f13.net

New trailer here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZoO8QVMxkk)

Man, Marvel has a way of getting me hyped for their movies.  This looks good.  Also Wakanda chick getting naked.

I think we're just posting it all in the Marvel thread. that's where the original Avengers 2 trailer was at any rate.

Meh, it is about time this got it's own thread.  The Marvel thread is usually just for upcoming stuff and rumors.

Yes.


I kind of hate the big Marvel thread because who the fuck knows what's in there.  Not quite enough to go and butcher it up and make everyone wad their panties over moderator fascism, but I'm glad drider made a proper thread for this movie because I'd have missed this trailer otherwise.

It seems like the Marvel thread was introduced to talk about the things that span movies and individual threads get made for each movie when the talk is specific to that movie.  It doesn't need to be an exact science...

I think people are taking my statement a little more severely than it was intended.

I don't really care either way, I'll read both.

Usually a thread for specific movie has gotten made when its first real trailer came out. I think Avengers in general and Ultron in particular is so tied up in meta issues (since it integrates what is otherwise really separate franchises) that we were a little slow.

--Dave

Lazy would be more accurate :awesome_for_real:

I prefer to think of it as "mature wisdom".

--Dave

Mature.  Wisdom.  F13.

Which of these 3 does not belong with the other 2?

I keep reading this as Age of Unicorn.

No, Age of Unicron, the Sequel to the Animated Transformers movie.

o/~ You've got the touch.... o/~

I do like the nice wee reveal that Wanda isn't just shoving her powers to the side, but is actively slamming Iron Man into a wall.

That makes me smile.

Also, she's really hot in this and is going to distract me horrendously from the movie.  Yay.

Remember: the "GotG" had Gamorra topless from the back; that scene never appeared in the movie.

Pity Stark does not die. 

Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Pezzle. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.  Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

Or something.

Also, they're never going to kill Stark, so don't be retarded.  Though if it really bothers you, you can read that awful shite that is AoU comic and see Pym get his apple slashed.

Stark won't die, we know that. But to give in to a moment of jgsugden-esque speculation, I have a feeling that the trailers strongly indicate who is going to die.

That is not jgsugden-esque speculation because he's pretty sure he believes differently than you. :-P

Any speculation in a Marvel thread is jgsugden-esque speculation.

It needs a word.

jsugdulation?

Speculation falls into three groups for me: 1.) You take known information and add a minor wrinkle, 2.) You take known information and start to add a lot to it that has nothing to back it up, and 3.) You just make up stuff you wish would happen.

I try to stay between 1 and 2.  A lot of people go for 3.  Jgsuggestions (TM) are shit that expand upon spoilers and connect the dots - not always right (Coulson is not an LMD, Spidey will not make it back in the MCU by Civil War, etc...), but right most of the time. 

I know they are not going to kill Stark.  A MAN CAN DREAM!

Well done sir!

Looks like part of the movie might take place in China, more pandering (heh) to the Chinese market I bet.

I think they might kill Cap (for a short while) by the end of his next movie, though.

They could, but I don't think that kind of thing plays as well as it does in comics (and it's still a shit plot device there usually as well).  Even if they held off on bringing Cap back until the second part of Infinity War that still doesn't really leave a lot of room to really do anything with his death or his potential replacements.

They'll kill the character of any actor who threatens to reneogiate their contract for more money. Downey Jr would probably be the only one to get away with it.

Marvel Studios is at the point where they can replace key Avengers with "spares" wearing the same costume.

The characters are going to go through the journey.  They won't kill a character just because an actor is difficult.  They'll kill characters for story reasons, but not because the actor is a pain.  If they have a plan for a character and the actor is no longer available, they'll recast.  Remember: They have a plan for the movies that goes half a decade beyond Infinity Wars.  The plan is obviously flexible, but you can only flex so much within a plan - ifyou throw it aside willy nilly, it wouldn't be a plan.

Wasn't that all part of the latest "Marvel and Sony have really made a deal this time" rumor from Latino-Review that Marvel shot down already?

I THINK they can get away with recasting - but only if 1) the recast is actually decent in the role and 2) the stories stay at decent levels. I mean, if Marvel starts putting out substandard scripts with second rate talent, their brand is going to die about as fast as the Fantastic Four and Spider-Man movies have. The hardest recast they'll probably have to do is Downey, Jr. because he's just become such a star (or regained his stardom and then such) thanks in large part to the success of the Marvel movies.

Most of these guys are still locked up for another 4 years at least, so it's not really a huge deal right now.  There are going to be so many new characters floating around by then that I don't think that these characters will be missed as much.  RDJ is probably going to drop down to cameo roles but still be around.  He's stated that it is going to be more about his age than it is the role itself.  Chris Evans has even backtracked a little bit about his quitting acting totally after his current deal is up.  ScarJo seems more than willing to do anything Marvel asks her too.  I think Renner may be the first one that totally bails, mainly cuz he's been shafted on movies and screen time.  I think Ruffalo will be around at least til he gets his own movie.

I've only heard a single nameless 'rep' at Sony "shoot it down" by calling it an old "rumour" in an isolated comment.  The 'old' version of this topic wasn't just a rumour, it isn't the same story as this one, and Sony has repeatedly lied about their discussions with Marvel as proven by the emails.  As noted in most of the articles covering the statement, there are more reasons to think it was obligatory meaningless denials than to think it was a meaningful truthbomb.

As mentioned in the other thread... the Sony/Marvel stuff was in relationship to a conversation/negotiation that fell apart. There was a summit set sometime in January to discuss things again.

Also Latino Review is pretty bad.

I think they predict stuff the way that Jeane Dixon used to make psychic predictions--say a ton of stuff, sprinkle in a few obvious things like "A member of the Kennedy family will be involved in a scandal or tragedy", and then point only to what you got right as evidence of your psychic powers.

Whatever happens, it will be interesting. The meta-narrative of which actors stay, who is next, and where Marvel is going holds as much interest as any ongoing comic series drama.

Downey will be missed. He gets better with each new outing as Stark. I genuinely wonder who is going to follow him up, I can already foresee the gnashing and fan rage (Batfleck, anyone?)

Iron Man IV coming 2020... based upon the semenal (yeah, I know) story where his armor fell in love with him, Tony Stark (Keanu Reeves)...

Counterpoint :  No, he doesn't really.  It will be much more interesting to see another actor have a go.

It really is. This is where the rumors jgsugden mentioned came from. (http://www.latino-review.com/news/marvelous-da7e-78-the-fates-of-cap-thor-and-spidey) I checked some of this guy's earlier columns to see if there was any reason to believe that he'd have access to the endings of Avengers 2, Thor 3, and Cap 3, the basic plot of GotG 2, plot details about both parts of Infinity War, and knowledge of a deal being struck between Marvel and Sony. The answer of course is no. Most of his stuff seems to be fanboy speculation (with no pretense of it being anything else) with clearly no sort of insider knowledge. I find it a bit hard to believe that he recently found a source that has access to this much insider information unless he's got Kevin Feige locked up Misery-style somewhere.

We agreed on Jgsugdenesque.

Time will tell. 

The entire post is all speculation. It's spoiler dowsing at it's finest.

Vague enough impressions and wording that makes it easy to back away from.

We don't have to look any further than the very first post of the Marvel Universe thread to see a shining example of the accuracy of Latino-Review's Marvel rumors.

2015's bloodworthing

I'll just mention in passing that Banner has gone through 3 actors at this point and no-one gives a crap.

That's not true.  The first two were shit.

(But yes, you have a point and one I've mentioned already multiple times in this thread.  No-one gives the remotest crap that The Human Torch and Captain America are the same fucking person either.)

In Lego Marvel Super Heroes, you get a "Don't I Know You?" achievement if you have both of them out at the same time.

 :why_so_serious:

 :heart:

I watched FF again the other day and he plays it so differently, I honestly think you could GGI them in the same room and get away with it. 

That said, I always found Marvel guys to look like each other anyway, simply due to the original art style.

While I agree with all of that in general, I don't see much of a percentage in it for Disney to recast any of the leads in the near future, when they could instead just not put them in a film for a few years then make a big stink about the return of iron man when the MCU eventually needs a jumpstart. The one thing they are not short on is characters.

Yeah, which is also actually kind of loyal to the comics. Characters left the Avengers and then came back pretty regularly, and even early on they had characters quit for a while, be replaced, be disappeared, etc. All staple devices in serial fictions of any kind, including soap operas. It's not like Bond, where he has to be the center of any movie featuring him, or the Doctor (though it would be kind of amusing to have 3-6 episodes of Doctor Who where the Doctor is absent or missing in some fashion). These are stories where they can sub people in and out constantly.

The real choice they're going to face is whether to tell stories in some kind of real time. E.g., to allow Iron Man et al to age if they remain "alive", and to eventually introduce younger people carrying forth the title and costume who are meant not to be the original character. I'm kind of hoping so--that if Marvel just keeps going and going, that the MCU is a universe where time actually passes and the status quo actually changes in persistent, accumulative ways. I would hate a kind of constant soft rebooting where they cast a new guy *as* Tony Stark and then quietly vanish or ignore stuff that's happened to him in the films already made.

This is going to be one of their problems if they introduce Spider-Man, by the way: if it's the Garfield Spider-Man, it's pretty hard to believe that he did all that shit in NYC and nobody else in the MCU noticed or commented on it. MCU Spider-Man will almost certainly have to be a "new" super-hero who appears after the Chitauri attack on NYC, even if it's played by Garfield. The one plus is that they can throw him into the mix and not even have to bother with telling his whole backstory, because by now it's about as well known as Batman's.

There are plenty of episodes of Who that did that.

Turn Left LEAPS to mind.  There were tons of others.

Some would say the entire Moffat run has been missing the Doctor, since the stories have almost all been about the companions anyway.  :why_so_serious:

Yes, but I gave up doing that.

As someone starting season 5 of binge watching Dr. Who I fully endorse the above comments.

Why the fuck haven't I been watching this?

Looks like we're getting a new trailer today. They're doing some dumb "tweet to unlock" thing.

https://twitter.com/Avengers/status/573120716083752960

Edit: It's out. http://www.fandango.com/avengers:ageofultron_157897/movieoverview

Edit 2: I thought that looked old. New Trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CieuGZ7TthE

Already one pretty killer GIF in it.

Gives away one pretty good funny line. I think this is the last trailer I'm going to watch, keep it fresh.

Yeah, I almost didn't want to watch that one.

OH SNAP DAT LAST IMAGE!

CBR has a nice roundup of some of the highlights of the trailer.... the after title reveal in a gif seems to indicate another possible reveal.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/avengers-age-of-ultron-trailer-7-biggest-reveals

It would be a great way to explain how vision does his things without having to stretch your super science beliefs to density changing levels.

 :facepalm:

The yellow gem could be the Soul Gem, which would make sense since the Vision has a soul and that would be a way to explain it.  As for his powers, they could just simplify it down to flight, super strength/toughness, and give him phasing abilities.

You should check out the Spoiler tags.

Trailer revealed way too much. Considered writing a note to my future self not to watch the trailer, then get black out drunk.

I didn't think it would work... but, yeah, I didn't need to see that.

I don't think we live in an age where big budget movies can sit back and say "trust us guys this'll be good". Also there marketing this to nerds who who would pay full price for early-access alpha-demo if the entire development process is released in 200 page manifesto.

Final trailers are always like this. Always have been, always will. They'll leave out a few key things, but nothing about this should be surprising.

That is what they did with Guardians of the Galaxy.

This.  Everything they dribble out generates a new flurry of obsessive blog posts, which makes the movie keep popping up in Facebook and Twitter feeds.  All of which makes for a more successful opening day.

That was their attitude, mostly because it was a new property to a lot of people.... but they followed the same conventions for Trailers as they always do.

Hell, there were 7-11 slurpee cups.

I wasn't referring the marketing blitz for GotG -- I was referring to them not revealing so much of the plot in the trailers.

And I was making the point that they treated it the same as any movie. What plot points WEREN'T realized in the final trailers for GoG? I'm guessing there will be stuff in A2 that hasn't been shown yet too.

If anyone here feels they know enough to write a page long summary of AoU, feel free.  We know a lot of beats, but there is clearly still a lot left open at this point. 

I predict that the Avengers will have to learn to put aside their differences and work together as a team in order to stop Ultron from using a big thing that will shoot a big beam of light into the sky, or explode, or something, and they will do this by punching and shooting lots of smaller Ultron things.

You know, I'm struggling to think of how you tell a story about a bunch of superpowered people working together who are not family and not "of a type" (Fantastic Four for the first, X-Men for the second) where you don't do the "put aside your differences and stop the bad guy from doing very bad things" on some level. It's all about the execution.

Not that I'd be hostile to a very different plot structure if someone wants to try it, it's just that I'm not sure there IS one that goes with those characters set in that kind of universe. About the only one I can think of that isn't quite like that is "enemy targets the good guys one-by-one through cunning and trickery" and maybe "equal and opposite group of bad guys fights the good guys in a huge free-for-all". But even those tend to have some of the same plot beats.

There's always, "Good guys lose/Good guys win but sort of ambiguously", I guess.

There needs to be conflict, but the conflict doesn't need to be between the heroes.  You can start with a united team and have them struggle to stay together against forces that pull them apart without having the forces pushing them apart be their own differences.

Except, honestly, is that a good story?

Who starts as united and then has to endure attempts to separate/divide?

Basically, the military. Maybe a few other kinds of professional, institutionalized groups. Cops. Hospital personnel. Professors. People who work together and share a professional or vocational code.

Comic-book superheroes are by their nature one-of-a-kind. Even back in the Silver Age, the characters didn't always have the same discipline, professional outlook, etc. and Marvel super-heroes never did, ever. For them it's always been the ur-narrative of "people who are flying their own freak flag and doing their own thing who recognize a need to work together for the common good because of the situation".

Which story feels more real in 21st C. America? Highly professionalized dudes who need to resist some malicious attempt to split them apart, or people who normally could do their own thing but have to work together? The former feels to me like it's always going to be nonsense bullshit that is nothing like anything real, it's GI Joe horseshit; the latter at least is something we're all wishing for even if we don't actually do it.

The beauty of the comics medium is that you can tell any type of story in it. It can be a war film, a political thriller, a romance, a bromance, a comedy, a family story, a western, a horror story, porn, or anything else. Comic book is a setting, not a story type. I do not think we're required to have conflict between the protagonists to make a good action film.

I think the point of his response went over your head.

To actually reply to your point I would say the most recent fast and furious movies are "GI Joe done right" when you want to find a team of individuals without inter-team conflicts.

Or....

Would Ocean's 11 fit that mold?

Definitely similar but the time of a suspense/heist movie is a Lott different than an action one so it may not be a good comparison.  Team based action with dissimilar individuals happens easily once the audience agrees that they all have sufficient reason to get along. For the avengers it's the shared experiences of New York that gives them a respect for one another. While avengers 2 might have them butting heads there is no longer a need to devote time to them all getting along like the first one.

If they don't cool it with the mind control superheroes fighting each other is going to be old hat by the time civil war rolls around.

Any dramatic tension uncivil war would be undercut if mind control had anything to do with tony stark or Steve Rogers motivations.  Mind control is just a shit plot device comics overuse to explain heroes doin unpalatable or controversial things without fans jumping ship and has no place is a narrative as genuine motivation. 

The only place it can work is in the most comic booky of stories an where the plot does not revolve solely around it.  Av2 is about beating up ultron, the inevitable power creep of super universes and wanting to protect the world against it. Wanda popping in with her powers will be a nice distraction but the movie doesn't seem to revolve around that solely.

In a film with so many characters, conflict is the only way those characters get some screen time.

And the genre here is "comic book superhero", which means we upgrade the two fights and a chase comic book formula to three fights and two chases to fill in the time.

New TV Spot manages to reveal EVEN MORE of the story.  To silly proportions.

Sigh.

Out of curiosity, what did you see in that preview that seemed like a reveal to you?  There were new images, but nothing new story wise that was not already known AFAICT.

Man this movie just convinces me I have aged out of the "in" crowd. I get that it is a comic book movie and it is all flash and whatnot, but the little stuff like non-reality physics of stuff just annoys me. The flash and effects look great, but so do Michael Bay 'splosions.'

Move me into the "i hate fun" crowd I guess.

"non-reality physics" Is pretty much every comic book ever.

Yeah... I get that. But seeing it in a movie in a pseudo-real world setting pains me.

They're slowly moving from Iron Man (as real as we can be while still having a guy in a flying suit) to Doctor Strange.  I think this movie really jumps the guppy and takes us into the world of comic books that they've slowly been building towards.  We get Superpowers that are more than strength, speed, endurance and energy blasts.  We get an army of sentient robots.  We get the super comic physics of Thor batting Cap's shield through an enemy legion.  We get an introduction to the other facets of the Marvel universe ... It has been a slow buildup, but this is the movie that turns the corner and takes the comics truly onto the screen.

A few people that have seen bits of it or had access to the script say there's a lot that hasn't been revealed in the trailers up until now, FWIW.

Honestly, while having a whole lot of new footage, it didn't really seem to reveal much more than was already revealed.

Spoilers: The avengers fight Ultron and win.  Some other stuff happens.


Seriously guys, it's a fun summer super hero movie, are we really hemming and hawing over 30 seconds of footage?

 :ye_gods:  PUT IT IN TAGS, YOU MONSTER!

I didn't watch it and won't watch any more trailers until release.  SRS BSNS

New around these parts?  :why_so_serious:

I'm guessing for Ironwood it was less a matter of giving away key plot points, and more the fact this it gives away cool moments that would have been nice to have not seen before watching the movie (what Thor does with Cap's shield for instance).

Also, "In the previous trailers, you two were clearly baddies, tho the knowing audience knows different.  In this one, let's have Hawkeye say specifically that Olsen and Kick Ass are gonna be Avengers and then show them fighting Ultron."

All of that was one wee step too far.  And yes, way too many of the cool bits. 

The degree of artistic abstraction on a comic book page definitely makes it is easier to sell a guy punching a tank or whatever.

Achieving the same in a live action film is harder. They've done well so far, but each time they take it up another notch it gets harder. I'm glad they're trying, even if it risks blowing up the gravy train.

As for the prior trailers, I thought those two were good guys back then as well. I haven't seen the new one, but the importance of not watching anything but the teasers is well ingrained now.

Punching a tank I can wrap my head around. Capt America's shield flipping end over end at a constant pace is fine, but when it pauses to let Thor hit it with a hammer and then somehow stop flipping and start spinning like a buzz saw...

Maybe this one little thing bothers me because I have hit frisbees enough times with bats back in the day to know that shit doesn't do that, ever. It looks fun, but just not my kinda fun, and I am ok with that.

Yes, but have you ever hit an unbreakable shield (that absorbs vibrations) with a magic hammer (formed in a dying star) with the strength of a god.

Or, Howard Stark created a shield made from rare earth metals that deflected the force of a very high technology device disguised as a hammer.

Sorry, but I prefer to view the situation the way Evildrider describes it.

THOR IS NOT A GOD!! he's just a godlike Alien yo.

Sorry, but I disagree. Thor is a god.

My wife would also agree.

If there is a grammar snake, and a sarchasm, does that mean there is Some Antics?

Thor's Godhood was addressed by Maria Hill in the SHIELD pilot.

Thor is a sufficiently advanced alien who can get curb stomped by Ironman.

Nuh-uh!  Thor can totally waste Tin Man!   :-P

Hulk is my favorite character. Compared to him the rest are insignificant.

Puny, even.

Two more confirmed for AoU: Julie Delpy (Before Midnight) and Linda Cardellini (Freaks and Geeks). They both have hush hush roles, so they're likely cameos as new heroes or villains or part of a post credit teaser leading into one of the Phase 3 movies.

Press Junket


I had no idea Paul Bettany was that tall!

Have you never seen a Knight's Tale? He's a lanky fucker  :awesome_for_real:

Nope, never got around to it but after watching the jousting with my son in Leeds last weekend, that will probably change soon.  :awesome_for_real:

It pales in comparison to seeing actual full-contact jousting, but it was still a fun movie. Enjoy it.  If you want more jousting, the guys who do it at the Ohio ren fair had a show on History Channel back in 2012 called "Full Metal Jousting" that's out and about on the internet.

You really should, it's a film that's hard to hate.

Well, that was quick.  I've had the major elements of AoU spoiled for me already.  If you want to go into it without major spoilers, I suggest turning off the internet for 10 days.
 

 :awesome_for_real:

Poor jgsugden, no doubt tied to a chair, A Clockwork Orange style, unable to control what he views all day long.

Well, in fairness, he DOES have that rare condition of 'must click every comic thread ever posted in the history of ever.'

It's a worry.


(Though if his friend did do it in the subject line, that's a dick move.  Much like starting every e-mail 'Snape Kills Dumbledore'.  Something I was tempted to do back in the day.)

Live by the hype, die by the hype.

Snape did what?!?!?!?!?

There was not much I could do to avoid any of the spoilers I've seen.  None of them were from comic/tv/movie sites or Internet articles directly.  I'm betting most of the people reading these words will know most of the stuff I was told before May 1.

Well, that was fun.

I will be watching this in under 9 hours now. 

Can't wait.  Except, due to the nature of time, I have to.

Say what now.  Why are you filthy Euros getting this movie a week before we do.

They are less likely to yell from the tops of mountains while they rip it completely to shreds?

Most of the Marvel movies have released there a week earlier.

A lot of studios have decided to use Europe as a lab rat to gauge reaction and tweak things before the big North American release.

They aren't tweaking a movie in 6 days.

It's because of pirates.

Which is dumb since 95% of cams and bootlegs are from outside the US.  Probably because they show them over there first.  lol

There are a few articles on the reasons that international releases come before US. 

http://news.moviefone.com/2013/05/05/box-office-iron-man-3-international-opening/ (http://news.moviefone.com/2013/05/05/box-office-iron-man-3-international-opening/)

I consider it a 'screw you' America push, but that is just me being bitter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acJzw2NlmmA

LOL at Evans and Renner having to apologize for what they said about Black Widow in this interview. 

