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

[Theophilus]

Since we are on the topic of WTF moments in the movie, mine was at the very end when Stark quit the Avengers. The movie is built around the idea that Stark is so obsessed with protecting humanity that he makes a rash decision with dreadful consequences and then he just ... QUITS?! I thought the Bruce/Natasha was a fun exploration, but Quit Man made no sense to me.

 

[Skywalker]

His whole goal is to be able to give up the hero game and go home. That was the whole reason behind the Ultron program.

 

[Trekker4747]

This might be pointless considering the 'Use your brain' and 'fake conspiracy' bull, but...

She was a woman who had made a connection with Banner and wanted more from him seeing them both as something of either outcasts or lost souls in their group. She knew Hawkeye was married with kids so he was off limits. Captain America is a Boy Scout and not only seems uninterested in relationships likely they'd butt-heads a lot in any relationship given their vastly different personalities. Tony, well, he's Tony. Not to mention he's with Pepper. Thor is a god and, presumably, already in something of a relationship. So who else in their little group is there to connect with? Banner. And given that she has the "ability" to calm The Hulk back into Banner they likely spent quite a bit of time with one another to develop the technique and that likely required something of an emotional connection.

Great observation. How is anyone not getting that?

How is that a great observation? Natasha doesn't have any other options, so she has to get together with Banner? Why?
And why does the connection have to be romantic? Why, if there has to be a new romance, does it have to be Natasha? (Well that one I know why, it's because she's the only main female character)

She's smart, not stupid, She knew she was out-manned and out-gunned in Ultron's captivity and any attempt at escape would have been suicide.

All true, but to please certain members of the fake controversy / "offended" set, she should have been invincible--incapable of capture, and certainly not needing the help of a man.

Considering how popular CA:TWS is in terms of her character, where she's shot and bleeding, has the rug completely pulled out from under her multiple times, and often has to be saved by Steve, I'm not sure where you get this idea that Nat should be 'invincible'. That's not the problem.

The problem I have with the kidnapping is that, on top of everything else, Natasha is now thrust into the role of damsel in distress, waiting on her boyfriend to save her. That's literally the context that this bit of plot was built around. Sure, she's able to get a message out using the bits of tech left in her cell (which, why did Ultron leave them in there again?) to help save the day, but how is that functionally different from Rapunzel letting down her hair? Banner is still the one to come along and rescue her.

Just to be clear, damsels in distress who help save themselves are fine. So is a character being a mother figure, or a woman in a relationship. It's when you suddenly make your one main female character, regardless of what we've known about her before, a mother, lover and damsel all in one film, while including a plot point about how she can't have kids and bringing up this plot point in a scene where she calls herself a monster, that things get too much.

It's the 21st Century, what do you think is more likely: A major motion picture studio calls a woman a monster because she's barren or she called herself a monster because of her training and what she's been through and her sterilization is a sticking point for her and the scene was just worded/interpreted poorly?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

How is that a great observation? Natasha doesn't have any other options, so she has to get together with Banner? Why?
And why does the connection have to be romantic? Why, if there has to be a new romance, does it have to be Natasha? (Well that one I know why, it's because she's the only main female character)

They want a romance for the character, so why not have it with someone she has some sort of connection to? Moreover, why not Natasha? The actress is popular so it natural to play on that with the time-honored romance plot with a main female character?

I'm not sure where you get this idea that Nat should be 'invincible'. That's not the problem.

You are misreading. It is others looking to be "offended" by the character needing the help of a man who believe she should be invincible.

The problem I have with the kidnapping is that, on top of everything else, Natasha is now thrust into the role of damsel in distress, waiting on her boyfriend to save her. That's literally the context that this bit of plot was built around. Sure, she's able to get a message out using the bits of tech left in her cell

(which, why did Ultron leave them in there again?)

It is called convenience of plotting. It is the same reason R2-D2 can be taken as a droid for Jabba's palace, but no one thought to scan a droid connected to a threat to see if he was either outfitted with, or concealing weapons--which he was. One would think a galaxy-spanning crime lord would be more security minded about that, but the plot required such a convenience, so one either accepts that, or they do not.

how is that functionally different from Rapunzel letting down her hair? Banner is still the one to come along and rescue her.

In Winter Soldier, was it some sort of problem for Sam to have his butt kicked by Rumlow, only to have to be rescued from a situation he could not handle / escape on his own?

