# Avengers: Age of Ultron (spoilers)



## delericho (Apr 25, 2015)

Just back from this. And, yeah, it's great. Probably on a par with Thor 2 or Cap 2, but a little behind the first Avengers film.

That said, I don't think there were any stand-out lines like in the first one. The whole script is very, very good, but it's not quite as quotable.

In case you're wondering: there's a mid-credits scene, but no after-credits scene. So don't bother waiting for one!


----------



## Morrus (Apr 25, 2015)

Does a ragtag group of heroes spend the third act defending against an overwhelming that from the sky?


----------



## horacethegrey (Apr 26, 2015)

I thought it was good. Slightly better than the first film but not as good last year's _Guardians of the Galaxy_.

James Spader was great as Ultron, though his take is much different from the one in the comics. While he was an effective antagonist and suitable foil to our heroes, he still falls short of Tom Hiddleston's Loki, who was the highlight of the first film. 

So yeah, won't spoil anything here. Suffice to say that in this film we get a couple of good newcomers (Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor Johnson as the Maximoff twins), a surprising romance, and a secret about one of our Avengers that even leaves the others stumped. 

The negatives of the film I'll mention later on.

Oh... and watch out for Paul Bettany as the Vision. The best new addition to the film.


----------



## Bagpuss (Apr 27, 2015)

horacethegrey said:


> So yeah, won't spoil anything here.





[sblock]







> Oh... and watch out for Paul Bettany as the Vision. The best new addition to the film.



[/sblock]

Erm isn't that a pretty major spoiler? Although I've been avoiding the trailers before seeing the film last Friday.

I think the only thing I knew before going into the film was Ultron was in it, the twins (due to the after credits scene) and the Hulk Buster from seeing the Lego tie in.


----------



## Tonguez (Apr 27, 2015)

Vision appears at the end of one of the trailers , so not a spoiler


----------



## TarionzCousin (Apr 30, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Does a ragtag group of heroes spend the third act defending against an overwhelming that from the sky?



Duh! Although with Tony Stark's money backing them, "ragtag" might not be the adjective I would pick.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 1, 2015)

I had fun.

The stakes were decent, and I liked the heroes being heroic. But.

"*Age of Ultron*"

The age lasted about a week. As Thor would say, "Oh, that's the whole story?"


One scene I wish they'd tweaked: 

[sblock]Ultron comes flying in shooting folks in the quinjet, shoots the Hulk, and strafes onward. Hawkeye looks up and figures "I'm gonna get shot," and Quicksilver swoops in to save the day. 

But we don't have any wide shots to establish where everyone is in relation to each other, and how screwed Hawkeye is. I'd say show that there's no cover to dive to, no allies in sight to help, no possible way they can survive, and _then_ he closes his eyes and looks away. And when you cut to the close shot, you realize he's been saved.[/sblock]


----------



## Bagpuss (May 1, 2015)

RangerWickett said:


> "*Age of Ultron*"
> 
> The age lasted about a week. As Thor would say, "Oh, that's the whole story?"




Be a whole other movie if they were going to have some sort of prolonged timeline, with Ultron ruling the world. Also the solution wouldn't have been anywhere near as simple, if Ultron was across the entire planet rather than mostly in one location.

Might have been better, might have been worse, would probably have been a harder to film/script, but year didn't really feel like an Age, I doubt most of the population even noticed Ultron. 

[sblock]I would have perhaps liked to see a film where Ultron starts out as benevolent, trying to enforce peace with an iron hand. Overtime slowly realising that it is an impossible task so comes the conclusion that humanity needs to be eliminated. Be a very different film though.[/sblock]


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2015)

None of us liked it all that much.  It felt like quite a mess, with the standard Marvel big battle ending; and the Whedon witty dialogue asides are starting to grate a little, making everybody sound the same.  It had great bits, for sure (Hulkbuster armour - though why doesn't he use that all the time, and, hey, Hulk can be knocked out with a punch now?) but the whole was kinda lacking cohesion. Mass explosions and Whedon quips.

Of the series, Cap 2 is by far the best movie, followed by Avengers 1, then Iron Man 1.


----------



## trappedslider (May 2, 2015)

Bagpuss said:


> Be a whole other movie if they were going to have some sort of prolonged timeline, with Ultron ruling the world. Also the solution wouldn't have been anywhere near as simple, if Ultron was across the entire planet rather than mostly in one location.
> 
> Might have been better, might have been worse, would probably have been a harder to film/script, but year didn't really feel like an Age, I doubt most of the population even noticed Ultron.
> 
> [sblock]I would have perhaps liked to see a film where Ultron starts out as benevolent, trying to enforce peace with an iron hand. Overtime slowly realising that it is an impossible task so comes the conclusion that humanity needs to be eliminated. Be a very different film though.[/sblock]




Well the comic line that it's based on used time travel  and two alternate Earths and a number of non-avenger characters. I enjoyed the movie enough to plan to see it again.


