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

[EnriqueH]

But again, it should not be up to interpretation.

If the writers are doing their job, it should be CLEAR.

Well, we're in somewhat uncharted territories with this whole cinematic universe thing. Many film critics will insist that each movie most be considered and evaluated purely on its own content, not taking into account the rest of their series. The San Francisco Chronicle's Mick Lasalle, for example, gave The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part I a terrible review on the basis that it didn't tell a full story. He knew full well the filmmakers only intended to tell half a story, of course, but he didn't care, and rated the movie as though there would be no Part II. I don't fully agree with that reasoning, but he's consistent about it, so I respect his stance.

By that line of thinking, Whedon had zero responsibility to fill in the gaps between his movie and the end of IM3. You're saying he had full responsibility. Myself, I fall a bit in the middle. I would have liked to see AoU open with a half-hour of character introductions again, picking up each Avenger's story from where they left off and showing them assemble once more, but Whedon was obviously more interested in telling his Ultron story, which he'd wanted to do since the first movie. I didn't find said story very compelling, but that was clearly his/the movie's aim.

Personally, I get the impression that each film is given a certain amount of free story telling and a certain amount of required setup and IM3 very crucially screwed up that balance. Every source seems to indicate that Iron Man was always supposed to remain Iron Man, yet the amount of confusion on the subject makes it very clear that the ending as written did a piss poor job of conveying that.

Personally I really liked that this movie started already fully in motion and we didn't have to sit around waiting for the band to get back together again before the story could start, so from that pov, I'm more inclined to blame IM3 for this particular plot hole than AOU. Especially since - with the ridiculous amount of setup already packed into this film - I'm not sure it would've been fair to turn around and say they also have to alter the story to explicitly clarify IM3's poor ending as well.

On the other hand, I can understand if someone says that since the other movie failed to convey the idea, it needed to be addressed, period. I suppose it all comes down to what is more important in your eyes - smoothing over continuity problems between films or allowing individual films to tell their own story unburdened by the mistakes made in previous films.

That's an interesting thought, but I still blame Avengers 2 because IM3 (which I recall being well-received), set it up for Avengers 2, and so it was up to Avengers 2 to take the ball and run with it.

Otherwise, why make it the MCU? Why all the care and attention to detail in connecting these stories in the MCU? Just to be able to switch it off for Avengers 2?

You could have started Avengers 2 precisely as it did, with a great action sequence, but involve War Machine and have your "Safe House scene" involve returning Tony Stark to the action. Or maybe you could have Tony Stark earlier, but in a more advisory capacity.

It doesn't have to be a drawn out thing, but Stark walking away was a definite major development for Stark (again, the friggin' star of the whole damn franchise), and to have it virtually ignored seemed careless and sloppy.

But as I mentioned before, Tony Stark isn't the only character that somehow devolved. He just happens to stick out like a sore thumb because he is the star of the MCU and IM3 was very well received .

The difference between IM3 and A2 is quite glaring, making me feel that IM3 was expendable and meaningless. Whether you blame IM3 or Avengers 2, doesn't matter, because either way, it's a slight kink in MCU's armor, which was ironclad until now.

Once again, to clarify: I liked the movie overall, but the franchise is now showing some vulnerability for the first time in a long time.

In fact, I wold say MCU: Phase II was damn near flawless: IM3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, Guardians of the Galaxy---there's very little way I think those movies could be any better executed than they were. FLAWLESSLY executed...until it's climax in Avengers 2.

Unfortunately.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Having seen AoU a total of 3 times. I want to say that, AoU does feel like a huge filler movie. More of a set up for the Phase 3 films, rather than a conclusion to the Phase 2 films. With the exception of Jane and Pepper, everyone from Phase 2 was in attendance, but the story didn't have anything to do with the individual stories of Phase 2. Minus the thinly veiled stuff with the infinity Stones. Which are not unfamiliar to fans of the comics, but would be lost on the general audience.

 

[EnriqueH]

Yeah, A2 definitely felt like padding. Kinda like Iron Man 2.

Fortuantely, there hasn't been a flat out bad MCU movie, but I really expected A2 to have been more polished than it was.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Padding and set-up movie are more or less the opposites. Both may be valid criticisms, but don't confuse the two. Iron Man 2 has been criticized for trying too hard to set up the MCU (although, to be honest, it's the Demon in a Bottle story that drags), but that's not a filler. A filler is a standalone story that has no greater ties. Iron Man 3 is the closest to a standalone story. It references what came before, but doesn't lead to what comes next (for the fist time, the post-credits scene isn't a prelude of things to come).

