Avengers: Age of Ultron- Grading & Discussion (spoilerific)

[urbandefault]

^^^Meh...DOFP Quicksilver was just another wise-ass kid. I deal with wise-ass kids all day at work. I'll take AoU Quicksilver every time.

I meant the AoU one, can't keep up with everyone using abbreviations I don't know. Ugh.

DOFP?

X-Men: Days of Future Past

 

[BillJ]

^^^Meh...DOFP Quicksilver was just another wise-ass kid. I deal with wise-ass kids all day at work. I'll take AoU Quicksilver every time.

I meant the AoU one, can't keep up with everyone using abbreviations I don't know. Ugh.

DOFP?

X-Men: Days of Future Past. EDIT: Ninja'd by urbandefault.

I preferred that version of the character. They had to change him in Avengers because everyone else is a wise-ass in it.

 

[Kemaiku]

Oh, X-Men is still going.

Well yeah don't give a crap about that, AoU Quicksilver was awesome.

 

[Greg Cox]

I think he might mean a certain Wakandan King who is due to show up in Civil War.

Was that actually Wakanda we saw though? I guess I took from the line that Serkis's character got away with some of their "trade goods" that they were in a neighbouring country. Mind you there was a lot going on so I may have misheard or misunderstood something.

That aside, I know my Marvel comic knowledge is spotty at best, but isn't Wakanda supposed to be *very* technologically advanced and almost fanatically isolationist? That place just looked like a modern African nation.

^Yes, they said Wakanda about 4 times in the dialogue.

No, they said that the vibranium was from Wakanda, but they did not identify what country they were physically in; we only know it was on the coast somewhere. However, the credits identified it as Johannesburg (it identified some actors as playing Johannesburg Police), so I'm inclined to think they were in South Africa and that the vibranium had been imported from Wakanda on its way to other ports.

Exactly. They're probably going to save our first glimpse of Wakanda for the actual BLACK PANTHER movie. And it's hardly likely that Klaw would be still be working out of Wakanda after being branded as thief. His vibranium was stolen from Wakanda, but that was some other African nation in the movie.

And, gee, too bad that Klaw lost his arm. I wonder what he will replace it with?

 

[Kemaiku]

Someone mentioned that we saw Johannesburg in the movie, but that he was on the run from Wakanda where the Vibranium was stolen.

So we know it exists and that someone there is likely very pissed right now that his Vibrabnium is in the hands of Cap, SHIELD and Stark/Avengers Initiative.

 

[The Old Mixer]

A glass half-full. This film couldn't be quite the event that its predecessor was, so it had a bit of a been there, done that vibe. OTOH, it felt like the shared MCU coming into full bloom.

I like the roster, but the rationale for the others leaving was practically non-existent.

Banner and Barton were set up pretty well in that regard. Thor was returning to Asgard to set up future films. And I think RDJ has it in his contract now that every MCU film he appears in has to leave things ambiguous as to whether or not he's giving up being Iron Man.

I found myself kind of rooting for him, but not in the same way I liked Loki and wanted to see more of him, Ultron just did not seem like a villain - he had no real malice is what I'm trying to say.

Yeah, other than him being all about...

the extinction of humanity

...he was the kind of mass-murdering artificial life-form that you'd want to have a beer with.

but he had Widow at his complete mercy and could have off'ed her at any time and dealt the Avengers a grave blow, but didn't, WTF?

Perish forbid--Movie villains never do that! They should kick him out of the union!

Did anyone feel like the final battle was, on some level, a response the Man Of Steel's Metropolis destruction debate? They just put so much focus on saving civilians and its importance.

I appreciated how they not only put emphasis on the Avengers prioritizing the saving of civilians again, but even more so than before. However, for me the collapse of the skyscraper under construction back in South Africa was a little too on-the-nose 9/11. I found the relentless cityscape destruction in MoS to be gratuitous and mind-numbing, but this one building falling--even though they went out their way to establish that there were no casualties in-story--felt more...tasteless to me.

Not that it ruined the film or made me walk out in a rage, but it was an uncomfortable moment. Of course, a lot of the people now seeing these films aren't even old enough to remember 9/11.

How does this movie work with Iron man 3? Tony destroyed all the suites there, and now he has them again.

All that the end of IM3 established was that he was starting over with a "clean slate". He built new toys.

Iron Man 3, Thor 2 and Cap Winter Soldier have very minor elements which connect to Age of Ultron (IM3 - Tony's world ending fears, Thor 2. . ., Cap 2 - Falcon) but nothing major is introduced that then comes into play in AoU. And the twins being in the post credit scene for Winter Soldier don't count, because they did fuck all and theres zero backstory on them.

