, that it might be being activated from the other side.
• He was the one member of the team who got the drop on Wanda and was not taken out by her.
• He was the only one involved in the events of AOU who knew how -- and when -- to contact Fury.
I am honestly a lot more impressed by the MCU Hawkeye than the comics Hawkeye.
--Jonah
The B-team ending wasn't horrible... my biggest heartache is always with War Machine. As cool as the armor is, the Iron Man sequels have put a very bad taste in my mouth for the Rhodey character. Mainly because of Cheadle, but also because he has no depth. He's borderline comic relief that stands in the shadow of Stark's greatness. The only reason he is War Machine is because he stole the armor. He didn't build it. He's a tool of the government. I assume by IM3 Tony built Rhodey another suit, so maybe that "stole it" statement doesn't hold much water.
Enh. Rhodey kinda fell into the armor in the comics, too. He was Tony's friend, was authorized to wear the armor after a certain point, filled in as Iron Man to help maintain the secret identity or when Tony was incapacitated, etc. As in the movies, he and Tony had fallings-out and reconciliations, and it was during one of those icy periods that Rhodey took a set of Iron Man armor and turned it into War Machine. This happened, ironically, while the West Coast Avengers were around -- the in-universe "B-team" that got no respect and had to constantly fight to get taken seriously. I loved the final scene of the film for that very reason. "Hey!" I said to myself in the theater, "It's the West Coast Avengers!" More or less. In the comics, it was Hawkeye who formed the team, not Cap, but still...
And speaking of... I think Hawkeye is the single most under-appreciated MCU character. From what we've gotten so far from all these films:
• Coulson, Hill, and Barton are the S.H.I.E.L.D. agents with whom Fury has had th elongest working relationships and the closest ties (Hill moreso after the first Avengers film).
• Of those, Barton was the black-ops agent sent to eliminate the Black Widow, and not only did he decide to recruit her instead, he was able to countermand his mission objective and overrule Fury.
• Barton was the black-ops agent-on-scene where S.H.I.E.L.D. was studying Thor's hammer.
• Barton was the black-ops agent-on-scene where S.H.I.E.L.D. was studying the Tesseract -- and pointed out to Fury somethign no one else had realized, that it might be being activated from the other side.
• He was the one member of the team who got the drop on Wanda and was not taken out by her.
• He was the only one involved in the events of AOU who knew how -- and when -- to contact Fury.
I am honestly a lot more impressed by the MCU Hawkeye than the comics Hawkeye.
--Jonah
CB2001
Master Member
I'm sorry, but by the way they have it, let me use another example from another film series. Leia and Han from Star Wars. Think of it like this: would it have made any sense if Hans and Leia relationship went from what it was in A New Hope, where they barely have anything in common and practically hate each other to having the type of relationship they have in Return of the Jedi was used in The Empire Strikes Back instead? No, it wouldn't. That intermedium where Han and Leia seem to have something forming fits (and its been a while between ANH and ESB, and that strained relationship was still there at the start of the film). By the way it comes off for the relationship between Banner and Natasha, it's like Whedon just threw it in there and no one would notice. Of course, this is just how I'm seeing it. The lack of the relationship development just jumped out at me and felt forced.
Not to mention, did we forget that Banner can't have kids because he can't have sex, which is because any type of excitement would result in a Hulk out? And that is something he doesn't bother to mention to Black Widow, or a being an issue with her? Kinda odd.
Banner
Well-Known Member
He goes mention it, just not in that many words. Something to the effect of "Kids? I can't...I physically cant.". This gets followed up by Widow revealing she's been sterilized as a part of her training.
ooSuperman23
Well-Known Member
Hey everyone, I haven't seen Age of Ultron yet, so I haven't read any of the posts in this thread, but I'm planning to go see it tomorrow with my brother. However before I do, I have a question that I'm hoping someone can answer via PM...
Should I finish watching Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 2 before going to see Age of Ultron? What I mean is are there any ties between the two (even small ones)?
I'd appreciate a simple answer without any spoilers (I haven't even watched the Age of Ultron trailers), so basically just a "I'd recommend watching AoS before going to see AoU" or "It doesn't matter, nothing that happens in AoU ties into anything that happens in season 2 of AoS".
I just wanna make sure there aren't any spoilers about season 2 of AoS in AoU, if anyone can confirm/deny that then please PM me
Should I finish watching Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 2 before going to see Age of Ultron? What I mean is are there any ties between the two (even small ones)?