I'm just gonna go ahead and ask nobody to comment on this further.  You all know who you are, bears and pokers thereof.

Well, that was fun. 

I think some of you here are going to be disappointed, however.

This and star wars, there's no way they can ever live up to the hype.

I don't think it's much to do with Hype.


Spoilers above are not spoilers at all, but I'm aware that you might be trying to limit your immersion as most UK types have to on these boards.  I'm trying desperately not to spam jgsudgen with tons of PM's.   :why_so_serious:

Do eet!

Two big spoilers there.  Don't touch.

Without having seen the movie:

Nope.  None of that, fortunately.

So I am prepared in my black cold cynical hesrt for AV2 to suck. Marvel has a long history of sucking the big one on the second movie. The only exception being Captain Ameriva 2. If this shit pulls an Iron Man 2 or a Thor 2 the Marve Movie Universe will suffer.

There have only been three second movies before this one, one was good, two were not so good. That isn't really a huge sample to pass judgement on, especially when the best was the most recent.

Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 were steps down, but well above suck in my book.  On a scale of 1 to 10 where 5 is that level where I'd see it again if it is on TV and I'm bored... everything Marvel has done is at 6 or above.  Everything is at least good.  I hope AV2 will be really good, but what they're tackling (men in tights versus army of robots and real comic book super powers pulled into the equation) is tough water to tread. 

Pretty sure the last one was also about men in tights fighting an army of robots.

And for that matter so was Iron Man 2.

Yeah, I actually enjoyed Ironman 2 and Thor 2.  Maybe not standout movies like guardians of the Galaxy or the first Ironman, but perfectly fine entertaining movies on their own.  It'll be sad if it's not as good as the first one, but if its at least on par with Ironman 2, I'll be happy.

The strength of marvel is being able to come back with good or really good movies after stinking up the place with bad movies. Its something DC hasn't mastered because DC is convinced the only marketable superheroes are superman and batman. So yeah marvel CAN fuck up a movie or two but since they basically release 3 marvel movies a year they have to bomb all three movies to get seriously hurt, and there is plenty of people that consider their fuck ups enjoyable. But the Avengers is kinda different, its the super carrier of the movie universe. One bad Avengers spills over to the rest of franchise, that's faith that is hard to get back and requires more talent to recover. So yeah I'm kinda worried and prepared at the same time. I want this to be so good but marvel movies are kinda victims of its own formula, with the exception Cap 2.

Bad Marvel movies?  What would you put down as a worse movie than Green Lantern or Superman Returns?  Those are films I have no interest in rewatching.  I've got no problem rewatching any of the Marvel stuff.

I'm not expecting anything groundbreaking from Age of Ultron. Most of the cast is already signed on for Civil War next year and with the Infinity War in 2018 and 2019, 2017 is the only year in the next few that won't have a movie featuring most of the Avengers cast, and we've got GotG 2 coming that year. There's not really any pressure for this to be the greatest Marvel movie ever. They've got a lot coming up in the next few years.

Watched returns and never bothered with Green Lantern. I mean both movies are like Wolverine Orgins bad so their generally shitty waste of time for vastly different reasons. So is the amazing spiderman. Would I put the marvel movies that low? No because that's direct to DVD bad. Will I ever sit through Iron man 2 and Thor 2 again? Hmm no... but that don't make them direct to DVD bad.

I thought Thor 2 was a great movie up to the Thor/Loki/Kurse scene. After that it went off the rails.

Anyway I'm impatiently waiting for the movie.

It doesn't suck.

I don't know that many of the Marvel movies are bad (I turned off IM3 after like 15 minutes so maybe it is) but at the same time I have problems calling too many of them good either. Most of them are just the same - a generic enemy wants to kill a bunch of people using blue magic lasers and the quippy heroes stop them. Maybe along the way a minor character, one often introduced in the same movie, dies, but other than that there are no stakes.

Even though in most movies the earth / some planet / the universe is at risk the stakes still feel so low. Not even the characters take the situations seriously. So a series like Daredevil feels like it has higher stakes than the movies, even though there are only dozens of lives at risk instead of millions.

I'm sort of checked out of the Marvel movies at this point I think. I've seen most of them but the last few ones I watched barely held my interest.

Well, Iron Man 3 was about an army of robots fighting men in tights.

And all the others, in the end, are about men in tights fighting an army of something other than robots.

They're superhero movies. I feel like you're pointing out that Fast and the Furious movies always have a bunch of driving sequences in them.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there is anything wrong with that, just that there are now more fun but formulaic superhero movies released than any sane person could wish to watch, and in this context something like Thor 2 is hardly 'must see and rewatch'.

I liked this even more second time round.

You're wrong.

But subjectively so.

I would tend to agree with this.  I like all of these movies at the time that I see them, but I don't feel the desire to rewatch them for the most part.  Even the first Avengers movie was lots of fun when I saw it, but I watched it again when it hit Netflix and it was like "that was okay".  The first Iron Man holds up better to that test, mostly because RDJ was so delightful in it.  Same with Dark Knight and Heath Ledger.

That's getting close to the argument that's been going around for few years now that superhero movies are hitting an oversaturation point where the audience is going to stop showing up. The $200 million international opening of this movie seems to say otherwise, as does the fact that Marvel's last two movies were two of the top grossing movies in 2014, and Days of Future Past and Big Hero 6 were both huge international successes as well.

I'm not going to say that everybody needs to be watching these things. If Margalis isn't having fun with them he certainly doesn't need to force himself to sit through them and try to appreciate them intellectually. Pointing out that they all heavily involve superpowered dudes hitting each other in big action sequences is kind of odd thing to criticize them for though in the same way it would be odd to criticize Westerns for all having scenes where guys shoot at each other. Presumably that's a good part of the reason why you'd go to watch these movies.

I still think it's unfair to call all of these movies the same. They've managed to put quite a bit of diversity into the structure of these films, similar to the way that each of the comic books they release have their very own style. It is very possible for them to maintain a high level of quality and enjoyment for their audience for a very prolonged period.  I find it laughable to think the people would classify a new Punisher movie as being substantially similar to any of the Thor movies.

How many decades did Westerns rule the silver screen?  As long as Marvel keeps making good movies with superheroes, people will go see them.  Time and again I doomcasted superhero movies; first came Thor then Guardians of the Galaxy.  No more.  If you want to watch Kramer vs. Kramer:  This Time Its Personal, it's not at the movies, it's on TV where many shows have launched a new Golden Age of TV.  If you want to see Iron Man rocket punch a fool or Vin Diesel drive a car off a skyscraper, you go to the movies. 

RDJ and Vin Diesel are two of the most major movie stars.  Let that sink it and realize that the times they are a changing baby. 

Aaannyway...

I may buck the general trend and say I may have preferred this to the first Avengers film - and I really like that film.

The first Captain America film was pretty fucking dire.

See, this is why conversations like this bother me.  So far, we've had two chaps, one of whom says Thor 2 was awful, another who says First Avenger was awful.

I liked them both.  A lot.

Which is why, I guess, having a LOT of these is a good idea.  I don't think I'm going to like Ant Man much, for example.  And I know that any Iron Man after One was a waste of my fucking time.

I'm not saying they shouldn't make lots of them. Making enough to achieve a corporate critical mass is probably a big part of how they achieve the degree of consistency that they have in production quality and house style. Also they clearly make money.

The differences between Thor2 and Captain America, are mostly about which writer's jokes and melodrama you prefer. (And naturally, also about being wrong if you prefer T2 to CA1)

Perhaps Disney superhero movies are something different and interesting because of all of this. Makes me at least vaguely interested in each one purely to see how long they can keep it up. Easy to ignore what the team running this have achieved in maintaining the quality and style of a series for this long, something no one else has achieved in decades. Possibly the last example I can think of is the Carry On films?

I'm not a comic person, so I think for me the first CA film (factoring in comments from here and elsewhere subsequently) represented an imbalance of fanservice to actual quality filmmaking. If there was no existing canon for that film the whole plot would have been panned as dumber than films like the Expendables. A secret army of laser nazis hiding out in switzerland for decades without anyone noticing? Some dude with an inexplicably wierd red head? It wasn't helped that Captain America is about the dullest superhero since Superman. Sure, I get that the whole point of his character is honour, duty, virtue, loyalty, so on and so yawn. He's still dull as bricks.

In contrast, the first Thor was more or less equally dumb, but was far more fun to watch because Chris Hemsworth as an overblown manchild romping around Arizona calling people 'peasant' was really pretty hilarious. He seemed to enjoy the role more than whoever the guy who plays captain Vanilla does. Iron Man was good because the plot wasn't even that ridiculous, and RDJ and Jeff Bridges are fucking phenomenal actors.

Thor 2 wasn't awful, but then again a lot of it didn't make any sense to me. Afterwards when everyone was saying "well obviously it was an infinity gem" I'm just sat here reflecting on the fact that I don't know what an infinity gem is, and after reading up on that and Thanos on wikipedia all I feel is that this is the sort of over-the-top fuckstupidity that makes me completely disinterested in the world they're trying to build. When I go and read about how The Beyonder is so powerful that his morning dump usually accidently wips out a few universes I just switch off. And I suspect that the majority of viewers won't know or care about this tuff, but the closer the films get to the more ludicrous aspects of the canon, the more they'll be turned off.

On the flip side, I bloody loved both of the X-Men films. They had great casts, clever plots that didn't rest on a whole host of inside knowledge, and they also aren't creeping into the realm of silly like the other MCU films are. Marvel's main problem I think is balancing existing canon and fanservice against making films that make sense and are entertaining to people. They've done OK so far, but if the films creep the same way comic narrative seem to have, I can see people bailing on them hard.

'Both' X-Men films ?  Can we narrow that down ?   :why_so_serious:

I get where you're coming from.  I am deliberately NOT commenting on whether anyone elses 'tastes' are 'wrong'.

Because that's a retarded position to take.

I agree entirely on the balancing act.  I know next to fuck all about the Infinity Stuff either before these films and I'm at a total loss as to how the hell they're going to make Thanos Interesting.  Like, at all.

All I'm getting from   this is "some people like some movies, other people like other movies". I am at the point where I suspend belief and just go along for the ride and that includes all the Avengers and origin stories, F&F7, Interstellar, Xmen etc because they entertain. Are you not entertained?

Age of Ultron was good. Not Guardians of the Galaxy good, but a fun romp that made me wish I'd brought 2 boxes of popcorn.

Haha, fair. The two most recent ones. I thought they entirely stood on their own feet as narratives, and were a whole ton of fun to boot.

I guess that's my main criticism of some of the Marvel films. They're either bad because the people in them or making them are bad (hulk movies, ghost rider, etc) or they're bad because the plots don't make sense without extensive outside knowledge. Imagine trying to jump into a late season of Game of Thrones without having read the books or seen the prior episodes, it wouldn't be entertaining at all. And while I get that comic book fans love all the subtle references and in jokes, when the plot begins to lean on them it's going to make the film suffer as a whole.