----------



## Kaodi (May 2, 2015)

One thing that kind of annoyed me a bit came from the audience where I was rather than the movie per se.
[sblock=Spoilers]
When the scene turns to the Vision handing Mjolnir to Thor, a bunch of people laughed because, I suppose, it might have seemed like a joke in light of everyone taking a shot at picking it up earlier in the film. But I kind of thought it should have been one of the more serious moments in the film: they are here with a stranger of unknown awesome power and they have to make a decision whether they can trust him with their lives and everyone else's on Earth. And that moment where he handed Thor the hammer was not a joke. It meant that the Vision _is worthy_.
[/sblock]


----------



## Morrus (May 2, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> One thing that kind of annoyed me a bit came from the audience where I was rather than the movie per se.
> [sblock=Spoilers]
> When the scene turns to the Vision handing Mjolnir to Thor, a bunch of people laughed because, I suppose, it might have seemed like a joke in light of everyone taking a shot at picking it up earlier in the film. But I kind of thought it should have been one of the more serious moments in the film: they are here with a stranger of unknown awesome power and they have to make a decision whether they can trust him with their lives and everyone else's on Earth. And that moment where he handed Thor the hammer was not a joke. It meant that the Vision _is worthy_.
> [/sblock]




There were a lot of situations where people laughed out loud at what were pretty weak jokes. I'm starting to wonder if these things have some hypnotism going on.


----------



## Umbran (May 4, 2015)

Morrus said:


> None of us liked it all that much.




To each their own, obviously, but the group I went with liked it a great deal.  Not a perfect movie, but better than many.



> It felt like quite a mess, with the standard Marvel big battle ending;




So, what else would you expect, or are you looking for, from the ending of a comic-book superhero movie?  Or from any action-genre movie, really?  They should sit down with Ultron, and talk out his daddy issues over a cup of coffee?



> It had great bits, for sure (Hulkbuster armour - though why doesn't he use that all the time, and, hey, Hulk can be knocked out with a punch now?)




Why doesn't he use it all the time?  Maneuverability, if nothing else.  That thing steered like a cow.  Remember him in the fight in Avengers 1, when he outdid the Chitauri flyers because the enemy couldn't bank for crap?  Well, the Hulkbuster armor sure isn't going to manage that kind of nonsense.



> Of the series, Cap 2 is by far the best movie, followed by Avengers 1, then Iron Man 1.




Here's something interesting - these movies are, in many ways, not in the same genre, and it shows in their styles, and in who likes which movie.

So, Morrus, are you a spy-movie fan?  You like the recent Bond films, for example?

I am broad in my movie tastes.  I've liked both Captain America movies, all the Iron Man and Avenger films.  Some of them have some flaws, but all enjoyable.  The Thor movies were a bit of a slog, but had their good bits, too.

My wife is more strictly a comic book superheroes fan, and found both the Captain America films (as well as the first Thor, she didn't bother seeing the second) to be boring boring boring, and Cap 2 to also be needlessly violent.  

Some of you will laugh at that, but you shouldn't - the style, form, and targets of violence in Cap 2 are notably different from the Avengers films.  That's because Cap 2 is almost more spy-thriller than it is superhero.  My wife is not a spy-thriller fan.  Quantum of Solace was a *bad* movie, from her perspective.  The violence is in Cap 2 is with *lots* of guns.  There are few guns in Avengers.  There's energy bolts and stuff, but few bullets.  And to most folks bullets (and the vehicular violence) are more "real".  In essence, the violence in Cap 2 is more realistic than that in Avengers films, such that it may have more impact on some viewers.

Edit:  Wait!  The term I want isn't "realistic".  It is "visceral".  The violence in Cap 2 is more visceral than in the Avengers films.


----------



## Morrus (May 4, 2015)

Umbran said:


> So, what else would you expect, or are you looking for, from the ending of a comic-book superhero movie?  Or from any action-genre movie, really?  They should sit down with Ultron, and talk out his daddy issues over a cup of coffee?




I'm not sure what prompted the sarcasm, but there are other ways to end action films beyond the ragtag team defence against a mass overwhelming faceless aerial bombardment that Avengers, Avengers 2, Winter Soldier, Iron Man 3, and Guardians of the Galaxy all used. 

I quite enjoyed it in Avengers 1. But am now finding it too formulaic. I'd like to see them shake it up a bit more.



> So, Morrus, are you a spy-movie fan?  You like the recent Bond films, for example?




I like some spy movies and not others. I like some action movies, and some comedies, and some superhero films, and some gangster films, and some heavy dramas. My movie tastes are pretty broad. I don't think you'll find your answer there.


----------



## Crothian (May 4, 2015)

I thought it was great. Not quite up to Avengers 1 but easily one of the better movies I've seen all year. I will be seeing it again Wednesday.


----------



## Umbran (May 5, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I'm not sure what prompted the sarcasm




Not sarcasm, attempted humor.  Apparently, not a very successful one, is all 



> ....but there are other ways to end action films beyond the ragtag team defence against a mass overwhelming faceless aerial bombardment that Avengers, Avengers 2, Winter Soldier, Iron Man 3, and Guardians of the Galaxy all used.




First off, I think here you mean Iron Man 2 (the movie which actually first uses the trope).  It is followed by the Avengers.  Then, in Iron Man 3, they *reverse* the trope, as the faceless aerial bombardment is coming from the hero in the form of Iron Man suits.  