I'd appreciate a simple answer without any spoilers (I haven't even watched the Age of Ultron trailers), so basically just a "I'd recommend watching AoS before going to see AoU" or "It doesn't matter, nothing that happens in AoU ties into anything that happens in season 2 of AoS".
I just wanna make sure there aren't any spoilers about season 2 of AoS in AoU, if anyone can confirm/deny that then please PM me
firesprite
Master Member
Hey everyone, I haven't seen Age of Ultron yet, so I haven't read any of the posts in this thread, but I'm planning to go see it tomorrow with my brother. However before I do, I have a question that I'm hoping someone can answer via PM...
Should I finish watching Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 2 before going to see Age of Ultron? What I mean is are there any ties between the two (even small ones)?
I'd appreciate a simple answer without any spoilers (I haven't even watched the Age of Ultron trailers), so basically just a "I'd recommend watching AoS before going to see AoU" or "It doesn't matter, nothing that happens in AoU ties into anything that happens in season 2 of AoS".
I just wanna make sure there aren't any spoilers about season 2 of AoS in AoU, if anyone can confirm/deny that then please PM me
There is a tie in but you don't have to see AoS first.
The show links to the movie, not vice-versa
ooSuperman23
Well-Known Member
Thanks
I'll be back to read the thread once I've seen the movie, I can't wait!opcorn
I'll be back to read the thread once I've seen the movie, I can't wait!
opcornCrimsonnaire
Sr Member
First, I have to totally agree that The Winter Soldier was top notch awesomeness. Age of Ultron included, the top Marvel films on my recent Marvel movie hierarchy is Days of Future Past and The Winter Soldier, but only in terms of how much I enjoyed them for what they're worth. I appreciated Age of Ultron for its story arc, but the previews really misrepresented Ultron's threat level to the Avengers. Having said that, I will also say that it would be unfair to make a direct comparison to The Winter Soldier or any other sequel because the plot progression of the storyline necessitates the level of pacing and motivational coverage that Age of Ultron more or less hit on target, although I did feel that Quicksilver's motivation against Stark was stirred up too heavily and then superficially watered down when it was convenient. But it's certainly not bad! In fact, I will even say that I enjoyed the action better than the first one.
Thor's hammer was a topic of curiosity going way back, but since this movie brought it up, I might as well reflect on it here. I understand that the official understanding that anyone "worthy enough" can lift Mjolnir and that this is supposed to include Thor. However, the very first Thor proved this not to be the case. Thor used it for many centuries by Earth's timeline, but in all that time, Thor himself was actually not worthy enough to wield Mjolnir but that it was appointed to him by Odin, a fact revealed when Odin revoked his ownership of the hammer in the first film, whereafter Thor not being able to lift it during his time on Earth prior to his character change at the end. The spell Odin cast on it was "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the powers of Thor," not "Whosoever holds this hammer besides Thor, if he be worthy..." Thus, the spell was measuring everyone by the same standard. At the end of the film, Thor does repossess Mjolnir, but because we see Odin making a subtle gesture linking Thor's reinstatement, it could be suspected that Odin once again charged Mjolnir in the care of Thor again regardless of whether he was actually worthy by the hammer's standard. However, it can be reasonably assumed Thor's character change does legitimize his ownership of the hammer from there on. The bottom line here in the context of the hammer lifting context in Age of Ultron is that the amount of merit in Capt America that allowed him to slightly move Mjolnir is more than Thor's initial integrity. Even so, I have reasoned that Capt America wasn't able to lift it because, although he is all about honor and serving his country, his concern for the common good is measured by his commitment to following orders, which is corruptible. Note that, in the comics, this is not the case and Capt America has used Mjolnir. Either way works for the Rogers' character, though the movie version is more realistic.
By the way, in the comics, can Magneto lift Mjolnir with his magnetism?
Mektar
Sr Member
He has only through manipulating the enviroment surrounding mjolnir(ultimates). This was in one series altho he also tried in the regular marvel universe and failed to do so.
Father
Sr Member
I would argue that based on the events of CA:TWS. I'd say his eagerness to follow orders and stay the course of the American way as seen through S.H.I.E.L.D.'s lens were brought into question and his ideals and motivations are now grounded in his traditional American values rather than those of the government he served.