I don't know what movie qualifies for that... they've done a pretty good job of dumbing down the lore.

I have read a couple of reviews saying A2 was starting to go that way ( needing to have seen prior films, not comics)  though I haven't seen it yet.

I do think that is the reason they don't seem to be expecting to make more 3 films in a run for a single character. And why I think we're all expecting some heroes to go on sabbatical soon.

Perhaps 'makes no sense' is a bit strong. But as I've said before, i didn't find the plot of CA at all interesting, a lot of the interest seemed to rest on references and homages that lay outside the frame of the films narrative. Likewise Thor 2, while enjoyable, contained a bunch of references that you would have no means of getting without spending hours on wikipedia, or reading relevant comics. I'm not saying it's killing the franchises, the films are still watchable. I'm just saying that the ones which do best are the ones which stand most firmly on their own feet.


I do wonder how long they can string out certain franchises, but then they've made seven Fast and Furious films, so who knows. If they're made well they'll continue to draw people in. Whether they can stay profitable given the significant production costs associated with the MCU films remains to be seen though.

Also, I imagine many of the actors might want a change of scene.

I suspect you're entirely right.  If you look at Cap 2, a LOT of people thought that was the best one yet.  And yet, at heart (ignoring the Bucky stuff), it was pretty much just a badass spy/bourne type film.

You really didn't NEED to know anything beyond 'Evil Spectre-types trying to take over the world via big machines'.

We're acting like the people at Marvel have not been dealing with this issue longer than any of us have been alive.  This is the same issue as in the comics: How do you balance keeping people interesting in the individual story, interested in the larger story, benefiting from the cross pollination, yet not angering people by forcing them to follow everything to stay up to date...  It is a balancing act best achieved when the elements support, but do not require, each other.

The people at Marvel dealing with this are my age or slightly older so, no, they haven't been dealing with this longer than most of us have been alive.  Nice hyperbole, though.

Also, comics aren't the model they should be looking to in any way. That hasn't been successful in doing much beyond driving non-addict fans away for decades.

I'm one of the geekiest geeks I know and I couldn't put up with comics bullshit of, "read this" and "refer to that."  It was all such obvious crap to drive additional sales of other books that around the time I was 16 (1991) and buying 4 Batman copies a month and whatever Marvel stuff I was reading I said, "Nah, fuck this."

The people dealing with this stuff at Marvel have learned from those that came before. 

They drive some away - and they pull others in deeper.  In the end, comics have done very well with their crossovers by getting people frustrated that they have to dig so deep to stay current, but so many people staying current with so many titles for so long...

In your mind the comics industry is fine and dandy, isn't it.

Or relevant in any way to the tv/movie audiences.

Marvel and DC hasn't come to terms with the fact that the real money is in Graphic Novels. But they'll keep trying to push the "comic book" because that's all they've done. By now its not the 80s or the 90s. Art and Writers are cheap, so you can feel free to reboot your entire franchise, every 2-3 years in order ride a short wave of sales follow by a rapid crash into obscurity. The movies, the tv shows, and not even the animated series can't save that, which is why comics books will languish in neverland where the true neckbeards, social warriors, and generally uninteresting human beings will keep buying. While the grown ups by graphic novels.

I can't decide which of you is more cool for all of the contempt you manage to generate.  Clearly, DC and Marvel are so poorly run that they're about to disappear into obscurity. It must have been their poor comic management, the backbone of their business, that did them in...

The constant reboots of continuity and poor storyline decisions don't indicate a pair of companies each enacting some sort of vast and nuanced master plan.  They indicate a pair of companies constantly throwing out new ideas to see what sticks, and then deciding to throw up their hands and go, "Fuck it!" before starting over every few years. 

Modern comics are, overall, not the money makers.  They're the source of IP and general story seeds that get refined into the real money makers, that being movies, merchandise, and now Netflix shows.  It's why local comic shops tend to be more of an overall geek culture store if they want to stay open.  Board games, CCGs, and assorted merchandise are what keep the doors open.  Comic books are no longer as relevant as the hardcore fans would like to believe. 

Thankfully for Marvel, their movie teams have been very successful.  DC, Fox, and Sony have been playing catch-up, to mixed results. 

That's certainly what did Marvel in back in the 90s, which forced them into bankruptcy and to sell off the movie rights for their major characters for almost nothing.

The range of comic books stories is far greater than "generic one-off villain attempts to destroy world using blue lasers." The vast majority of comic stories are not about that.

Saving the world stuff works in comics in part because there is downtime and smaller, more localized stories - it's cool when Spider-Man teams up with the Avengers to help save the world because that's in comparison to other times when he maybe stops a silly guy like Paste Pot Pete from robbing a bank.

The problem with the Marvel movies is that they quickly ramped up to saving the world from an existential threat and now they're sort of stuck there. Thanos is going to try to destroy the world...ok. The guy from Thor 2 was going to destroy a bunch of worlds. Ronan was going to destroy an Earth-alike. I assume Ultron is trying to take over the world and eliminate human life or something. Even in Captain America 2 the threat is largely existential and based on blue lasers.

The Fast and Furious movies have gotten bigger and more ridiculous over time but they started small and still have room to grow before they're fighting Galactus-level threats in every movie.


That was not my criticism at all, and characterizing it as such is dishonest.

My criticism is that the villains are so disposable that even the heroes treat them as such, that the stakes are ostensibly high (save the world!) but there's very little consequence to even the most dire scenarios, and that the threat in the movies can't top previous films because they dialed it up to 11 too fast. Saving the world has become old hat. The threat of Thanos is the same threat presented by the guy in Thor 2.
---

As far as Captain America 2, I suspect a reason people like it is the action direction. It just has better action sequences, particularly the fight scenes and how the characters use body weight and momentum-based moves. These stand out because CGI typically does a poor job of lending characters weight.

I don't think Cap 2 can really be classified as a "save the world" movie. Thematically it's Freedom vs. Security, and the main villain is a regular human. Even the Winter Solider himself isn't at a particularly high power level. They're preventing a weapon from being used that's going to kill a lot of people, but for the most part they're fighting very human threats in order to do that, like just about every Bond movie for instance. GOTG is a sci-fi movie. Saving a planet fits the genre fairly well there. Then you've got two Avengers movies, where yes, you probably need a big threat to justify getting this group together. Then you've got Thor, who is one of the more powerful characters and typically isn't going to be stopping bank robbers. He's without his hammer for most of the first movie, so they started that series on a smaller scale. Not seeing a problem there. They ramped the scale up for the second one, but the series also has one of the least disposable villains in the MCU in Loki, and even though Thor has stopped the villain who was attempting to end the world, by the end of the movie we see that he's actually suffered a pretty big loss and isn't even aware of it. None of the Iron Man movies involve saving the world, nor does Hulk, or Cap 1. Ant Man doesn't look like it's about saving the world, and Civil War will presumably have a large focus on heroes fighting heroes, although I'm sure there will be an actual villain in it at the end.

Beyond that, all I can say is that I think we watch these movies for very different reasons. I don't expect a feeling of consequence from superhero movies because years of reading comics has told me there is none.

Can I just say it bugs me more and more that I think of it :

Ultrons mouth was waaaay too mobile.  Like, really.  I don't know.  How did he manage that.

That is all.

And clearly they had no idea how to recover.  That is why this 'Marvel' you speak of is such a forgotten piece of trivia. 

Stop arguing for the sake of it. 

On the one hand, that's fine.  Super heroes aren't really about consequences. On the other hand, when things become entirely consequence free and it's just about the spectacle films lose a lot more than comics do in my opinion. Just ask Michael Bay.  Now, these certainly aren't Michael Bay movies, they are a lot better than that.  But it does still get a bit... exhausting... after a while.  I love the Avengers, I've got a box full of specifically Avengers comics.  But at the same time, I don't feel a powerful drive to see this film. I'll watch it, it will be fun, but I'm not champing at the bit either.

I think it has to do with just general over-saturation. 3 Iron Man movies, 2 Cap movies, 2 Thor movies, 2 avengers movies, a hulk movie, a hulk reboot movie.  Plus little plot points play out across multiple films in different franchises.  I haven't seen The Winter Soldier, did I miss something that is going to come up in Avengers 2? Thor 3? Ant-man? In some ways the marvel universe thing has its benefits, but it also feels a little overwhelming.

 I'm already past the point where I know I'm not going to see all of them.  And when they all fit together not wanting to see all of them makes me border on not caring if I see any of them.

My thoughts mirror Dan O'Brien on the issue, Malakili. See if yours are similar:
http://www.cracked.com/video_19310_why-death-needs-to-matter-in-marvel-universe.html

There's also this one:
http://www.cracked.com/video_19326_the-inevitable-confusing-future-marvel-movies.html
Some of which covers things Margalis brought up, some of which has been absent here, like: "Hell, I've got to watch/ view HOW MANY shows/ movies?"

Er.  Yeah.  Ooops.

Shit, looks like I get to watch it before Friday then.

This is what they're talking about in that 2nd video: Too much crap to catch-up on.  Am I going to have to worry about anything from Daredevil or AOS? If so I'll just give the movie a miss.

Not a major thing.  But there will be dialogue where you say 'Wait, What ?'

And the end bit will be all 'Wait, What ?'

And...

LOOK JUST WATCH THE FUCKING MOVIE, IT'S AWESOME AND HAS CROSSBONES IN IT.

I have no idea why it's so hard for you guys to catch up.  Marvel doesn't put out movies nearly fast enough for me.  I want them to release even more per year!   :awesome_for_real:

We're not all stuck in a 3rd world country working 40 hours with no family and lots of time on our hands.   :why_so_serious:

That's all well and good, the point is I just can't be bothered to keep track of this sort of thing.  I know enough about Marvel's comics from when I did regularly read comics that I can probably figure out what's what anyway.  But the point is it leads towards a kind of all or nothing feeling, and I'm as likely to lean towards the nothing side as I am towards the all side.

Since we're on  a gaming forum, it's kind of like an MMO subscription.  Even if I am having fun logging in 20 minutes a day to do daily quests or crafting or whatever, I'm probably just going to dump the game anyway because there is so much of the game I'm not playing, even though I am enjoying the part I AM playing.


It's not "hard" it's just not anywhere near a priority for me.  My movie watching habits are: MAYBE see a movie I actually want to see in a theater.  If not, which is the usual scenario, I wait until it's on Netflix.  If a particular movie doesn't come to Netflix for a while or my wife has X things she wants in the queue, or just whatever it just falls of my list of things I am keeping track of.  Hell, I didn't see the first Captain America until less than a year ago and only then because they had it on the plane while I was on a 10 hour flight.

I usually just buy them on DVD or whatever, they come out super fast on physical media these days.

These movies can stand on their own, but they're better when watched together.  They are written so that they make sense whether you only see one thing, only see the movies, see everything, etc...  For example, Daredevil did not require that you knew anything about the MCU.  However, if you did, the articles on the wall and the references to the Avengers added to the series.