Personally, as connected as all these stories are, each stands alone judged on its own merits. If it's a good story, that's all that matters. If Captain America: Civil War explains the gap between Iron Man 3 and Age of Ultron (as it is stated it will) than all of that criticism should go away. Ultimately, it's how the story elements worked or didn't work that matters.

 

[JD]

Having seen AoU a total of 3 times. I want to say that, AoU does feel like a huge filler movie. More of a set up for the Phase 3 films, rather than a conclusion to the Phase 2 films. With the exception of Jane and Pepper, everyone from Phase 2 was in attendance, but the story didn't have anything to do with the individual stories of Phase 2. Minus the thinly veiled stuff with the infinity Stones. Which are not unfamiliar to fans of the comics, but would be lost on the general audience.

As much as I loved the movie, I kind of have to agree here. Other than Thor being on Earth, and S.H.I.E.L.D. being gone, this one did feel a lot more disconnected from the earlier movies than I expected. The first Avengers really felt like it did a good job of tying the events of the movies before it together, but the whole Ultron story didn't really connect as directly connected to earlier movies as Loki's story in the first one.

As for the debate over the end of IM3, my memory of it isn't that clear, but I do remember thinking that it meant he had dealt with the issues from that movie, not that he had completely given up being Iron Man. I do think it did start him on the road to giving it up, which we saw continue some in AoU.

 

[EnriqueH]

Padding and set-up movie are more or less the opposites. Both may be valid criticisms, but don't confuse the two. Iron Man 2 has been criticized for trying too hard to set up the MCU.

That's funny because when I finished watching A2, the movie that IMMEDIATELY came to mind was IM2.

Both were good movies, but a notch below the first, and had a padded, less alive feel to them.

Personally, as connected as all these stories are, each stands alone judged on its own merits. If it's a good story, that's all that matters. If Captain America: Civil War explains the gap between Iron Man 3 and Age of Ultron (as it is stated it will) than all of that criticism should go away. Ultimately, it's how the story elements worked or didn't work that matters.

You kinda contradict yourself here. You say they should be judged on their own merits but then say criticism of A2 should go away when Cap2 explains what went on between IM3 and A2.

Personally, I think that's weak. It was up to A2 to explain what happened to Stark since we last saw him. But it didn't. Instead, there were some superfluous moments in the Safe House.

They really should've started A2 with War Machine, instead of Stark. It would've made things simpler with potentially more dramatic punch. I'm not saying Downey Jr. needed to be like Charlton Heston in "Beneath the Planet of the Apes", but there should've been some explanation or development of what happened to Stark in IM3.

They've made a big deal to connect these stories into something cohesive and epic, so they should've followed through. And an Avengers movie is the place to do it.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

You kinda contradict yourself here. You say they should be judged on their own merits but then say criticism of A2 should go away when Cap2 explains what went on between IM3 and A2.

Well, I said Cap3 (not Cap2) would probably address those criticisms, which means, those who think a movie universe should explain every last detail will have their wish. I personally don't. But, once Cap3 comes out, I don't see why it would be a valid criticism of AoU.

 

[EnriqueH]

Well, I said Cap3 (not Cap2) would probably address those criticisms, which means, those who think a movie universe should explain every last detail will have their wish. I personally don't. But, once Cap3 comes out, I don't see why it would be a valid criticism of AoU.

Sorry, but you make it sound like a minor point.

It isn't.

Unless you consider character development for the star of the show minor...

 

[The Old Mixer]

All the makers of AoU are guilty of is not drawing the same conclusion from the ambiguous ending of IM3 as you did.

 

[Gaith]

They really should've started A2 with War Machine, instead of Stark. It would've made things simpler with potentially more dramatic punch. I'm not saying Downey Jr. needed to be like Charlton Heston in "Beneath the Planet of the Apes", but there should've been some explanation or development of what happened to Stark in IM3.

I really like that idea; Tony having to suit up again because he created/unleashed Ultron would have been a lot more satisfying in that regard.

 

[Mr Light]

That would have worked great. Tony only appears as a civilian consultant working in the lab with Banner to create Ultron, THEN suits up. The Iron Legion would still be in the first sequence, you could have had War Machine instead. It basically doesn't change anything structurally to the story, while giving a greater character movement for Tony and being more consistent with IM3.

 

[Aldo]

Well, I said Cap3 (not Cap2) would probably address those criticisms, which means, those who think a movie universe should explain every last detail will have their wish. I personally don't. But, once Cap3 comes out, I don't see why it would be a valid criticism of AoU.