Anyhow, rhetorical questions, followed by overall conclusion:

Do you deny that an action film should be expected to have a major action sequence at or near the end?

So, now, you are doing an adaptation.  In general, in all the aforementioned pieces, major characters have the ability to fly, or have spaceships.  You have a choice - try to artificially constrain the scene so that flight is not an option, or use flight and the vertical dimension.  As an author, which do you do? 

You have two hours, and an ensemble cast.  You need to spend a bit of time on each hero.  How many villains can you develop, such that they are not essentially "faceless"?

It seems to me the formula is falling directly out of the constraints of the initial setup - if you are doing an Avengers movie, where half the characters have aerial travel as a major power, you are going to go up, or the viewers are going to look at you funny, or gripe about your arbitrary reason for keeping them grounded, or gripe about how stupid they were for not just flying.  And, in order to keep characters with these power sets occupied, you need a whole lot of bad guys.  You might as well embrace it.



> But am now finding it too formulaic.




As if the comics weren't formulaic to begin with?  



> I'd like to see them shake it up a bit more.




Let us look for a moment at the movies.  

The trope appears in:  Iron Man 2, The Avengers, Captain America 2, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers 2
The Trope does not appear in:  Iron Man, Iron Man 3, Captain America, Thor, Thor 2 (debatable, but I don't think it really meets the criteria), The Incredible Hulk (if you call that part of the MCU)

So, how much more shaking up do you want?  I'm pretty sure they aren't using the trope much in Agents of Shield or Daredevil and Friends...


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Do you deny that an action film should be expected to have a major action sequence at or near the end?




Is my taste in superhero flicks on trial here?  It feels like it is. 



> So, now, you are doing an adaptation.  In general, in all the aforementioned pieces, major characters have the ability to fly, or have spaceships.  You have a choice - try to artificially constrain the scene so that flight is not an option, or use flight and the vertical dimension.  As an author, which do you do?




I write a different story which doesn't involve spaceships.

I get that it's hard.  I get that they might *not* be able to come up with something else.  I'm not saying they're bad people or anything.  I'm not even saying that everyone on the planet except me doesn't want more if it.  That in no way precludes me from becomes bored with what they're currently coming up with.  



> The trope appears in:  Iron Man 2, The Avengers, Captain America 2, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers 2
> The Trope does not appear in:  Iron Man, Iron Man 3, Captain America, Thor, Thor 2 (debatable, but I don't think it really meets the criteria), The Incredible Hulk (if you call that part of the MCU)
> 
> So, how much more shaking up do you want?  I'm pretty sure they aren't using the trope much in Agents of Shield or Daredevil and Friends...




Reversing it for IM3 still counts, and Thor 2 still does in my personal threshold of interest-ometer.  One can argue dismilarities, but if they all feel similar to me, they all feel similar to me. Untimatey, you're just arguing against how someone feels about a movie.  Hey, maybe I'm the only one (I kinda feel like I am, other than the few folks I saw the film with).

That said, Daredevil is excellent.  They shook it up a bit, and its the best superhero thing I've seen on screen in a long while!  AoS I find awful, but for other reasons entirely.


----------



## Dog Moon (May 5, 2015)

Morrus said:


> There were a lot of situations where people laughed out loud at what were pretty weak jokes. I'm starting to wonder if these things have some hypnotism going on.




Sometimes I swear this is true.  I catch myself laughing more because I know it's something that the movie wants me to laugh at rather than because it's actually funny.  Then I stop and go "Why did I laugh at that?"

Especially when I know EXACTLY what the person is about to say because there are lines that are just sooooo predictable and of course they say it and for some reason I can't explain I still freaking laugh.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 5, 2015)

Umbran said:


> My wife is not a spy-thriller fan.  Quantum of Solace was a *bad* movie, from her perspective.



Well, 'Quantum of Solace' was a _terrible_ movie from my perspective, too, and I am a spy-thriller fan (not really a 'Bond' fan, though, until Daniel Craig started playing that part). I liked both 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall', but QoS was just bad. To me it felt like it was a video game adaptation including excessive 'action sequences' that felt pasted on and contributed nothing to the story.

Did your wife also dislike 'Casino Royale' and/or 'Skyfall' (assuming she's wached them)?


----------



## Umbran (May 5, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Is my taste in superhero flicks on trial here?  It feels like it is.




Nope.  I'm more discussing critique and expectations, as we will see in a moment.



> I write a different story which doesn't involve spaceships.




That's great, if you're free to do so.  But this is an adaptation with elements established by previous authors.  The Guardians of the Galaxy by definition kind of have to move around the Galaxy, and the way they do that is in ships.  So, the ships kinda have to be there.



> That in no way precludes me from becomes bored with what they're currently coming up with.




If you go to the market, and buy a package of ice cream that is clearly labelled "chocolate", and you take a spoonful and think, "Gee, I'm bored of chocolate," do you critique the ice cream for not being strawberry, or do you think that maybe you should have gotten different ice cream?  That's the question I'm considering here.  The thing is what it is, a pretty good adaptation of the original source material.  Should we expect it to be other than that?  Do we critique it on the basis of what it is trying to be, or what it is, regardless of the expectations set by the genre and adaptation?