SHIELD seasons 1 and 2 are designed by the Whedons to be a companion piece that connects to the movies, but they are certainly not required.  You've got Extremis from IM III, Kree from GotG, the obvious connection to Cap II, tie in episodes to Thor II, etc....  They intentionally wove threads from each of the films into the show.  However, nothing that takes place in the show is required for the movies - and from Joss Whedon's perspective, the events of the show are not even considered to happen when it comes to an audience that only sees the movies.  Whedon killed a character in AV I, then resurrected the character for SHIELD, and then demanded that the character not have any contact with most of the characters from the movies and not be included in AV II to maintain the importance of the death for the movie going audience. 

I asked my wife how she feels about Marvel and all their format cross overs.

She said, "I like super hero movies."

Watched it last night and enjoyed it. Advance warning for people who haven't seen it yet, there's a mid-credits scene but no post-credits scene. Feel free to leave the theater before the credits finish.

I finally watched these videos just now.  The death one I agree with from a film standpoint, but I also understand that super heroes (or villains) just..dont...die.

The second one is more or less how I feel about it.  But both of the videos come from a standpoint of, basically, "I will watch everything!"  I just know I won't.  I first read The Hobbit when I was about 10 years old, but I didn't even get around to seeing The Battle of the Five Armies until literally last weekend. 

It's not even really that much of a complaint, it's more just a statement that the way they have structured things is starting to alienate me.

I think the question of hero death is an interesting one for film.  In comics, the characters can basically not age and continue forever.  In movies, they need to recast to do it - and they always have the option to reboot.  Further, they have so many characters from the books to draw upon that they can as easily afford to end a character as they can afford to never introduce them.  I think that points towards a situation where character death may be easier to be permanent. 

Yes and character development that is lacking in comics.

Then they fuck it all up and pull the "I'm not really dead" bullshit comics do.

I'm sure they'll get around to permanently killing off some major main characters pretty quickly.

Wait, I should watch Winter Soldier first? Hm, is that on Amazon Prime yet? Nope, TWENTY DOLLARS. This is why "we" haven't caught up yet. I'm not dropping a twenty to watch a streaming movie at home.

I finally got tired of waiting to see Days of Future Past and ponied up $6 to watch it a couple weeks ago. But $20? Nope.

We were talking about seeing the new Avengers at an IMAX since we'll be in a mall that has one this weekend. But meh, if I'm not going to get all the story bits because I missed everything between the last Avengers and now, fuck it. Iron Man 3? $20. Thor:tDW? $20. To watch the three movies involved (assuming there aren't more I don't know about?) for $60 at home before blowing $40 to watch the new one?

Nope.

I think all of Phase II is being shown on Starz or Encore (I forget which) right now and all of Phase I is being shown on FX.  Netflix has a lot of them right now, too, I think.  

http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/captain%20america%20winter%20soldier (http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/captain%20america%20winter%20soldier)

If you're a casual enough fan that you skipped the last several movies, I don't think you should be really worrying about picking up every minor story bit in Avengers 2. The biggest plot point you missed is what happened to SHIELD in Cap 2.

It's only digital purchase. I wonder how much revenue they're losing by not having them up for rental on major streaming sites in the week or two leading up to this. I would've bit for $6, probably. Now I won't even see the new one in the theater and just wait until the new Star Wars comes out for my first IMAX experience. No big deal, but I was kind of looking forward to it. They'll all stream cheap or free eventually.

I got the SHIELD stuff by context because I watch the tv show (though I'm several episodes behind).

Actually the main reason I was getting excited was the leadup stuff happening in SHIELD the last few weeks.

If you've been watching Agents of SHIELD then I doubt there's anything in Cap II you'd need to see for Avengers II.

In the UK, most of the marvel films are currently streaming on Netflix - can't speak for the US though. They seem to have a deal with Disney so if you don't already subscribe, you could maybe get a month free trial?

Then yeah, you should be ok to watch Age of Ultron. You missed Falcon being introduced in Cap 2 but he only has very brief appearances here, and Thor 2 and GOTG detailed the Infinity Gem stuff a bit more. I'd still recommend watching Cap 2 and GOTG if you haven't seen it because they're both good movies, but you don't need to see them before Age of Ultron.

I did see Guardians, that was on Amazon for $5 a while ago (currently not rentable, $20 to buy like the others). I guess Disney and Amazon are going through a thing right now.

Having watched the movie I can say I had fun but it was just so, bloated. Too many things going on made for a really diluted narrative and what could have been a great movie was just, ok.

There are rumors of an extended cut coming that dilutes the bloat, but I consider those rumors suspect given Whedon walking ...

And does anyone else feel that Whedon walking away from Marvel directing was heavily influences by how they handled Wright?

I feel like Whedon and Wright are stepping away for the same reasons. They've been pretty upfront about it, how there's so much stuff they have to put in, so much to keep track of, and yeah you can tell your own story as long as Thanos and Falcon and Vision are there and they go to Wakanda at some point and and and....

In my experience, that's how Amazon treats most new release type stuff, at least the big movies.  It'll be rentable for a bit, and then it switches to full price and never goes back to being something you can rent.  Some new releases are purchase only until a few weeks have passed, so you have to constantly check back to make sure it doesn't slide back into purchase only before you get a chance to watch. 

It's one of the few frustrations I have with their digital offerings. 

Saw this just now. It was great. I got every thing I wanted from it, lots of super heroes kicking ass.

It might be one of the best live action comic books out there, though I'd argue that doesn't translate into a movie as well.  Still for what it is, it does a good job but I'd watch a 180min directors cut in a heartbeat if they could just expand on stuff and let the movie breathe.

Can't see any reason Whedon would choose to stay - he's done the job, not likely to be any different next time.

He's been involved for most the last five years. That's a long time for a property that will never be his own, and for someone who cpuld probably get funding to do anything he likes at this point.

Just saw it myself and I concur.  Great action scenes, one-liners and surprises.  I'm surprised at how much I enjoyed the Scarlet Witch.  It did feel slightly bloated, but hey summer popcorn movie fun.  Kitchen sink ahoy!   So glad I dodged most of the spoilers.

Whedon has done a lot of interviews lately and while he seems to be quite grateful to Marvel, he has been fairly open about some of the downsides. There was the quote from a week or so back about having made more money doing Dr. Horrible than he made doing the first Avengers movie, because Marvel hires directors without a lot of big hits to their names and don't pay them a lot. It also sounded like he maybe wasn't allowed to work on Agents of Shield to the extent that he would have liked and was more or less told that the movies needed to be his focus. And yeah, five years of working on other peoples' properties probably gets old for a guy like him.

I feel the same way as I did after Nolan finished up the Batman movies. It's great to see these guys do their takes on these iconic characters, but at some point you want them to get back to doing original stuff.

I stopped reading this when it released in Europe (damn you smelly Euros with your liberalism and healthcare and getting Avengers movies before me!) as I didn't want to spoiler myself.

My boss/buddy just took our 3-man department out to see this.

FUCK. YES.

I liked this one a whole lot better than the first one and I really loved the first one. This one had a lot more screen time and story for EVERY character, even the new ones, without feeling overstuffed or badly paced. Ultron/Spader was fucking fantastic and yes, he stole every scene he was in. The addition of Andy Serkis as


was a fantastic future story seed.


Unless you hate fun/super hero movies, go fucking see this.

I just got through watching the movie. Loved that.  :grin:

As a whole I liked the movie, but I didn't love it. I feel pretty much the same way I felt about DoFP though so take it for what it's worth.

Most of the Marvel films are gone from the US Netflix, and I am sad.

Saw it this evening.

The early reviews seemed mixed, so I went in with low expectations.  Turned out to be a fairly good Marvel movie.

Pacing is off, probably due to some obvious cuts in story to trim down the run time, and I started to get action fatigue at the last battle.  Still, the action was top notch, had good character development, and some funny one-liners.  Hopefully they release an extended cut on DVD.

I'd rate it:
CA2 = GotG > A:A > IM1 > A:AoU > T2 > CA1 > everything else

I've heard people say that the DVD release will have like an extra hour+ of footage apparently, but that may just be internet being internet.

It wouldn't surprise me. There was a LOT left on the cutting floor and you can really see jit when watching, lots of little threads of dialogue never explored and scenes that should have gone on a lot longer but cut short for expediency. Still, it's a good movie but man it felt rushed.

Just got back. Really enjoyed it. Had a few slow moments, but was very entertaining. I have been a Spader fanboy since the Steff days, so this was right in my wheelhouse. LOVED him. I don't know all the lore and whatnot, so I was mostly lost when the girl twin was doing her thing. She seemed to have quite the range of deus ex machina powers, however. Could watch Hulk and Iron Man do their thing forever, and even CA had a personality this time around. If you liked any of the Marvel movies I think you would have to work very hard to come out of this utterly disappointed.

Scarlet Witch's 'probability manipulation' powers have generally always been a deus ex machina, providing exactly the effects desired by the writers, even when those showed no obvious relationship to probability (or seemed like they were just telekinesis, mind control, or whatever else).

Going to have to wait another week or so before I can watch this. May need to stop checking this thread.

--Dave

I saw this and went in with mixed expectations. I too enjoyed the heck out of it. I particularly enjoyed that each character got their moment to shine. Hawkeye even had some good lines and good character development this time. Still, Spader stole the show. That said, in the final battle:

Without spoiling, that is one of the scenes I was talking about when I said that it felt like there was more dialogue that got cut.  It really seemed like there should be more back and forth between the two at that moment.

I saw this in a regular cinema screen and I feel like it would really benefit from being on Imax or similar. I really enjoyed it but it felt like it should have been more epic, at one point the speakers were falling apart trying to supply appropriate bass. Stupid South East Asian cinemas.

Also there were one or two moments of fun obvious censorship, I think at least:
A really fun movie though, top-notch popcorn fodder all really well done. If you at all enjoyed the first Avengers or just fun then check it out.

So much going on it left my head spinning. I agree it needed a bit of time to breathe, but that's the trend in action movies these days. Start out at 11 and keep accelerating until the end.

It felt very rushed because of it and I was looking for more:

You missed a line:


Agreed, that was just so well done and so well delivered it killed me. Not enough reaction in my theater to it, IMO.

The focus on Hawkeye was because this is the third movie he appears in and he hasn't had any characterization so far. He had a couple lines of dialogue in Thor and was mind controlled through most of Avengers. They kinda needed to do something with his character.

Rather than making it so you have to watch the previous stuff so you can keep up they've actually gone the complete opposite way.  Nothing that happened before matters.  Last we saw Tony he blew up all his suits and retired, not a single fuck was given about any of that. We know for a fact he is not going to stay retired after this one either.  Oh, shield got dismantled you say? not when it matters, here they are right on time. Didn't Thor get stuck in Asgard without a way to come back after the first or second movie? it was never mentioned again either.  You could have watched this movie without even watching Avengers 1, you can't say that about most sequels.  People are confusing "i didn't get a few injokes/easter eggs" with "i couldn't follow the plot".

I'll have you know that Odin had to use a LOT of dark energy to send Thor back for Avengers 1.