I'll generally agree that Phase 2 had less of a cohesive build-up, but I don't think you're giving TWS enough credit...lots of elements from that film informed this one, particularly the fall of SHIELD, the resurrection of HYDRA, and Strucker having Loki's scepter.

Captain Marvel 7

How did I miss the first six!!?!!

And it my feeling that Thanos allowed Loki to take the throne from Odin

That's an interesting thought, and would explain Thanos's access to Odin's vault.

also, i wish Falcon had more than just his cameo at the beginning and at the end. but that is just a minor nitpick really.

Yeah, he certainly could have been handy helping to evacuate the civilians when the helicarrier showed up.

lol Veronica. The way i hear it is that Betty is Banner's girlfriend and in Archie comics Veronica is the opposite of Betty, so they gave that name to the HulkBuster.

Ah! I was wondering why it was named Veronica...I never would have gotten that!

 

[Romulan_spy]

I appreciated how they not only put emphasis on the Avengers prioritizing the saving of civilians again, but even more so than before.

I think the emphasis on saving civilians fit the theme of "good vs evil" of the movie. Several times, we hear one of the Avengers refer to themselves as monsters. So there was a question on whether the Avengers are really the "good guys". And of course, Ultron's motive is to wipe out all humanity. So by having the Avengers go out of their way to save civilians, it showed that the Avengers are indeed the "good guys" because they save lives whereas Ultron destroys life. So there is a clear contrast between good and evil.

However, for me the collapse of the skyscraper under construction back in South Africa was a little too on-the-nose 9/11. I found the relentless cityscape destruction in MoS to be gratuitous and mind-numbing, but this one building falling, even though they went out their way to establish that there were no casualties in-story, felt more...tasteless to me. Not that it ruined the film or made me walk out in a rage, but it was an uncomfortable moment. Of course, a lot of the people now seeing these films aren't even old enough to remember 9/11.

Yeah, that scene bothered me, especially with how they showed civilians on the ground covered with thick dust and running just like we saw on TV when the towers fell.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Was the SHIELD agent on the helicarrier who had the "They're all full of people" line the same SHIELD agent who refused to launch the carriers in CA:TWS?

And unless maybe he didn't want to jeopardize her spot in the CIA, I would've expected Fury to recruit Sharon for this.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I appreciated how they not only put emphasis on the Avengers prioritizing the saving of civilians again, but even more so than before.

I think the emphasis on saving civilians fit the theme of "good vs evil" of the movie. Several times, we hear one of the Avengers refer to themselves as monsters. So there was a question on whether the Avengers are really the "good guys". And of course, Ultron's motive is to wipe out all humanity. So by having the Avengers go out of their way to save civilians, it showed that the Avengers are indeed the "good guys" because they save lives whereas Ultron destroys life. So there is a clear contrast between good and evil.

However, for me the collapse of the skyscraper under construction back in South Africa was a little too on-the-nose 9/11. I found the relentless cityscape destruction in MoS to be gratuitous and mind-numbing, but this one building falling, even though they went out their way to establish that there were no casualties in-story, felt more...tasteless to me. Not that it ruined the film or made me walk out in a rage, but it was an uncomfortable moment. Of course, a lot of the people now seeing these films aren't even old enough to remember 9/11.

Yeah, that scene bothered me, especially with how they showed civilians on the ground covered with thick dust and running just like we saw on TV when the towers fell.

Joss Whedon did give an interview and he said talked about how him and Kevin Feige decided to go about showing destruction in their films.
http://www.vulture.com/2015/04/how-man-of-steel.html


I wouldn't say they had MOS specifically in mind but if you looked at Transformers 3 and 4, Pacific Rim, Star Trek Into Darkness, Godzilla (2014),Guardians of the Galaxy and even Avengers (2012) to an extent, you can see a trend.

However, Joss Whedon said in 2013 that he was avoiding watching MOS, because he didn't want to be influenced by it when making AoU. When you watch Hulk fight Hulk Buster though, it has many parallels the Superman vs Zod fight. Granted that has more to do with the power levels of the respective characters at play, but there is a lot of overlap in terms of visual and visceral imagery.



With the SHIELD hellicarrier and the evacuation , it felt a little too self congratulatory IMO. Not bad, but it's so obvious TPTB at Marvel Studious want to illustrate that there are/were no casualties in the MCU movies. Even the pets made it out ok.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Anyone get the vibe that they were setting up Banner for a solo film, or perhaps a role in someone else's non-Avengers film? Seems like they put him exactly where they'd want him for that...back out on his own, on the run, outside of the buddy system comfort zone he'd established with the Avengers.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Anyone get the vibe that they were setting up Banner for a solo film, or perhaps a role in someone else's non-Avengers film? Seems like they put him exactly where they'd want him for that...back out on his own, on the run, outside of the buddy system comfort zone he'd established with the Avengers.