> Reversing it for IM3 still counts, and Thor 2 still does in my personal threshold of interest-ometer.




Well, I admit that Thor 2 was not terribly exciting, whether or not we worry about that trope.  I watched it on a bored late night when my wife was away, to kill time, otherwise I would not have bothered.  

Part of the thing with IM3 is that reversing it is *meaningful*.  It is the *villain* who bombards, faceless from above.  And suddenly, it becomes (to me) a bit of foreshadowing that is far more interesting than at first glance.  I'm sorry if you aren't interested in the meta-text.



> One can argue dismilarities, but if they all feel similar to me, they all feel similar to me. Untimatey, you're just arguing against how someone feels about a movie.




I'm not actually arguing against how you feel.  You feel how you feel, and that's fine.  I'm considering where the line of valid critique of the work itself comes up.


----------



## Umbran (May 5, 2015)

Dog Moon said:


> Sometimes I swear this is true.  I catch myself laughing more because I know it's something that the movie wants me to laugh at rather than because it's actually funny.  Then I stop and go "Why did I laugh at that?"




There is a social element to laughter.  In general, people will laugh more when they are with others than watching the same material alone,f or example.  This is one reason why comedy movies, which otherwise don't really need a big screen, still survive in today's market - because you don't get the same experience watching it home alone.


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2015)

Umbran said:


> If you go to the market, and buy a package of ice cream that is clearly labelled "chocolate", and you take a spoonful and think, "Gee, I'm bored of chocolate," do you critique the ice cream for not being strawberry, or do you think that maybe you should have gotten different ice cream?  That's the question I'm considering here.  The thing is what it is, a pretty good adaptation of the original source material.  Should we expect it to be other than that?  Do we critique it on the basis of what it is trying to be, or what it is, regardless of the expectations set by the genre and adaptation?




No, I say I'm bored of chocolate, and it'd be nice if the ice cream shop sold strawberry, too.  I'll probably still eat ice cream, because I like ice cream.  But I'll mention to my friends that I'm getting a little bored of this particular ice cream formula, and hope they don't then inform me that I should just go and have a steak instead.



> Part of the thing with IM3 is that reversing it is *meaningful*.




To you, perhaps. The fact that it's the red guy instead of the blue guy doing the bombarding doesn't make that much difference to me. It still looks and feels very similar.

Look, I get that it's not an issue for you. And that's fine. But it's becoming one for me.



> I'm sorry if you aren't interested in the meta-text.




Oh, c'mon!  We're talking Marvel superhero films here!


----------



## delericho (May 5, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I'm not sure what prompted the sarcasm, but there are other ways to end action films beyond the ragtag team defence against a mass overwhelming faceless aerial bombardment that Avengers, Avengers 2, Winter Soldier, Iron Man 3, and Guardians of the Galaxy all used.




Yep, that specific ending is now getting really overused.



Jhaelen said:


> Well, 'Quantum of Solace' was a _terrible_ movie from my perspective, too, and I am a spy-thriller fan (not really a 'Bond' fan, though, until Daniel Craig started playing that part). I liked both 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall', but QoS was just bad. To me it felt like it was a video game adaptation including excessive 'action sequences' that felt pasted on and contributed nothing to the story.




A lot of the problems with QoS are down to the writers' strike - apparently union rules meant that no 'writer' could help them finish off the script, but that didn't bar the director (and Daniel Craig) from doing so. That's why it feels so unfinished by comparison with the others, and also why it's so very short.

It's a shame, really - there's quite a lot there that's actually quite good, and if you look at it sideways you can almost see the film that could have been. If only they'd felt they could delay it a year to make the thing properly...


----------



## Umbran (May 5, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Oh, c'mon!  We're talking Marvel superhero films here!




I'm not sure what you mean.  Joss Whedon had a hand in the Marvel slate at this point, and he does play with imagery in such ways.  But I allow that you may not find that to be interesting.

I asked up front - what else do you expect or want? But all you've said is that you want something different, with no further qualifications.  If we are then analyzing how interesting the movies are, we are left grasping at straws over what you might find interesting.


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I'm not sure what you mean.  Joss Whedon had a hand in the Marvel slate at this point, and he does play with imagery in such ways.  But I allow that you may not find that to be interesting.
> 
> I asked up front - what else do you expect or want? But all you've said is that you want something different, with no further qualifications.  If we are then analyzing how interesting the movies are, we are left grasping at straws over what you might find interesting.




We? You're the one trying to somehow define my movie tastes! I'm perfectly happy just saying whether or not I like a thing. I've tried answering your questions, but the answers aren't working for you, so we'll just have to leave it at that!


----------



## Janx (May 5, 2015)

Umbran said:


> So, now, you are doing an adaptation. In general, in all the aforementioned pieces, major characters have the ability to fly, or have spaceships. You have a choice - try to artificially constrain the scene so that flight is not an option, or use flight and the vertical dimension. As an author, which do you do?
> 
> You have two hours, and an ensemble cast. You need to spend a bit of time on each hero. How many villains can you develop, such that they are not essentially "faceless"?
> 
> ...




I think this is the crux of the "why is the ending always a big aerial battle"

It's a GMing problem for a high level party with flying and stuff.

Now what they haven't had was ensemble heroes vs. ensemble villains.  It's always been Heroes vs. leader and his minions or the Batman/spiderman model of Hero vs. pair of villains.

Now if it was Iron Man 4, I'd do an ending where his suit gets so damaged/constrained that he steps out and has to finish the job as Tony Stark (and not just the last 10 seconds).


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2015)

Janx said:


> I think this is the crux of the "why is the ending always a big aerial battle"
> 
> It's a GMing problem for a high level party with flying and stuff.




The answer may well simply be that the genre is played out for me. Or it may be why I'm personally very much looking forward to DCs darker, grittier take, because it'll be a different direction.

Then again, for all I know that stuff may end up being the same but with fewer Whedonesque quips and a muted colour pallette, in which case I'll be disappointed.


----------



## Tellerian Hawke (May 5, 2015)

The problem with superhero films is that they are always pushing the limits of the CGI action, in order to make the superpowers truly "super."

Also, it doesn't help that the average human attention span in terms of camera panning is 8 seconds. Yes, you heard right. 8 seconds. If the camera stays on one subject for more than 8 seconds, the audience gets bored.

I guess that's why Film Noir is so niche nowadays; not many people appreciate long camera shots and extensive dialogue anymore. They just want the sound byte.

Personally, I'd like to see a villain who can last through 2 or 3 films before they are finally able to deal with him. I think the original Star Wars trilogy (New Hope, Empire, Jedi) did that rather well; in the first film, the empire's big weapon is kaboshed, but Vader flees in his Tie Fighter, escaping destruction; in Empire Strikes Back, he comes on strong, and tempts Luke to join him, but this time, it's the heroes who must flee. Finally, in Jedi, Luke not only defeats Vader, but also FORGIVES him, in one of the most dramatic (and well-written!) endings in movie history! In each film, the villain becomes more real, less faceless. Vader starts out as just "the bad guy" in the first film, then he becomes "the obsessed, estranged father" in the second film, and finally, he becomes the tragic (yet redeemed, at the end) hero of the third film.

I get it, that sort of thing is hard to do.

But it's not impossible.

Also, some fights shouldn't take as long as they do; there are some things that might look pretty cool if they were allowed to think outside the box.

Examples of this from other movies:

Lonesome Dove: "You killed them all. I didn't fire a shot." --July Johnson, after watching Gus ride into Ermoke's camp and shoot Ermoke and all 5 of his buddies while they were all drunk.

The scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indiana Jones shoots the guy who makes the mistake of bringing a sword to a gunfight.

The final scene in Last of the Mohicans, where Unclas dies at the hands of Maugwa, and then Maugwa gets his a$$ handed to him a minute or two later by Chingatchgook. I think most people were thinking that Hawkeye would be the one to save the day, but it's obvious, once you see the old chief in action, that Hawkeye doesn't hold a candle to him in terms of physical prowess.

Just some random thoughts


----------



## delericho (May 5, 2015)

Tellerian Hawke said:


> Personally, I'd like to see a villain who can last through 2 or 3 films before they are finally able to deal with him.




Loki?


----------



## Tellerian Hawke (May 5, 2015)

Well, Loki only opposes The Avengers once. He is more of a "guest star," in that sense; he is a main character in the Thor movies.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 5, 2015)

[sblock]
The whole "Age of" Ultron seemed overblown.  Ultron didn't seem to have the global impact as predicted in the Agents of Shield.  Other than the one city in South Africa, and the other at the end of the movie, Utron seemed to have a pretty small impact.

I was a little annoyed that they played the Stark card again.  The movie seem almost to be Iron Man IV.

And I was sorry to see QuickSilver die.  He and the Scarlet Witch were refreshing additions.
[/sblock]
Thx!

TomB


----------



## Jhaelen (May 6, 2015)

Tellerian Hawke said:


> Personally, I'd like to see a villain who can last through 2 or 3 films before they are finally able to deal with him.



Imho, that would work better for a serial TV show.
E.g. while I thought the movie was pretty good, all things considered, I'd have vastly preferred if 'Watchmen' had been adapted as a tv show with a number of episodes matching the original comic.

Similarly, 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' would probably make an awesome TV show, but the movie adaptation was rather meh...


----------



## Kramodlog (May 6, 2015)

Soulless. Like painting by numbers or crossing items off a list. 

Lots of stuff ended on the cutting room floor. Thanos was supposed to talk to Ultron. Curious to see the deleted scene on the blue-ray. 

Ant-Man doesn't look great, so I guess Civil War could make the MCU franchise interesting again. Maybe not.


----------



## Umbran (May 6, 2015)

Morrus said:


> We? You're the one trying to somehow define my movie tastes!




I'm not trying to define your tastes.  I'm trying to glean information, in part to discuss how we critique and form opinons.  



> I'm perfectly happy just saying whether or not I like a thing.




On the flip side... it is a discussion board, isn't it?  When you post an opinion, it is kind of inviting discussion, right?