But... I guess at the end of the day he's still Captain America rather than Nomad, so in some way or another he's working for the Man.
But him being able to pick up the hammer would have watered down the moment with The Vision.
Considering how arrogant Thor is I'd question whether he's any more worthy than Cap.
Earth’s Mightiest Monsters: The Character Arcs Of AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON | Birth.Movies.Death.
Great write up on the character arcs. I've yet to watch it a second time, but after reading this it's likely going to make that second viewing a better experience.
Great write up on the character arcs. I've yet to watch it a second time, but after reading this it's likely going to make that second viewing a better experience.
third3ye
Sr Member
Incredibly well thought article, thanks for sharing!
CB2001
Master Member
Just came across this article. Not sure if its agreeable or not, but I figured I'd post this, and let everyone make their own judgement about it.
https://www.wired.com/2015/05/marvel-killing-the-popcorn-movie/
https://www.wired.com/2015/05/marvel-killing-the-popcorn-movie/
Apparently Jaws and Star Wars also ruined cinema by ushering in blockbuster cinema in the 70s. And now every summer somebody whines about how superhero movies and apparently now Marvel are doing the same to popcorm cinema. If I look deep enough I am pretty sure The Avengers ruined blockbuster cinema back in 2012 too.
CB2001
Master Member
Like I said, I wasn't sure if it was agreeable or not. Frankly, I didn't see those problems the writer pointed out. But I can understand a concern of over saturating the market with Marvel movies to the point where they could potentially get too big for themselves. But I don't see that much of being an issue (for now).
There are 2 Marvel movies in a year and only about 3 to 5 superhero movies in total through a whole year. There are over a dozen or so horror movies released every year, but nobody complains about too many horror movies or too many action movies.
The issue is superhero movies (especially Marvel) are getting the biggest marketing push and people are watching it droves. People who want to avoid Marvel movies can choose not to watch it, but they can't escape those movies being highlighted in the news and media, no matter what they do these movies are going to get the spotlight. By the time the second Star Wars spin off movie gets released we will be hearing how Star Wars is ruining the market for cinema (again).
Superhero isn't exactly a genre per se, but it's definitely subset of movie genre now and Marvel themselves are trying to blend different genres in their movies. There will be people who will always frown upon certain genre of cinema that isn't to their liking and they like to proclaim that the particular genre is ruining cinema, especially when it's being embraced by people at large. Critics/movie writers who aren't really into superheroes are forced to put with these movies if they want to stay relevant to their audience and to their field of work. So in the process they continue to take a dump on those movies.
People need to realize that there are over 100 movies released in US alone (including many great non-franchise movies), not counting the dozens of low budget indies. With Marvel or without Marvel, cinema will continue to thrive with different genres of movies. So instead of complaining about couple of comic book movies ruining or KILLING cinema, these whiners need to actually watch more movies.
The issue is superhero movies (especially Marvel) are getting the biggest marketing push and people are watching it droves. People who want to avoid Marvel movies can choose not to watch it, but they can't escape those movies being highlighted in the news and media, no matter what they do these movies are going to get the spotlight. By the time the second Star Wars spin off movie gets released we will be hearing how Star Wars is ruining the market for cinema (again).
Superhero isn't exactly a genre per se, but it's definitely subset of movie genre now and Marvel themselves are trying to blend different genres in their movies. There will be people who will always frown upon certain genre of cinema that isn't to their liking and they like to proclaim that the particular genre is ruining cinema, especially when it's being embraced by people at large. Critics/movie writers who aren't really into superheroes are forced to put with these movies if they want to stay relevant to their audience and to their field of work. So in the process they continue to take a dump on those movies.
People need to realize that there are over 100 movies released in US alone (including many great non-franchise movies), not counting the dozens of low budget indies. With Marvel or without Marvel, cinema will continue to thrive with different genres of movies. So instead of complaining about couple of comic book movies ruining or KILLING cinema, these whiners need to actually watch more movies.
joshvanrad
Sr Member
I, personally, think we are going to see superhero fatigue in the near future. While 3-5 superhero movies per year may seem like a small number, like you mentioned, the amount of marketing is huge. Marketing and movies combined, you have a yearlong crusade by the studios to completely flood every television, computer screen, news paper, and every other type of media with their next movie. It is getting to be a little too much for me. I saw AoU opening night, but I seriously think I can feel the charm wearing off.
Similar threads