Sorry, but you make it sound like a minor point.

It isn't.

It is a minor point, because you're the only one that can't see that Stark did not quit at the end of Iron Man 3. He just started a clean slate.

We can infer that in between the end of Iron Man 3 and the beginning of AOU he had time to put together a lot more suits under his "Clean Slate" initiative.

 

[theenglish]

Well, I said Cap3 (not Cap2) would probably address those criticisms, which means, those who think a movie universe should explain every last detail will have their wish. I personally don't. But, once Cap3 comes out, I don't see why it would be a valid criticism of AoU.

Sorry, but you make it sound like a minor point.

It isn't.

It is a minor point, because you're the only one that can't see that Stark did not quit at the end of Iron Man 3. He just started a clean slate.

We can infer that in between the end of Iron Man 3 and the beginning of AOU he had time to put together a lot more suits under his "Clean Slate" initiative.

How can you think he quit at the end of IM3. Isn't the last line something like "I am Iron Man" and then in the credits it says something close to "Iron Man will return".

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Well, I said Cap3 (not Cap2) would probably address those criticisms, which means, those who think a movie universe should explain every last detail will have their wish. I personally don't. But, once Cap3 comes out, I don't see why it would be a valid criticism of AoU.

Sorry, but you make it sound like a minor point.

It isn't.

Unless you consider character development for the star of the show minor...

Reverend already posted the dialogue that made it clear that Stark had no intention of quitting being Iron-Man; on the contrary he was recommitted in the role and it was inseparable from him as a person:

"And so, as Christmas morning began, my journey was at its end. You start with something pure. Something exciting. Then come the mistakes, the compromises. We create our own demons. As promised, I got Pepper sorted out. Took a little tinkering. But then I thought "why stop there?" Of course there are people who say progress is dangerous, but then I bet none of those idiots ever had to live with a chest full of shrapnel. And now, neither will I. Let me tell you: that was the best sleep I'd had in years. So if I were to wrap this up tight with a bow or whatever, I guess I'd say my armor, it was never a distraction or a hobby, it was a cocoon. And now, I'm a changed man. You can take away my house, all my tricks and toys. One thing you can't take away...I am Iron Man."

If that's not convincing enough, watch the video:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxtOUbgz6x4[/yt]

He picks up his screwdriver from the wreckage of his home, and drives off with the robotic arm in tow, dedicated to rebuild anew and better than before.

Then in the after-credits sequence we see him unpacking his emotional journey on a bored Dr. Banner in Avenger's Tower. What in any of this gives the impression that he's giving up on being Iron Man? He's more committed than ever. He just had to get rid of all the extraneous suits and start over again from scratch. Get back to basics and reinvent himself and his tech.

The arc reactor protecting his heart stopped being the power source of the armored suits a long time ago, so dumping that in the sea was simply a symbolic gesture meant to signify the end of the man he once was and his rebirth as a better Iron Man. It's not about him quitting.

 

[DEWLine]

Yeah. I don't see a retirement in that closing three minutes either. Sorry.

 

[DWF]

not quite sure where you're getting that from, the arc reactors powers all of his armors. During the wood chopping scene though he still talked about giving up the battle.

 

[Tosk]

not quite sure where you're getting that from, the arc reactors powers all of his armors. During the wood chopping scene though he still talked about giving up the battle.

He means that the one on Tony's chest stopped being the only source of power for the suits. Ever since IM2 we've had suits that were powered by other means.

 

[Mage]

not quite sure where you're getting that from, the arc reactors powers all of his armors. During the wood chopping scene though he still talked about giving up the battle.

He means that the one on Tony's chest stopped being the only source of power for the suits. Ever since IM2 we've had suits that were powered by other means.

I always got the impression that the other suits have mini-reactors build in the suites, but that the suits that Tony wears are all powered by his reactor.
Then again.... Mark42 could operate without Tony in it.

 

[Rincewiend]

not quite sure where you're getting that from, the arc reactors powers all of his armors. During the wood chopping scene though he still talked about giving up the battle.

He means that the one on Tony's chest stopped being the only source of power for the suits. Ever since IM2 we've had suits that were powered by other means.

Just like in the comics...

 

[DWF]

not quite sure where you're getting that from, the arc reactors powers all of his armors. During the wood chopping scene though he still talked about giving up the battle.

He means that the one on Tony's chest stopped being the only source of power for the suits. Ever since IM2 we've had suits that were powered by other means.

No, we haven't in Iron Man 2 you can see Rhodey take out the reactor before giving it to Hammer.