Calm, "injustice"-free minds would say no, as this is an action/superhero film, and I know its shocking, but some characters will get into trouble that is beyond their own skill, so it can lead to a heroic resuce.

Just to be clear, damsels in distress who help save themselves are fine. So is a character being a mother figure, or a woman in a relationship. It's when you suddenly make your one main female character, regardless of what we've known about her before, a mother, lover and damsel all in one film, while including a plot point about how she can't have kids and bringing up this plot point in a scene where she calls herself a monster, that things get too much.

Human beings are complex, and do not have to fit into neat, preconceived notions about what is "right" for a female character. The "monster" reference was clear considering how her professional life has been built on screen, but that does not divorce her from other parts of her being that include damsel, lover, etc.

 

[Theophilus]

His whole goal is to be able to give up the hero game and go home. That was the whole reason behind the Ultron program.

Exactly! His goal isn't met! He had a vision about all the Avengers being dead with Earth looming in the back. Thor leaves to investigate the infinity stone mess, Cap starts to train the new heroes and Tony Stark ... quits. It doesn't add anything to the story and it doesn't setup Civil War because he just quits. WTF.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

That wasn't Wakanda.

Do we really think the Panther would allow the Hulk and Iron Man to tear apart a major city without intervening?

All the movie says is that, once upon a time, Klaw stole some vibranium from Wakanda. No way was he still operating out of there.

I doubt if T'Challa could have done anything to stop the fight between the Hulk and Iron Man were he there. Since he's scheduled to be in Civil War I guess find out if that Wakanda or not.

Dude, you never addressed the last point (brought up twice now). Why would T'Challa let him still operate in Wakanda?

I'd also pointed out that he said he smuggled out the Vibranium.

Finally, as I said, the credits specifically identified the police officers as Johannesburg cops. Your thoughts on that one?

 

[Greg Cox]

That wasn't Wakanda.

Do we really think the Panther would allow the Hulk and Iron Man to tear apart a major city without intervening?

All the movie says is that, once upon a time, Klaw stole some vibranium from Wakanda. No way was he still operating out of there.

I doubt if T'Challa could have done anything to stop the fight between the Hulk and Iron Man were he there. Since he's scheduled to be in Civil War I guess find out if that Wakanda or not.

Dude, you never addressed the last point (brought up twice now). Why would T'Challa let him still operate in Wakanda?

I'd also pointed out that he said he smuggled out the Vibranium.

Finally, as I said, the credits specifically identified the police officers as Johannesburg cops. Your thoughts on that one?

Exactly. He smuggled it out of Wakanda, not he's running a smuggling operation in Wakanda.

There is no ambiguity to be resolved here. That was not Wakanda.

 

[Rowan Sjet]

It's the 21st Century, what do you think is more likely: A major motion picture studio calls a woman a monster because she's barren or she called herself a monster because of her training and what she's been through and her sterilization is a sticking point for her and the scene was just worded/interpreted poorly?

I think it's more likely it was written stupidly, but 1) That's still on the writer for being stupid, and 2) It might not be just stupidity, because in the 21st Century a lot of shit still stinks.

How is that a great observation? Natasha doesn't have any other options, so she has to get together with Banner? Why?
And why does the connection have to be romantic? Why, if there has to be a new romance, does it have to be Natasha? (Well that one I know why, it's because she's the only main female character)

They want a romance for the character, so why not have it with someone she has some sort of connection to? Moreover, why not Natasha? The actress is popular so it natural to play on that with the time-honored romance plot with a main female character?

Because that sort of blasé attitude is not the kind you should have when writing a character well?

I'm not sure where you get this idea that Nat should be 'invincible'. That's not the problem.

You are misreading. It is others looking to be "offended" by the character needing the help of a man who believe she should be invincible.

Let me restate more clearly. I'm not sure where you get this idea that other people think Nat should be 'invincible', especially since I just listed a few reasons why they wouldn't.

It is called convenience of plotting. It is the same reason R2-D2 can be taken as a droid for Jabba's palace, but no one thought to scan a droid connected to a threat to see if he was either outfitted with, or concealing weapons--which he was. One would think a galaxy-spanning crime lord would be more security minded about that, but the plot required such a convenience, so one either accepts that, or they do not.

Well, I'm glad we agree they're both dumb. (Though at least one can be explained with technobabble, the other's just common sense! )

how is that functionally different from Rapunzel letting down her hair? Banner is still the one to come along and rescue her.

