Avengers: Age of Ultron.

[Lakov_Sanite]

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

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.

[Bunk]

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.  

[Khaldun]

[Mattemeo]

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

EDIT: fucking spoiler tags

[HaemishM]

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

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.

[eldaec]

Edit : nm, responded to the wrong page.

[MediumHigh]

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.

[jgsugden]

After 3 viewings:

[Lakov_Sanite]

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

[Ragnoros]

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.

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.

[jgsugden]

...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. 

[Khaldun]

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:

[HaemishM]

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.

[jgsugden]

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

 

[Lakov_Sanite]

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.

[Riggswolfe]

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.

[Khaldun]

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.

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.

[Merusk]

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.

[HaemishM]

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.

[Khaldun]

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

Which is kind of interesting.

[Rendakor]

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

[Khaldun]

 

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

[Tannhauser]

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.

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

[jgsugden]

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.

[Rendakor]

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

Shows how much I know.

[Abagadro]

A wizard did it.

[MisterNoisy]

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, let alone good stuff like Master and Commander or Margin Call.

[rk47]

Great movie. Can't wait for the douijn.

[Margalis]

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!)

[UnSub]

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".

[Johny Cee]

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!)

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.

[Lakov_Sanite]

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.

[HaemishM]

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.

[jgsugden]

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:

[Pennilenko]

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: