Gee, how could he have possibly gotten another suit after blowing up the first few dozen that he created from scratch...?
Avengers: Age of Ultron- Grading & Discussion (spoilerific)
- Thread starter Ethros
- Start date
We did see Tony driving off into the sunset along with some old equipment he salvaged from his Malibu pad, FWIW. The whole thing about him blowing up his suits was because ever since the Battle of New York he'd grown obsessed with them and was using them as a sort of security blanket to help him deal with his PTSD. By destroying them at the end he was proving to Pepper that he didn't need them anymore and that he was ready to move past his anxiety and devote his attention to Pepper and to other, more constructive activities.
That being said, I'm still of the opinion that Iron Man 3 can be completely skipped without missing a beat.
That being said, I'm still of the opinion that Iron Man 3 can be completely skipped without missing a beat.
You mean the ending of IM3 where Tony states unequivocally and absolutely that "I am Iron Man"? Yeah, I can see where that means he's not going to be Iron Man anymore.[/sarcasm]
Careful, don't go start confusing fact with opinion now.
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.
I agree with these points. I gave the movie a B, but with hindsight, think that was a bit generous.
I was not a fan of the Ultron storyline anyway, and am happy to see it out of the way so the MCU can get on with the Gauntlet story.
That's probably about as close to it making sense as we can hope for.
Never got the impression at the end of IM3 that Tony was giving up being Iron Man, in fact my impression was re-dedicated to it.
No, it's the writer's job to tell a good story, not to satisfy a fan's desire to have every little detail explained. If they don't feel like explaining that detail in the story, that detail can be explained elsewhere or not at all. Ultimately, it's not the priority.
Supposedly, Civil War will address it, though.
Yeah, people keep saying IM3 ended with him retiring but the closing narration and visuals show the exact opposite.
In hindsight, the part I emboldened seems almost like a direct foreshadowing of what we saw in 'Ago of Ultron'. He's basically saying the armor was only the beginning and he's now going to take it to the next level. Hence the Avengers becoming proactive instead of reactive, hence the Iron Legion and hence the Ultron Project.
The only thing I can think of is that some were confused by his getting the shrapnel and his chest reactor removed. As if that somehow gave him superpowers.
Last edited:
In my case, I think it's more that the visuals overpowered the dialogue. I don't remember anything Tony said. I remember his fears from New York and his obsession with defending the world nearly getting Pepper killed, and I remember him very cathartically blowing up all of his work in order to move on.
Well, it made him immune to Loki's scepter control. That has to count for something, right?
Unless Loki really had performance issues.
Unless Loki really had performance issues.
You mean those untested, rush job, proof of concept prototypes he made in an anxiety fuelled stretch of half crazed insomnia? There's a reason why those things got torn apart like tissue paper.
Besides, there's a big difference between packing it all in and wiping the slate clean to start over anew. Hell, he even called it the "Clean Slate Protocol." Most importantly though, he went back to get Dummy.
Well, it made him immune to Loki's scepter control. That has to count for something, right?
Unless Loki really had performance issues.
Well it's not uncommon...
Actually, it's not a little detail, it's a big one.
It's the star of the MCU, and how we last saw him.
So no, it's not a little detail.
When we last saw him, I was not under the impression that he was still fully committed to being Iron Man.
If we last see Superman depowered and living in the Fortress with Lois at the end of a Superman movie. And the next Superman starts off with him at full powers saving the world. Wouldn't you consider it a plot hole if the re-powering weren't addressed even in a small way?
Post credit scene notwithstanding, his last words in the film are "I am Iron Man". I'm not sure how that in any way could be construed as ambiguous.
Hell, the post credits scene show him having been sat narrating the whole movie to Bruce Banner in Avengers Tower. What about that says to anyone "I'm done with this super hero crap!" ?
Last edited:
Throwing his chest unti arc reactor into the ocean was at least to me that he wanted to retire. He certainly felt over his head in the first Avengers movie, fear of another invasion is caused him to think up Ultron in the first place. But then Wanda gave him a vision that had failed the Avengers because he hadn't tried hard enough. And at the end of this film he was willing to just walk away or drive away and leave Cap in charge. Other forces seem to be motivating Stark to become Iron Man now, it'll be interesting to see where they take him in the Civil War.
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.
Really went back and forth on my opinion and it took a second viewing to give it an A minus. Believe it or not, the film was more enjoyable in the second viewing once I knew about its faults. As others have stated here, the film's problems has to do with its lack of energy and fun compared to the original and Ultron himself. But it was still a fun ride.