I was stunned at how great the Vision turned out to be. Really lovely updating of the character. Improves on his comics history by quite a lot.

Yeah.  Why the hell do they keep having trailers with naked chicks that then do not appear ?  It's like being married all over again.

Saw it last night, it was good but not great. I went in expecting nonstop action with no character development, but actually felt it moved a little slow. Lots of good dialog though, and Spader fucking killed it as Ultron.

To me, the Vision stole the movie... as good as Ultron was.  I hear talk he's going to be featured quite heavily from here on out for good reason, as there's something about that cool, calculating, zen-like kickass he brings that's very appealing.   The storyline between he and SW also intrigues me; I can see why they'd be an item.

Oh, and Elizabeth Olsen's boobage.  Noice.

Just saw it today. I am so glad that I stopped reading this thread, and watching clips, about 3 or 4 weeks ago. So much spoilage to be had.
I liked it. Would watch again, and buy a hard copy.

Having said that, here's a fantastic clip, with Ultron talking to the twins. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zGFZzvdsJ0)

Great examples of some of the things mentioned upthread.
- Even Ultron gets some funny lines
- Elizabeth Olson is smoking hot
- Spader owns it as Ultron

Saw a picture of her, was confused for a moment; "Did one of the Olsen twins change her name?" Turns out she's their younger sister. Shit, I'm getting old (she's the same age as my oldest daughter).

--Dave

You know, I loved that there was "too much shit from other movies"

I find it odd that Johny Cee's example of too much reliance on shit from other movies is something that was introduced in the previous Avengers movie. I get if people feel like they're missing out on references from the solo movies, but I don't think assuming that people watching Avengers 2 probably saw Avengers 1 and remember at least the broadest plot details is expecting too much from the audience.

"I'm glad you asked because I wanted to take this time to explain my evil plan."

Yeah.

Film is much more cohesive on a second viewing, while also being really clear on just how much was cut.

Deary me.

Aha but
I actually want to see this again, with a bigger screen better sound and less random censoring. I'm going to be in the UK next week and might actually try and get an Imax viewing. Which will be the first movie I've watched twice in the cinema since I was like 12.

So far it's been a one way door when it comes to movie/tv in the MCU, I don't really see that changing anytime soon.

The DVD/blu-ray release is supposedly coming with an Extended Cut (no idea if it'll be the 3 hour 'Whedon' cut or a pared down version) that will hopefully wrap up some of the more glaring omissions (like pretty much everything Thor does away from the team and hopefully, hopefully more Red Room stuff).

Also, they should have made a Black Widow movie by now. Seriously. I would move shit around to make way for one if I were Marvel. Everyone I know who went to see AoU wants more Widow.

I think they're in a tricky place there somewhat. Widow's whole schtick is her dark and mysterious past, a movie about her confronting her past and going through a redemption arc would be really good but then you've lost a lot of the tension and drive the character has that makes her actually interesting. On the other hand doing a 'darker' spy type movie would have the problem of being a retread of the Winter Soldier. Having said that though I could see her being a pivotal figure in say, CA3, if that is more Bucky-centric. Maybe when we're closer to A3 or they're looking to sideline the character a bit more, for the moment she runs the risk of not being very interesting as a supporting character if they actually look into a character arc for her in her own film.

Also on the movie/TV thing: They might use it as a plotline for AoS season 3? Then

Apparently, the lack of tv influencing the movies was a Whedon led decision. The rules might... might be changing there. When Tony applied Friday there were some other chips on the table... one had an interesting name...

 This is an interesting read. Massive spoilers included.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/flaws-marvels-all-connected-cinematic-792904 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/flaws-marvels-all-connected-cinematic-792904)

TL;DR comic movies are turning into comics.

Yep. Nothing has meaning, but you have to watch it all or else be 'that guy' who missed the reference and therefore isn't a "REAL" fan.

You know I see this criticism of comic/series fiction all the time.


"Oh you know the character can't die so there's no dramatic tension!!"

Bullshit. That's only true if the writer is a complete and utter fucking hack with no ability to write at all. I've read comics off and on most of my life. My favorite TV series are often the ones with tightly linked continuity from week to week. Knowing that Daredevil is going to return in the next issue doesn't make me any less entertained by the dangers he is put through this issue. While yes, it can be taken to ridiculous extremes, especially when important and well-written events/deaths are retconned out of existence a year down the line and when every character who dies is eventually brought back, often in a ham-fisted way.

Not all stories have to have take it or leave it consequences to be good stories. Knowing that there was another Captain America movie coming or another Avengers movie didn't mean I enjoyed AoU any less.

Re:death

Honestly? I didn't think about it at all during the movie itself.
Also I agree with Haemish. Who came out of the last Bond movie going, 'Well I mean how likely was it Bond was going to die? Personally I never felt any excitement or worry because, it's James Bond. Obviously they need to be able to replace the main character or I'll never be able to believe there's any danger.' Do real people actually feel this way because there's no way the story is going to have mankind get eradicated?

That isn't the reason comics aren't popular. Like, at all. It never has been and never will be the reason comics aren't popular. Comics were HUGE in the 50's and 60's (though not always super hero comics) though it was mainly kids that were reading them - and that was when there was almost never any death in the comics ever because of the Comics Code.

Thing about Bond movies is you know Bond is ok but everyone else? Well we know how skeyfall turned out.  Now you get super movies where EVERY character is bond, who you know is already in the sequel.  Sometimes they do it well though, heck look at the daredevil show.  In that you knew Murdoch and Fisk would be there, maybe Foggy but the show really made you worry for anyone else.

I don't think comics lack of death is what hurts them, it's the lack of any permanency.  Look at the most famous graphic novels and comics, most if not all of them are self contained stories where real consequences happen, the killing joke, watchmen, the walking dead.

It's a fair point but honestly it's a bit premature in terms of the MCU. I think it's potentially a problem but declaring it now? That's literally just accusing them of feeling too much like the comics to you, which is the exact other end of the spectrum from people's problems with DC. Now it's not something that'll never happen, I'll happily admit that it's possible the MCU will go the same way of never letting anyone stay dead/make any real change but we're definitely not there yet. Anyone saying otherwise has just decided it's close enough to the comics and that's a problem they have ipso facto, hoc proc ergo, etc., etc.

I think in the cases you are talking about, it's really not a huge leap to expect the viewers of a sequel to be up on some of the tying threads from other parts of the shared universe movies. And I really don't think it needed even as much exposition as you suggest. The movie starts with "super heroes shutting down bad guys." It could easily have been something completely new with no other tie-in to the other movies or TV shows at all and it would have served the same purpose.

Johny Cee:

That's rather the point, though. Casual fans are left with a lot of, "Wait.. what? How?" 

It bothered me that the staff was in someone else's hands until I decided internally that it must've been stolen between Avengers and Cap II. But I only had that information because I was loosely following things.

I really want to ask a few guys around the office that aren't geeks what they thought, but none of them have had time to watch it yet. Some probably won't until it's on Netflix/ DVD, the same way they saw the first one because of kids. Shocker.

I have only seen Ironman 1, Capt America 1, and Avengers 1. I'll let you know if and when I see this or the other movies I will need to fill in the gaps.

That would have been good, except

If you haven't seen Guardians yet, you are really missing out.

edit:  Not so much plot wise, but more that it's one of the best Marvel movies.  Also Cap 2.  :)

Despite reading all this and seeing most of these films, I genuinely have no idea who or what Hydra are. If it's apparent from the films, I've missed it somehow

Cap 1 introduces Hydra, they are the main bad guys, and Cap 2 continues with Hydra.  Also SHIELD does too.

TLDR: They are Nazi's.


Longer Version: They are fascists that truly believe the world would be a far better place if they were in charge and running everything, so will use ANY means to reach their desired end goal.

Apparently I am a Hydra man. Except I am too lazy to run anything.

The average movie goers are thrown mcguffins and highly irrelevant plot threads all the time. They nod and keep watching, most americans have this thing call smartphones that can instantly access the internet and even googles stuff for them. The only people concerned about continuity are the nerds who have basically watched 90% of all MCU material, with the 10% being the godawful TV shows too many people think are good (except daredevil).

So apparently Joss Whedon deleted his Twitter account because of the harassment he's received from feminists and other random SJWs.  The irony. It is thick and sweet.:awesome_for_real:

http://www.ibtimes.com/joss-whedon-fired-nope-he-deactivated-twitter-following-feminist-hypocrisy-1907981

In a stunning display of baseless rage (because context makes being angry so much harder!) that surprised absolutely fucking no one ever, Twitter users once again reveal that the service is a magnet for and aggregate of the most fuck-stupid of the fuck-stupid of the internet.

More evidence that my refusal to join any social networking sites is paying off.

Considering Joss was like their sweetheart when he took the opposite role against Adam Baldwin during all the gamergate stuff, this is hilarious.

I guess people were pissed that Back Widow's role was reduced when it came to action scenes.  I wonder if her pregnancy had anything to do with that?

Please, don't come up with completely reasonable limitations that handily explain why something is the way it is. THE TWITTERATI WOULDN'T LIKE THAT.

I guess it's also Stark's "Prima Nocta" joke.     :oh_i_see:

Oh hey, purity tests by the overly political. That always turns out well.

"This Frankenstein's Monster I helped create has now started to choke the life out of me - who could have possibly predicted that besides anyone familiar with either history or literature?"

I wouldn't be surprised if he hates Twitter in general, and is worn out from promoting Marvel films, and saw this tempest in a teapot as a good cover for getting out.

As that article points out, he's quit Twitter before. I don't know that he hates it or understand it's a great marketing tool with little use beyond that.

Which is good. The more people see it as a stupid piece of fluff the better off we all are.  The US user base is only 1/300th of the population,the international user base is 1/25th of it but we hold it up like it means anything.

Wait, what was wrong with Black Widow in this ?

I don't get the 'damsel in distress' shit, before anyone starts.  Non-starter.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's something close to the latter. For the first time in years he doesn't have a project he needs to promote and he probably won't be doing anything anywhere near as big as Avengers for quite a while.

edit: I realized that should probably go in a spoiler.

No, I get that.  It's bullshit tho.  Utter Bullshit.

She also "didn't fight enough" and the interaction with the Hulk was too much "fairy tale princess" 'beauty tames the beast' for them.

You're correct that it's utter bullshit.

Speaking of:

There are a couple elements to it that are all very weak, but when assembled construct an unexpected image of a female heroine in a Whedon project :


All of that could happen to a male character and we wouldn't blink.  Do it to a female and you're sexist.  Because that isn't a sexist reaction.  Of course not. 

As for Whedon deleting Twitter - good for him.  It is such a pointless medium.  It is too prone to people speaking in an attempt to be heard rather than to convey useful information.  Yes, there are some good uses for it, but the good gets flushed out by the bad so easily...

I'm betting his next projects are Doctor Horrible 2 (as Doctor Horrible 1 was his most lucrative project to date for him) and then something brand new - I hope it is a Netflix series... I hope that he'll consider coming back to Marvel in a few years as I think he did a lot for them.