In Winter Soldier, was it some sort of problem for Sam to have his butt kicked by Rumlow, only to have to be rescued from a situation he could not handle / escape on his own?

Calm, "injustice"-free minds would say no, as this is an action/superhero film, and I know its shocking, but some characters will get into trouble that is beyond their own skill, so it can lead to a heroic resuce.

If you can tell me what trope "guy gets in fight with Nazi, fight is interrupted when a helicarrier falls on them" falls into, I'll gladly retract this argument, and be greatly amused.

Just to be clear, damsels in distress who help save themselves are fine. So is a character being a mother figure, or a woman in a relationship. It's when you suddenly make your one main female character, regardless of what we've known about her before, a mother, lover and damsel all in one film, while including a plot point about how she can't have kids and bringing up this plot point in a scene where she calls herself a monster, that things get too much.

Human beings are complex, and do not have to fit into neat, preconceived notions about what is "right" for a female character. The "monster" reference was clear considering how her professional life has been built on screen, but that does not divorce her from other parts of her being that include damsel, lover, etc.

Ehh, Human beings are complex. Fictional characters reflect those complexities and the views of the people who create them, and those of the people who view/read them. So when you look at someone's interpretation of a character, you're seeing, as best as you can tell, what they think.

There is no ambiguity to be resolved here. That was not Wakanda.

Agreed.

 

[Reverend]

I doubt if T'Challa could have done anything to stop the fight between the Hulk and Iron Man were he there. Since he's scheduled to be in Civil War I guess find out if that Wakanda or not.

Dude, you never addressed the last point (brought up twice now). Why would T'Challa let him still operate in Wakanda?

I'd also pointed out that he said he smuggled out the Vibranium.

Finally, as I said, the credits specifically identified the police officers as Johannesburg cops. Your thoughts on that one?

Exactly. He smuggled it out of Wakanda, not he's running a smuggling operation in Wakanda.

There is no ambiguity to be resolved here. That was not Wakanda.

Indeed. Or have we forgotten that he was caught, branded and presumably kicked out on his arse?

Plus as I've mentioned before, that looked just like a modern African nation. I'd expect Wakanda to be a lot more impressive.

Either crazy advanced sci-fi, or so advanced they can afford to walk around in grass skirts, living an agrarian lifestyle. Not unlike the Asgardians in that way, though not *quite* so far along the curve.

 

[BillJ]

Isn't there a title card that says 'South Africa' on the bottom left corner of the screen as they're zooming in on the freight ships? Or did I imagine that?

 

[The Old Mixer]

His whole goal is to be able to give up the hero game and go home. That was the whole reason behind the Ultron program.

Exactly! His goal isn't met! He had a vision about all the Avengers being dead with Earth looming in the back. Thor leaves to investigate the infinity stone mess, Cap starts to train the new heroes and Tony Stark ... quits. It doesn't add anything to the story and it doesn't setup Civil War because he just quits. WTF.

Perhaps it does set up CW. In this movie (a) the Avengers' main recent objective of getting back Loki's scepter had been met, and (b) Tony had just gotten a little too ambitious in his efforts to ensure world security and made a disastrous mistake that threatened the world. He probably decided that it was time to take a step back and consider other options for achieving his goals...ones that might involve taking a leadership role in world affairs while not wearing powered armor.

Also, the end of the film is analogous to the first major shake-up in the Avengers line-up back in #16, 1965. Founders Thor, Iron Man, Giant-Man, and the Wasp took a leave from the Avengers, leaving Cap in charge of his Kooky Quartet, but they remained active in their own books (though GM and the Wasp lost their spot in Tales to Astonish soon after).

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Isn't there a title card that says 'South Africa' on the bottom left corner of the screen as they're zooming in on the freight ships? Or did I imagine that?

I didn't see it, which is the only reason I think this debate still rages on.

 

[Turtletrekker]

No, it just says "African Coast".

 

[The Old Mixer]

I didn't see it, which is the only reason I think this debate still rages on.

The question on everybody's lips is: How much did Alidar Jarok know, and when did he know it?

 

[Trekker4747]

I think it's more likely it was written stupidly, but 1) That's still on the writer for being stupid, and 2) It might not be just stupidity, because in the 21st Century a lot of shit still stinks.