----------



## Umbran (May 6, 2015)

Janx said:


> I think this is the crux of the "why is the ending always a big aerial battle"




But, it isn't always.  As noted upthread - about half the movies have a big aerial battle.  The other half don't. 



> It's a GMing problem for a high level party with flying and stuff.




And if they had all the fights on the ground instead, would we think of it as a problem?  

Or, is this like the "problem" of characters with Divination magics?  Yes, once the characters get certain abilities, they will no longer be constrained.  As a GM, your only real choice is to accept that the characters will use their powers to the best advantage they can find.  Trying too hard to stop them starts cheesing off the players.



> Now what they haven't had was ensemble heroes vs. ensemble villains.  It's always been Heroes vs. leader and his minions or the Batman/spiderman model of Hero vs. pair of villains.




I think there's a time constraint issue here, a limitation of the movie genre.  With only two hours or so of movie, you don't have a whole lot of time to develop villains - even so far as to show individual powers and how they work, much less personalities such that we care about the fight.  The time investment must pay off - in Avengers 2, they do develop more villains, and to make it pay off, they turn them into heroes that join the Avengers.


----------



## Bagpuss (May 7, 2015)

While I enjoyed the film, I think I would have liked to see it as two films, there was clearly enough story there, I've heard the first  cut was over 3 hours. I think that would have made it feel more like and "Age of". While the "found footage" thing has been done to death in the last few years I would have liked to see a global impact of Ultron, through some news reports and the like, as it was he seemed very localised. 

If he could escape via the internet, why didn't he have a backup copies of himself in automotive plants throughout the world that could retask robots to make primitive copies of himself? That way the solution would have had to have been something smarter than a fist fight in a floating city. Maybe see the full extent of Scarlet Witches reality bending powers, rather than have her just be a Jean Grey with a red paint job, it would also have been something to refer back to when they introduce registration in Civil War.

Morrus is right it is getting very formulaic, but then it is one that works, so it is to be expected. Still it better if they could add a twist to it, like the bait and switch with Hawkeye being set up to die with all the back story and stuff. Vision killing the last Ultron at the end was a disappointment, I would have preferred a horror movie type ending where they imply he could come back.


----------



## Crothian (May 7, 2015)

Bagpuss said:


> While I enjoyed the film, I think I would have liked to see it as two films, there was clearly enough story there, I've heard the first  cut was over 3 hours. I think that would have made it feel more like and "Age of". While the "found footage" thing has been done to death in the last few years I would have liked to see a global impact of Ultron, through some news reports and the like, as it was he seemed very localised.




A number of people say that but the movie clearly established the Ultron was breaking into places all of the world and we had action on four different continents.


----------



## Bagpuss (May 7, 2015)

Crothian said:


> A number of people say that but the movie clearly established the Ultron was breaking into places all of the world and we had action on four different continents.




Right, Ultron, just him and some servant robots, the thing was an AI, why couldn't he be in more than one place at a time? It's hardly an "Age of Ultron", if only four locations in the world he actually visits and interacts with about 20 people in total. "Age" implies some sort of significant event across the global. Iron Age, Age of Steam, etc.


----------



## Morrus (May 7, 2015)

Crothian said:


> A number of people say that but the movie clearly established the Ultron was breaking into places all of the world and we had action on four different continents.




For certain values of "clearly" that said number of people clearly don't agree with. I didn't get that impression from the movie, either.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (May 7, 2015)

I saw it last night and quite liked it.  There were a couple of believability problems.  Even accepting super-powers I know very well that their end-of-the-worlds threat wouldn't work, and that that evacuation wasn't possible in the time allowed.  Oh well.  What I thought they did very well was put in reasonable ways for unpowered characters like Hawkeye and Black Widow to contribute equally.  In general I dislike disparate teams like Avengers or Justice League, even in comics, but the movie made it plausible.


----------



## Scott DeWar (May 8, 2015)

Morrus said:


> There were a lot of situations where people laughed out loud at what were pretty weak jokes. I'm starting to wonder if these things have some hypnotism going on.




[lurker mind trick]These jokes are the jokes you are looking fr.

laugh until your side hurts.

move along.[/lurker mind trick]

on an aside, I saw it sunday. and [sblock=danger: spoiler][I am serious, there are spoilers ahead[sblock]aw, come on. if you ain't seen the movie, go away![sblock]I am totally miffed they killed quicksilver.[/sblock][/sblock][/sblock]


----------



## Mishihari Lord (May 8, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> [lurker mind trick]These jokes are the jokes you are looking fr.
> 
> laugh until your side hurts.
> 
> ...




Me too.  It wasn't a huge surprise because it happened in the comics too, but [sblock] he was a really fun character and I would have like to see more of him in future movies.[/sblock]


----------



## Crothian (May 8, 2015)

It is a spoiler thread so I don't think we have to place those in spoiler blocks.


----------



## Scott DeWar (May 8, 2015)

Crothian said:


> It is a spoiler thread so I don't think we have to place those in spoiler blocks.




meany, you just took all the fun out of this.


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> meany, you just took all the fun out of this.




You mean he spoiled the spoilers for you?