I think that was more, get Banner away from everyone, so Civil War can be a fair fight.

It happened in the comics too. Both Banner and Hulk missed the event. In the comics, Thor would've been on Steve's side, and Banner would've been on Tony's side. In the comics, Thor was doing his Ragnorok storyline, while Banner was on Planet Hulk.


Unfortunately, we won't be getting a Planet Hulk movie.

 

[intrinsical]

Anyone get the vibe that they were setting up Banner for a solo film, or perhaps a role in someone else's non-Avengers film? Seems like they put him exactly where they'd want him for that...back out on his own, on the run, outside of the buddy system comfort zone he'd established with the Avengers.

http://collider.com/new-hulk-solo-movie-mark-ruffalo-says-universal-owns-the-rights/

As you can see from the article above, Mark Ruffalo said that rights for Hulk still belongs to Universal. So chances for a Hulk movie is slim, at least for now.

 

[Turtletrekker]

^Distribution rights. Marvel could still make a Hulk movie, but they'd have to share the pot with Universal, which is unlikely to happen.

 

[FPAlpha]

Was the SHIELD agent on the helicarrier who had the "They're all full of people" line the same SHIELD agent who refused to launch the carriers in CA:TWS?

And unless maybe he didn't want to jeopardize her spot in the CIA, I would've expected Fury to recruit Sharon for this.

Yes i believe he was. I immediately recognized him because the scene in Winter Soldier was so awesome and he played the "scared shitless but still having the guts to say no" very well ( Cap would have been very proud of him and probably the reason why he got hired back in the first place).

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Anyone get the vibe that they were setting up Banner for a solo film, or perhaps a role in someone else's non-Avengers film? Seems like they put him exactly where they'd want him for that...back out on his own, on the run, outside of the buddy system comfort zone he'd established with the Avengers.

http://collider.com/new-hulk-solo-movie-mark-ruffalo-says-universal-owns-the-rights/

As you can see from the article above, Mark Ruffalo said that rights for Hulk still belongs to Universal. So chances for a Hulk movie is slim, at least for now.

^Distribution rights. Marvel could still make a Hulk movie, but they'd have to share the pot with Universal, which is unlikely to happen.

This issue over rights came up last year, when a person asked a Marvel Exec why there were no DOFP toys but tons of GOTG ones. In so many words, it came down to profits. Marvel/Disney has to share the profits it makes with Fox and Sony when it comes to merchandising. Sony worked out a deal but Fox never did or presumably never worked out a deal that Marvel/Disney would agree to. And that's just over toys, backpacks and clothing.

Marvel/Disney doesn't want to share with anyone I guess.

 

[Corran Horn]

I liked it better then the first one. Mostly because Ulton was a more likable villain. Although his motivations were not clear (from "I need to protect humanity" to "I want humanity to evolve" to flat out "I will just kill everyone").

Did anyone feel like the final battle was, on some level, a response the Man Of Steel's Metropolis destruction debate? They just put so much focus on saving civilians and its importance.

Whedon said that him and Feige talked about the level of destruction and how to portray it on screen.

http://www.vulture.com/2015/04/how-man-of-steel.html

I haven't seen the movie yet but from all the reviews I've read, they all say there is a pronounced emphasis on the Avengers saving people. I'm not sure if this effects the pass of the final battle, can someone else comment? From what I've read, it sounds like AoU is another Battle of the Five Armies. A film that is one long action scene.

Tony also mentions buying the building he destroyed taking down Hulk (at least that's what it sounded like he said) and something like the "Stark Recovery Foundation" is also mentioned.

 

[DEWLine]

Stark Foundation(?) was indeed mentioned. So yeah, Tony's taking point to a large extent on "making (others) whole" as much as he can in the wake of this.

 

[The Old Mixer]

There were lots of bits of dialogue that I didn't catch in this one. I look forward to watching it with captions on someday.

 

[Skywalker]

So.... How do we feel about the two Quicksilvers?
Who did you like best?

Age of Ultron

Or

Days of Future Past

I actually prefer AoU's Quicksilver by a fair amount. DoFP Quicksilver had a fun scene, but that was about it. And he was too fast, if that makes any sense. Time essentially stopped around him when he ran, whereas in AoU Quicksilver was still crazy fast, but I never felt like he was so fast that he could essentially solve all of the problems in the movie singlehandedly, which DoFP's Quicksilver could have done had the X-Men decided to bring him along to Paris.

I also thought AoU's take was a much better adaptation of the character himself, in terms of background, attitude, and personality. DoFP's was just a quirky, fast-talking kleptomaniac.

 

[Corran Horn]

When AoU Quicksilver is shot by friendly fire it reminded me of the kitchen scene in DoFP.