If anyone wants to hear an interesting Whedon and Bettany interviews, there is a good interview / podcast on Empire. 


It is even more striking to compare his beat down tone to the energy coming off Bettany.  He is clearly pumped to be playing Vision.  I'll be surprised if the Vision and Scarlet Witch relationship is not front and center in the MCU for the next 4 years (get together in Cap III, he gets torn apart in Avengers 3 by Thanos to get the Mind Gem, they reassemble him in Avengers IV but he loses his memory and is distant from her, etc...)

Oh, and one more thing on the tag...

Maybe he suffers the same fatal flaw as Thanatos and he just wants to lose SO BADLY.   :why_so_serious:

People who think Black Widow was a useless damsel in distress in AoU are as fuckstupid as the people making jokes about Hawkeye being useless. Even without her usual physical action (due to her pregnancy), she still more than held her own as a character and a piece of the action.

People really make me stabby sometimes.

Better ways to criticise Disney's treatment of women in the MCU would incude asking why Black Widow hasn't had a film yet, mentioning that GotG really didn't do a good job on agency of female characters,  but most of all pointing out that the twentieth film in the MCU will be the first with a female lead.

It isn't worse than other media, and the particular examples in this film seem pretty tenuous, but I get why people would grumble.

The gripe that I think is somewhat fair is

As mentioned above, you completely misinterpreted that scene and fell in line with the morons shitting all over Whedon.  

If you have to preface what you're about to say with "Not to drag this into politics", chances are you're about to follow it up with something that belongs in Politics.

It's the "No offense, but..." of f13 posting!

You're right.  

There's a weird resurgence of "cultural critics" badly characterizing fiction, using phrases like "what the work is telling us is..."  or "what the author is saying is..."

Law and Order: SVU - the work is telling us to just give up, GamerGate has won
Bioshock Infinite - the work is telling us that black people are in fact the savages the white people assume they are
Avengers - The work is telling us that being sterile = being a monster

Whenever you see anyone claiming to understand what a work is "telling us" or "basically saying" it's best to ignore them. Most works of fiction aren't fortune cookies with simplistic, one-line morals.

Oddly enough the group that uses the above language also regularly argues that authorial intent is both unknowable and irrelevant, and that interpretation is highly subjective - while also arguing that they alone know what simplistic message the author was trying to convey.

I haven't seen the movie but the idea that Joss Whedon thinks sterile women are monsters and is inserting that message into his movie doesn't pass a simple smell test. I think Whedon is both untalented and a huge douche but that totally out of character for him.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with serious analysis of popular culture, and ascribing worth to a piece based on that analysis. Most literature that gets the most serious thought put in was also written as pop culture.  Getting overexcited and shrill about it as some appear to have done is clearly rather silly; but no more so than feminists who insist on missing the point of a play like Taming of the Shrew and complaining about that.

And furthermore, while author intent has no bearing on the literary content of a piece of work, I guarantee the authors of something like Law and Order do intend that they explore literary themes to a degree.  And Joss Whedon certainly aims for it in his work.

I agree but this is a complete non-sequitur.

I wasn't talking about "serious analysis", I was talking about idiotic analysis by morons. "The work was telling us this one thing I desperately want to believe it was telling us because my whole world view is about getting outraged over things like this" is not serious analysis.

Ken Levine recently did an interview in which he said one of the bad characters in Bioshock was supposed to be autistic and some raging morons decided he meant that being autistic makes you evil. Of course that isn't what he said or what he "basically said", it was their invention. Invention is not analysis.

Sorry, Khaldun, but it's not a fair gripe.  It's not even what was on the screen.

Iirc I'm a monster happened after a flashback about having to kill that hooded person.  The I can't have kids happened to reassure Banner after he said he can't give her what Hawkeye has. 

I agree it's a misinterpretation. But I see why people thought it. It's a clumsily written scene.

Which is something people should be able to work out in a conversation without people freaking out--and without saying, "You are in the camp of the enemy"!

Once upon a time people were able to talk about scenes in movies that could be interpreted in different ways without regarding that conversation as trench warfare.

It really wasn't.  People are looking for reasons to be outraged these days and since most of them live in lily white worlds where there are no real problems, they find these.

It was a badly written scene unfortunately. As I watched it, it came across like she was saying "I am a monster because I can't have kids". I noticed it when she said it, because it seemed nonsensical. At the time I took it as, "Ok, she's clearly messed up" More so than the basis of Widow's character/personality - she's a messed up ex-assassin who regrets her past - I took it as she's got some severe self image issues as well and this is them revealing that to us.

It just seems ridiculous though that people would jump on Whedon for one poorly worded scene, when he is essentially the posterboy for over the top, empowered female heroines.  :uhrr:

Also: http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/joss-whedon-on-leaving-twitter#.llk860Jen

EDIT: fucking spoiler tags

No, it's really not. The possible interpretation you gave really doesn't make any sort of sense in the context of the movie or the dialogue. It's reaching really really hard to justify a bunch of Twhining.

EDIT: Whedon didn't object to the cave scene because it had hooks into other movies. He wanted the full scene in there, which apparently had Thor possessed by the Norn, as well as some of Loki in the dream sequence. His cut was like 50 minutes longer. The studio didn't want EITHER the cave scene or the farm scene in the movie and he was willing to completely kill the cave scene to keep the farm scene. The studio didn't think Thor just showing up and telling people about the gem would do it, so they kept the abbreviated cave scene.

Edit : nm, responded to the wrong page.

Its been long established, since winter soldier and probably eariler, that even though the "widow" is a great spy, she is absolutely loyal to a fault. Even more loyal than Captain America. Widow is the most trusting person in the Avengers. She trust that you have a plan, even if you ask her to do something horrible. Captain America will never swallow just being a killer, even though his existence is based and validated on needing something to kill, a "war to fight, even if he needs the caveat of saving lives to do so. So no we the audience has no reason to buy that people don't trust her. Cap may not trust her because soldiers don't think particularly high of spies. Period.

But Bruce? Bruce just trust himself. And in fact his crutch is that at the end of the day he trust himself to lose control more than anything. He can never own up to being a "monster" so he is inherently self destructive. Like the guy who never got play in HS and can't stop coming off as a douche at critical moments because the only thing he trust is that whatever that is wrong with him to come roaring out. And the rejection matters more than the possibility that "hey I may be happy, may not be perfect, may not be normal and hey i'm not normal but I can be happy"... nope not Bruce Banner.  

And why are projecting what we think a woman like black widow should care about to black widow? So not having kids is a big fucking concern to a girl from not america... yeah no shit. I think the biggest point of Ultron is that for our avengers there faced with "life post avenging". Half the team kinda..not what to be avenging forever.

After 3 viewings:

If the death isn't on screen it's not a death, the number one fiction rule.

The most important parts of a movie isn't the wiz-bang action and explosions, it's the little quiet parts where we are able to get to know and care about the characters. Whedon knows this. Marvel should too. No one gives a shit about Battleship despite it's stellar FX. People like superheros because they can identify with their struggles and see a part of themselves in their favorite hero. Ignore that, and I think you lose a big part of what makes these movies so popular.

Exactly. I really hope there is an extended cut. 

That makes more sense to me--that Whedon wanted a longer version of the cave scene. I'd seen it that he just didn't like it at all.

I still think the whole mention of sterilization plays oddly in that scene in the house, so I do understand people reacting to it. Just...not the way that they have. I also am not that surprised that people are trying to make some of the choppy texture of quite a few scenes work better than they do. Or are annoyed at the impact of the choppiness.

Also:

Stark creates Ultron in a fit of Witch-induced hubris to shield the world from exterior harm so the Avengers aren't needed. However, Ultron isn't just a computer program that follows a set protocol, thanks to the Mind Gem, it becomes an actual intelligence capable of learning. And having seen the damage humanity has done to the world (as well as probably some of the things Tony Stark's tech in particular have done since he was one of the world's foremost weapons manufacturers), he gets the idea that humanity is the problem and his creator/father in particular is the problem. I don't see how that doesn't come across pretty explicitly in the scenes as they were shot. The only scene that really could have used more explanation, IMO, was the cave scene because of 1) what it showed Thor about his dream (which apparently the dream is a hook for Ragnarok) and 2) so it could explain why he did what he did with the Vision.

According to reports, there is about 10 minutes of Thor material that was cut.

 

The whole scene with Klaw where Ultron quotes Stark seemed to stand out to me nd the entire movie I was thinking they might expand on that thread of plot but they never did.  That really stuck with me because they never really addressed it past that scene or explained it in any more detail.  It just seemed like a half finished thought and to be honest a lot of the movie felt like that.

See, I thought that Stark and Banner found Ultron already present as an AI inside the scepter. Stark just thinks he can harness or use the AI he found inside the scepter.

Yeah that was my take, too.  Since stark says, "Look what's in the scepter" when he pulls up the diagram of the program next to Jarvis.

No, Stark is trying to meld the AI in the Mind Gem with his own work on Jarvis and the Iron Legion. He specifically says that - that's what the unsuccessful tests were that he left Jarvis to continue while they went to the party.

Right...but there is an AI in the Mind Gem. Which was already there. Right?

Which is kind of interesting.

It wouldn't be much of a Mind Gem if it didn't have a mind in it.

 :headscratch:

The Mind Gem is just a thing that has power over minds. Doesn't have to have a mind in it.

I agree with this.  There is an AI in the gem.

There is a 'computer' with code for AI ... that is what they integrate.  It is unclear that there is a mind with a personality in the gem.

Shows how much I know.

A wizard did it.

Finally got around to seeing this, and while I liked the first Avengers movie more, it was a good action romp.  It seems like it should have been longer - there was just so much shit that's clearly just setup for future movies that got pulled in so everything seems super rushed.  That said, I'm just glad that Paul Bettany is doing onscreen work in these movies now, instead of just voicing JARVIS - I've always liked him, even when he's doing tripe like Wimbledon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360201/), let alone good stuff like Master and Commander or Margin Call.

Great movie. Can't wait for the douijn.

Rather than blaming Marvel for cutting the movie why not blame Whedon for writing an overstuffed movie that needed to be cut?

Marvel isn't going to cut out a bunch of set piece minutes. We know this, Whedon knows this. In fact Whedon knows what the set pieces are before he even starts writing the movie. (The storyboard / previs for the major set pieces in Avengers 1 were done before Whedon started the script!)

I've seen "AoU" twice. The second time it was very clear how much overkill the Avengers were against HYDRA at the start. Iron Man or Thor could have taken on the entire HYDRA force by themselves. It was like watching a SWAT unit take on a boy scout troupe.

Anyway...

I liked it better than the first "Avengers", but that's not really much praise from me. It's action packed, keeps moving along and has some good performances from Spader and (for his short time) Bettany. The Whedon-esque quips didn't really work over the full stretch of the movie though.

I could pick at pieces of the movie - and all the praise of "the Avengers save civillians!" I've seen in some places is overwrought, given how that actually happens - but it's a film designed to move from set piece to set piece. It also re-uses a number of plot events from the first "Avengers" and hopes we don't notice.

Not as good as "Winter Soldier".