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 8, 2015)

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 [/sblock]
I liked the movie's humanizing touches:

Natasha likes Bruce;
Bruce is clueless;
Captain America regrets the one that got away;
Hawkeye has a wife and kids hidden away;
Wanda overcomes her fear and kicks robot butt.
For all of the slam-bang action, it had a nice bit of personality development.


----------



## Scott DeWar (May 8, 2015)

Umbran said:


> You mean he spoiled the spoilers for you?



YES! He DID!! The raskal. I want use of the ban hammer!!!!


----------



## Bagpuss (May 10, 2015)

TarionzCousin said:


> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah when my wife watched it with me she prefered those bit to the fights, which she found a bit boring after awhile.


----------



## Bagpuss (May 10, 2015)

Crothian said:


> A number of people say that but the movie clearly established the Ultron was breaking into places all of the world and we had action on four different continents.




On my second watching I picked on on Nick Fury mentioning that stuff had been stolen all over the world, but it actually implied the twins were involved in most of the thefts, and they can't be in two places at once.


----------



## Crothian (May 10, 2015)

Bagpuss said:


> On my second watching I picked on on Nick Fury mentioning that stuff had been stolen all over the world, but it actually implied the twins were involved in most of the thefts, and they can't be in two places at once.




He specifically referred to metal men and when asks if there were any causalities he said only when engaged.


----------



## MarkB (May 10, 2015)

Janx said:


> Now if it was Iron Man 4, I'd do an ending where his suit gets so damaged/constrained that he steps out and has to finish the job as Tony Stark (and not just the last 10 seconds).




They pretty much did that in the middle of Iron Man 3, when he attacks the Mandarin's compound.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 11, 2015)

Bagpuss said:


> Yeah when my wife watched it with me she prefered those bit to the fights, which she found a bit boring after awhile.



Please pass that XP along to your wife.

I think Whedon did a great job balancing action, character development, and plot for so many main characters. It isn't easy.


----------



## Jester David (May 11, 2015)

Saw it on opening day (matinee showing) and rather liked it. With the usual asterix postscript that I didn't like it as much as the previous one. Which is the film's largest sin: it just wasn't as good as a freakin' amazing bar setting film. 

There's a lot of complaints aimed at the movie and I think most of them can be distilled to that. People walked out thinking "that wasn't as good, and so I'm disappointed: how do I quantify this feeling?" Just like _The Dark Knight Rises_, which had just as many plot holes and weird days as _The Dark Knight_, but wasn't as good so the problems become something people latch onto to complain. People need to justify and explain away this dislike, and seem unable to rate a movie between "amazeballs" and "terrible".
There was no way _Age of Ultron_ could possibly be as good. Even if the story, acting, jokes, and action scenes were all better it would lack the sheer thrill of seeing all these characters come together at the same time in the same movie. 
(It doesn't help that the best action scenes and most iconic shot was at the beginning so people didn't walk out of the theatre with that in mind. Instead, it ended with Captain America *almost* saying "Avengers Assemble" but not, leaving us feeling teased.)

I've seen people complain that _Age of Ultron_ is unsatisfying as a big dumb popcorn movie for not being big or dumb enough. 
I've seen people complain about the lack of character growth, as if it were possible to have all the characters change from a single story (and the first movie didn't do this either). This is extra odd since few popcorn movies have any character growth at all, or a circular growth where they have a moment of doubt and questioning after a failure and they end up back where they started. 
There's the whole feminist angle, which is sprawling out into people critiquing Joss Whedon's previous work with the relish of attacking a fallen icon. ("Finally I can attack _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ for being imperfect!") Which seems especially odd when you compare Whedon to most of the other big name directors. Imagine what Michael Bay would have done with Black Widow. *shudder*. Or even Spielberg or Cameron.

The movie does have its problems, much of which can be attributed to the rigid formula the movies have fallen into. The first movie was a culmination. It was a big climax and the future movies reacted to its events. This one is right in the middle of a huge arc that has been building for some time and will continue to build, and does more setting-up of stories than resolving. It's the middle child. How well the movie fares depends so much on how these future arcs and threads are resolved.


----------



## Richards (May 12, 2015)

My biggest gripe about the movie was a personal one: the plot point that Ultron's consciousness was in the Internet and he was actively trying to access the nuclear launch codes.  (And then Tony piping up that he had "hacked into the Pentagon and accessed the launch codes" as a teenager.)

As someone who's worked with the ICBM launch codes in one way or the other since 1987, I can only laugh at the very concept that the codes used to launch our nuclear forces would be stored somewhere on the Internet, where they'd be victim to any competent hacker.  You disappoint me, Joss.

To a missileer (or an ICBM code controller), "launch codes on the Internet" is right up there on the groanworthiness scale with "ICBMs are launched by pushing a big red button."

Johnathan


----------



## Deuce Traveler (May 12, 2015)

My favorite part about the action sequences: The heroes actually go out of their way to try and save civilians.  How crazy is that...


----------



## Morrus (May 12, 2015)

Deuce Traveler said:


> My favorite part about the action sequences: The heroes actually go out of their way to try and save civilians.  How crazy is that...




And boy do they make sure you know it!  They mention it every 8 seconds or so.  "Hey, guys, we're concerned about civilians, unlike our rival franchise! Lookee see!" You'd almost think there had been some kind of scriptwriters meeting after MoS about how to make absolutely sure everybody gets the point.