Yes, but Joss Whedon has a pretty good track-record when it comes to writing strong female characters. He may have worded that scene poorly but I sincerely doubt he was saying a barren woman is a monster. Which brings me to my main point, it's 21st century and as many problems as there are with the use of women in movies I think we're eons past dehumanizing them because they're unable to have children, especially when that inability is the result of some form of torture or unwilling surgical alteration. (The flashbacks show young Natasha not very willing to go through the procedure.)

I mean we can criticize all we want about Black Widow still being in a skin-tight leather/vinyl suit with a zipper that only goes up to just above her bust. Or make slim arguments on the "damsel in distress" trope (but, again, under the circumstances she was pretty legitimately captured with little means of escape on her own means.) Hell, we can be totally crazy and say how much she's just a eye-blinking, love-struck, moron whenever she's around Banner. Though I don't agree with any of those things -I think BW was well handled in the movie and see no feminist use or tropes with her character, especially compared to so many other movies and how they treat women- they make a lot more sense than calling a woman a monster for being unable to have children.

That's just really, deeply, looking for things to pick on the movie about when it comes to how it treats women. Here we have a strong female character in the movie who actually contributes quite a bit to the events over the course of it and we get glimpses at her darker past and we also see her being the one to be the aggressor in pursuing a relationship rather than the recipient of advancements.

The movie makers did all of that but, at the same, time she's a monster because she's not able to have children? Doesn't add up.

There's lots of problems with the use of females in movies, the Avengers doesn't have any of them. At least not the stronger ones.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Nutjob fringe groups love to go after high-profile films in popular franchises to bring attention to themselves. I remember when Attack of the Clones was supposed to be racist propaganda against Mexican immigration....

 

[Trekker4747]

Nutjob fringe groups love to go after high-profile films in popular franchises to bring attention to themselves. I remember when Attack of the Clones was supposed to be racist propaganda against Mexican immigration....

I don't get me wrong, I consider myself a feminist and I think there's a lot of problems with the way women are treated in society and in the media, but I'm not seeing it here.

The movie "Furious 7," well really most of the F&F movies, treat their female characters well. They're treated as capable drivers in the racing group/Quasi-A-Team and capable fighters in brutal-looking fights that are not common to girl-on-girl fights in movies. (No hair-pulling, slapping, screeching, flailing) So some points there. But, at the same time they can be highly criticized for their use of female extras and crowd-fillers. Who are often very scantly dressed with camera angles boarding on gynecological and/or proctology exams.

So lot's of blame there.

But a woman shows interest in a man? She shows some emotional response to having her ability to bare children removed? She's captured by a powerful murder-bot and she doesn't try and to instantly escape? Yeah. Not seeing any sexism there.

 

[DWF]

I still wouldn't mind seeing Natasha in a bikini. Still I found it oddly amusing that while Natasha can't have children, in real life Scarlet got pregnant during the filming of the movie.

 

[Trekker4747]

I still wouldn't mind seeing Natasha in a bikini. Still I found it oddly amusing that while Natasha can't have children, in real life Scarlet got pregnant during the filming of the movie.

I wouldn't mind it either, ScarJo is gorgeous. (And having sexual desires and attractions isn't sexist.) I too found it interesting to have Natasha's little scene there and knowing ScarJo was pregnant while filming part of the movie. I wonder what her emotions where when filming those scenes.

 

[Theophilus]

His whole goal is to be able to give up the hero game and go home. That was the whole reason behind the Ultron program.

Exactly! His goal isn't met! He had a vision about all the Avengers being dead with Earth looming in the back. Thor leaves to investigate the infinity stone mess, Cap starts to train the new heroes and Tony Stark ... quits. It doesn't add anything to the story and it doesn't setup Civil War because he just quits. WTF.

Perhaps it does set up CW. In this movie (a) the Avengers' main recent objective of getting back Loki's scepter had been met, and (b) Tony had just gotten a little too ambitious in his efforts to ensure world security and made a disastrous mistake that threatened the world. He probably decided that it was time to take a step back and consider other options for achieving his goals...ones that might involve taking a leadership role in world affairs while not wearing powered armor..

You're right and a couple of lines of dialogue from Stark when he gets into his car would have established that in the story. Even some minor disagreement about something with Cap. But we don't get it and we're left to speculate. We don't have to speculate about what Cap, Thor, Hulk, Widow, Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Vision are doing right when the movie ends. It seemed bizarre that Stark just learned the value of working "together", as he even says, but he quits the Avengers for no direct or indirect reason. It's an unnecessarily weird story choice in my opinion.