Ding! Ding! Ding!

It's another way to blame the evil, faceless corporation for corrupting the vision of the noble auteur.  I just don't understand why viewers still swallow that awful excuse.

It's not one or the other, that's over simplifying it.  Whedon bears some responsibility but the movie was frankly, bigger than him. and you'd need to have your head in the sand to not acknowledge that. The studio likely strong armed him on a lot of things but the main problem is that it's near impossible to have a movie so bloated with main characters and come out flawed and that's the fault of basically everyone.

As a writer, I can easily see how one could write so much that another entity (or collective entity - i.e. the studio) could decide that parts of what was written were too much. And even though Whedon wrote the script, I can also say that it's a whole lot different reading/writing something in your head and then seeing or hearing it in person. What might work on the page just doesn't on screen, and the reverse is true - little moments you don't think about a lot on the page turn into magic on the screen. The faceless corporate executive gets the blame because he isn't thinking about the story, he's thinking about things like running time, production costs and potential PR snafus. Each has their own set of priorities and "good movie" is a lot different set of priorities than "profitable movie." You can make your own value judgement about which is better or worse.

I think considering the size of the cast, requirements for certain story beats and certain amount of set piece action scenes, he did a fantastic job. I never felt rushed or bloated and I thought each character got enough moments in the spotlight. He actually wove them all into it pretty deftly, knowing that the big 3 characters really didn't need a lot of character development since they had their own movies for that so he was able to weave the non-solo movie characters in better than in the first one.

I look forward to seeing the director's cut because I think it can only help the movie. On reflection, I put it below Cap 2 and Guardians in my Marvel movies spectrum, but above Avengers 1 and IM 1.

IMHO - Cut 50% of the combats and add back that much of the movie that was dropped on the editing room floor and you'd have a better movie (assuming that it is of good quality).  Set piece fights are cool and fun, but they need the glue of a story or they get boring.  In particular, I'd have:

Yeah,

Ultron Prime was tougher than the 'tin foil' Ultrons.  He went through a few 'prime' Ultrons in the movie (even destroying one of them himself). 

Ultron is able to come back if even a little bit of his "mind" is around somewhere.  As for his bodies they are all different and each incarnation has had different powers/weaknesses.  It's one of the ways they manage to keep him kinda fresh in the comics. 

Also Cap is pretty bad ass in the comics and has taken down people that he shouldn't have had a chance against.  It's not just his physical abilities and the shield but also his sheer force of will.

Meh, super hero comics usually have to reconcile its vast collection of popular but street level heroes with a universe literally choking with super powers. So writers started making knowing martial arts a super power (not a super power, the best super power). Literally, like black panther can put the silver surfer in an arm bar. Which is why marvel been masturbating over spiderman joining the avengers. He is the perfect combination of "martial arts" and "super powers" that he can literally be in any situation and he comes out the plucky underdog hero, even if the guy can chuck cars at snipers located several miles away and hiding on the 20th floor.

Well, if you are a street level hero you pretty much have to know how to fight.  I think that's just a given.  Martial Arts is just all around a better vehicle to show off abilities then a straight boxer/brawling style.  Spidey isn't a true martial artist though, one of his things is his improvisational fighting style.  He's not Deadpool unpredictable but Parker made up his fighting abilities as he went along... well til he was trained by Cap.  Spidey, to me at least, is more about his personality then his powers and fighting ability.  I really hope we get to see the annoying wise cracking Peter Parker on the big screen.

Wait, what ?

Are you saying that Cap was throwaway in Avengers 1 ?

Regarding Ultron's motivation in this movie:

Yes--and

Um, yeah, that's all fairly clear.

Well

Maybe not throwaway, but he could be taken out of "Avengers" and not be hugely missed.

 - He discovers what SHIELD is up to after Tony Stark.

 - He's held off on the Helicarrier's damaged engine by a mook with a gun.

 - His major contribution to the Thor vs Iron Man fight is providing a giant bell.

 - He's got a bit where he saves people, but it's less played on than Black Widow's role (and arguably she's more proactive during the battle) or Hulk doing things.

In the attempt to give all characters some time, CapAm got squeezed out in the role he was meant to serve. Iron Man is defacto team leader, other Avengers are more effective fighters and being the team's moral compass didn't really come into play. Plus his costume looked weak in the film.

It really took until "Winter Solider" to give CapAm some substance.

I don't agree.

I agree with the Scots disagreement.

"That character was completely irrelevant to the plot if you take all the things they did and have someone else do them"

-Every Movie Ever

Except Indy, because the outcome is the same with or without him.  :awesome_for_real:

You just made Sheldon assplode.  :awesome_for_real:

In Avengers 1 Cap was just a dude doing gymnastics for show.

These Superhero movies suffer from the problem where everyone needs something to do, or in Hollywood-speak, to be serviced by the plot. So in every confrontation every character has to do something relevant, in every dialogue scene every person needs a quip, etc. This is also why they are so prone to adding too many characters and going off the rails - not only do they add too many characters but then they insist that each one has to do something, so you end up with a large part of the running time dedicated to giving each character a moment rather than advancing the plot.

In A1 you could tell they were struggling with a way to make Cap stand out - they tried to make him seem like a leader / strategy guy by barking out a few orders but it didn't really work IMO.
---

I was just saying the same thing about Raiders of the Lost Ark - Jones is wholly irrelevant to basically the entire movie and doesn't figure into the conclusion at all. But it works there because when you're dealing with God the idea that some dude with a whip is going to be equally important is just silly. I suspect a lot of people would call it bad screenwriting though. (At least if you described it coyly and didn't give away that you were talking about Raiders)

I disagree, Indy saved Hitler because he destroyed the plane that was going to fly to Ark to Berlin.

Also I saw the Avengers today and it was a movie. There was an explosion at some point and I thought, "Hmmm, Mad Max did this nonstop and much better." It was better than Ironman 3. I was pissed there was no scene at the end of the credits.

Thread is too long but I saw this on the plane. Is it generally accepted it is shit? What a pile of nothing.

It was a fun popcorn action flick, Ultron had some great lines and it set up the next series of MCU movies. It does reflect a bit of an issue that Marvel as this goes on are going to need more and more 'bridge' movies that move the story from one set to the next. While they might be fun spectacles they're unlikely to stand up to rewatching and probably won't be much fun if not on a big screen.

Yeah, it was a super hero movie with super heroes doing super heroey things.  I got exactly what i expected and was satisfied with the result.  Not sure what's "shit" about it.

This. I've seen it twice in the theaters and it holds up to increased scrutiny, IMO.

Iron Man 1 remains the only MCU movie that I feel really holds up to rewatching as a "classic" movie.  The rest have all been fine, but even the first Avengers movie, which many people cite as their favorite, felt just "okay" to me on a second viewing.

I've enjoyed a rewatch of Thor, Captain America, & GotG. Might watch IM again on a slow day. Don't imagine I'd bother with any of the others.

I watched it the first time, and came away thinking it could have been better.
Then I went and watched/listened to all the spoilers and reviews that I'd been avoiding.
Then I watched it again, and it definitely held up better.
It's pretty dense, so it's easy to miss things the first time around.
This is what happens when you're trying to service the Ultron story, the Infinity Stones story, and work in the dialogue for over a dozen characters.

it wasn't shit but god damn it was bloated. Trying to do this entire story in a 2:30 hour movie I think was a mistake but I'm not sure how else they could have done it.  It was fun but left me thinking that it could have been done better.

Well the original run time was 170 minutes and they chopped 30 minutes of it.  I think when they had to pick and choose what they cut it lost some little things.  AoU to me is in about the middle as far as which Marvel movies I like. 

I'm in the small camp that says: If the story works better at 3:30 than 2:30, make it a 3:30 movie.  Add back an intermission if you need to do so... tell stories in the length that is good for the story and the quality of the product will give long term value worth the inconvenience.

I didn't like it because it was a big stupid superhero movie, but was presented like it was dramatic and touching and deep? I thought Thor was goofy and fun and had a sense of humor, but it was also a lot tighter focused as well. This one seemed self centered in a way other super hero movies I've seen didn't (I've only seen a couple). It felt like there were a lot of 'fan moments' pushed in for the sake of themselves, or the brand, rather then to make it a better film.

I'm not a comic or super hero movie aficionado though, so maybe that's what the audience wants? For me it felt really flat as a stand-alone experience.

Ah, I enjoyed GotG and Thor was ok, so maybe my bar was misadjusted. I thought from all the chat in f13 that most of these new marvel movies were worth a watch.

None of the movies are shit.  The ones panned the most seem to be Thor 2 and Iron Man 3, but overall they aren't horrible movies.

It's not just a matter of inconvenience and people not wanting to sit through longer movies. A 3 1/2 hour show with an intermission isn't going to fit as many showtimes on one screen (depending on a theater's business hours, at least one showing per screen is going to be lost and in some situations more).

It is. You probably shouldn't watch them as you aren't a super hero movie fan and you don't appear to like big spectacle action either. I thought it handled a whole lot of shit pretty well in a short time frame, which means it probably could have used a few more minutes to really not feel quite as breakneck.

Agreed - but I see that being an overstated problem.  Again, I know I'm in the minority in my view here, but I think they're missing something.

I see a lot of empty seats at theaters.  If you take 5 showings of a movie over a day and reduce it to 4, most of the people that would have seen it over those 5 shows will cram into the 4 showings and reduce the number of empty seats.  You lose some viewers that can't find an ideal showtime (although having it on more screens allows for a greater diversity of show times - Avengers was on 6 screens at my local suburban theater on opening weekend and there were shows starting roughly every 30 minutes), but if the quality of the movie is increased you can counter that loss with more repeat viewing and more people being drawn to watch it after hearing more praise - and for the theater, with an intermission especially, increased revenue from food sales (which is where theaters make most of their money, anyways) from the longer time in the theaters is key. 

Plus, theater experiences are not the end of the movie - TV revenue is increased for a longer film with more commercial breaks and a higher quality film gets a better legacy, resulting in more value to services like Netflix, Amazon, etc...

Clearly, Hollywood thinks I'm missing something because they've gone the other direction. 

There's a lot of behind the scenes stuff between theater chain film bookers and movie studios as far as putting together deals for number of screeens, and rental fees and such. Studios generally get a bigger cut of ticket sales early on with theaters taking a larger percentage as the movie has been out longer. I imagine this is partly what causes studios to want to front load the opening weekend as much as possible, as well as for all the potential headlines of breaking records. There are other factors as well. Depending on how many big movies are following in the weeks after, a movie can lose screens pretty rapidly. Less shows per screen also limits the amount of shows you're getting for premium shows (Imax, XD, Dbox, etc...). Theaters in smaller towns that have maybe 2-6 screens, and maybe are open shorter hours also get hit harder. There's just a ton of stuff to take into account.

Well, worth a watch if you like this type of movie would be more accurate.  Also not really a stand alone kinda experience.

I actually think GotG is the stand out film of the lot with IM and Thor as runners up. Cap series left me bored, the IM and T sequels were meh and the Avengers were fun but nothing to write home about outside of Loki and Banner.