----------



## billd91 (May 12, 2015)

Richards said:


> My biggest gripe about the movie was a personal one: the plot point that Ultron's consciousness was in the Internet and he was actively trying to access the nuclear launch codes.  (And then Tony piping up that he had "hacked into the Pentagon and accessed the launch codes" as a teenager.)
> 
> As someone who's worked with the ICBM launch codes in one way or the other since 1987, I can only laugh at the very concept that the codes used to launch our nuclear forces would be stored somewhere on the Internet, where they'd be victim to any competent hacker.  You disappoint me, Joss.




I think you'd be pretty disappointed with the whole cyberpunk genre, then. One of the conceits of any story that relies on hackers is that stuff that a movie-goer (or reader) would find compelling as a threat is available on an accessible network. Identity theft stuff is all personally vexing, but it's not really *compelling* to a whole audience like nuclear weaponry is - no matter how stupid it would be to have that sort of information or power on a network with any sort of public connection.

Of course, superhero comics involving rebellious AIs usually extend exactly what the AI can control. Computo attacked Lightning Lad remotely with a robotic arc welder, for god's sake. Could there be connections between the computer systems with the codes through other microchipped devices? A  set of uniterruptable power systems that could exert some safe-shutdown control over the important and otherwise secure computer systems and are, themselves, connected to other monitoring equipment capable of signaling administrators when failures occur? If you start to accept the improbable abilities of the supers (where does Banner get the extra mass that is the Hulk?), then you can see that Ultron may have other machine controlling powers far beyond normal computer hacking.


----------



## Rabulias (May 15, 2015)

Richards said:


> As someone who's worked with the ICBM launch codes in one way or the other since 1987, I can only laugh at the very concept that the codes used to launch our nuclear forces would be stored somewhere on the Internet, where they'd be victim to any competent hacker.




I guess it depends on how the launch codes are authenticated. If it's all via paper copies at each end that are read out over a secure voice line, then it does make a lot of spy/action movie scenes invalid. :-(

But if the codes are stored in any system that accepts a remote order to launch, then they are slightly more vulnerable.

No disrespect intended to you or the military; I am sure that control of our nuclear weapons arsenal is highly secured against intrusion or false commands, just not against alien-influenced artificial intelligences!


----------



## Morrus (May 15, 2015)

Plus it's the Marvel Universe.  Nuclear launch codes are clearly different in the Marvel Universe.


----------



## Scott DeWar (May 15, 2015)

"I got no strings to hold me down . . . . ."

Ok, my take is this. the launch codes are generated by a computer that is hooked up to another computer, blah blah, that is connected to the interwebs and can be accessed by some mega hacking by an alien  born artificial intelligence.


----------



## Umbran (May 15, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> Ok, my take is this. the launch codes are generated by a computer that is hooked up to another computer, blah blah, that is connected to the interwebs and can be accessed by some mega hacking by an alien  born artificial intelligence.




Even if they are not generated on such a computer (though, they probably are), the codes pass through some machines with memory at some point, even if it is only on the way to get printed.  And, unless such machines are *truly* isolated (which includes having *no* wireless access at all, anywhere in the network) then it may be possible to reach the codes, or the algorithm and seed that generated them.

And, if Ultron can suborn or threaten someone into introducing a wireless connection to the isolated network... even an internet-capable toaster...


----------



## Scott DeWar (May 15, 2015)

Or, and this is no joke, an internet connected refrigerator. 

And since ultron and moral and ethical ambiguities, it very well would have put forth the miniscule effort needed to accomplish the act(s) necessary to "suborn or threaten someone into introducing a wireless connection to the isolated network".


----------



## Jester David (May 16, 2015)

I imagine the nuclear code thing was lampshading. 

We know from Last Week Tonight that the launch sites are pretty outdated, but the idea of a rogue AI triggering a nuclear strike is pretty ingrained in our pop culture mentality. 
Telling the truth "the launch codes aren't online and kept on 5 1/4 inch floppy disks on computers that haven't been updated since the early '80s". is depressing and seems farcical. It'll take you right out of the movie as you need to explain that situation.
Spinning that slightly into "the launch codes are kept offline and secured" seems like they're making an excuse for the villain not doing the obvious thing. "Yeah, right, of _course_ they are. Again, because it goes against conventional movie wisdom. Especially since the Department of Defence has been hacked as recently as last June. 

Spinning it into a story point where Ultron can't hack into the launch codes because someone is counter hacking him is ridiculous from a reality standpoint but works in movie logic.


----------



## Morrus (May 16, 2015)

[video=youtube;ecPeSmF_ikc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecPeSmF_ikc[/video]


----------



## Morrus (May 16, 2015)

[video=youtube;_Wlsd9mljiU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wlsd9mljiU[/video]


----------



## Morrus (May 16, 2015)

(Or, in short, hardly a new conceit).


----------



## Umbran (May 16, 2015)

And all this is setting aside the fact that... we don't have Thor, Iron man, and helicarriers in our world, so maybe they, in their world, keep their launch codes differently...


----------

