While I'm not sure 3.5 hours would have been a good business decision, I think it's obvious that everything that wasn't one liners was left on the cutting room floor. Maybe the extended cut will be better, as it's sure to have more character development.
You're joking, right? After that schlock, you want an hour and ten minutes added to it?
It depends on what the hour and ten minutes adds. If it's more shlock, then no. But if they go more into the characters and flesh out the story, especially Ultron, then yes. I'll take an extra hour and ten minutes. And given some of the hints the movie dropped of trying to be smarter than it came out to be, I'm with Jay on this one: I think more time would help.
It depends on what the hour and ten minutes adds. If it's more shlock, then no. But if they go more into the characters and flesh out the story, especially Ultron, then yes. I'll take an extra hour and ten minutes. And given some of the hints the movie dropped of trying to be smarter than it came out to be, I'm with Jay on this one: I think more time would help.
Yeah, I should be clear that I meant only if the added stuff were character moments (which I'm pretty sure they are). It would be nice if:
Half of Quicksilver's lines weren't 'Didn't see that coming, did you?'. He had a great moment toward the end with the AK-47, but ultimately he could have been cut from the film without it losing anything. Rhodey was in the same boat, I expected his more-than-a-cameo role was going to mean he was going to be the one to bite the dust, but ultimately Rhodey could have been completely cut from the movie without it losing anything.
Just saw the movie and here are some thoughts on it.
Ultron was unique and Spader played him well, though I feel like they could've had him on screen more. I know that a lot of the movie was cut post production to fit 2 hours and I wouldn't be surprised if Ultron centric scenes were the first ones on the chopping block.
Movie should've been named Avengers: Hawkeye because it might as well have been him carrying the movie. Speaking of Hawkeye, I like how Joss takes the big ensemble films and uses it to focus on the lesser characters that didn't get the solo treatment. Hulk got a lot of love in Avengers 1 and Hawkeye got that treatment in Avengers 2.
Hate that they revealed so much of the movie leading up to the release, Vision would've made for a great surprise for many comic fans but the reality of the situation is that not everyone is a die hard marvel fan and many would've been clueless during the film.
I called mind stone inside Loki's scepter 3 years ago, I was literally fist bumping in the movie theater during the dream sequence and name drop. Friends were looking at me like I was crazy.
Surprising amounts of humor for what seemed like a significantly darker film in a more mature phase 2 for marvel studios. A good mix of recurring jokes (Cpt America's language, "didn't see that coming?) and quirky one liners, my favorites were the variety of one liners by Stark in the hulk vs hulkbuster fight.
Joss Whedon truly is a great director. Using scenes that are meant to be enjoyable and funny early on as a catalyst for a plot development later in the movie. The hammer lifting scene in the beginning was funny but I never thought he would use it later on to quickly demonstrate Vision's humanity and compassion. Also the jokes about Hawkeye being a lonely and weak individual to set up the surprise twist of Hawkeye being team mom.
It depends on what the hour and ten minutes adds. If it's more shlock, then no. But if they go more into the characters and flesh out the story, especially Ultron, then yes. I'll take an extra hour and ten minutes. And given some of the hints the movie dropped of trying to be smarter than it came out to be, I'm with Jay on this one: I think more time would help.
I don't believe additional time is actually going to result in this movie being any better than it is.
Although, I am curious what the alternate ending of the film is going to be.
It depends on what the hour and ten minutes adds. If it's more shlock, then no. But if they go more into the characters and flesh out the story, especially Ultron, then yes. I'll take an extra hour and ten minutes. And given some of the hints the movie dropped of trying to be smarter than it came out to be, I'm with Jay on this one: I think more time would help.
I don't believe additional time is actually going to result in this movie being any better than it is.
Although, I am curious what the alternate ending of the film is going to be.
I'm with the rest of the boys here, more Ultron screen time would've made this movie a lot better.
Specifically, I think he needed scenes that detail him morphing his original protocol of keeping world peace to killing everyone, I feel like that was rushed over but is a very crucial element to Ultron's character. If anything, a solo Ultron scene should be this. Maybe an extra 10 minutes for the solo scene and some extra 20 for some really bad ass Ultron speeches because James Spader
an hour might be a bit too much for little kids to sit through, but 30 minutes on top of 2 hours? Shouldn't be that much of a problem
I saw the movie again today. Did not get anything more to the experience, but it did let me focus more on the story.
More Ultron time would have been good. Ultron was a filler villain that allowed for a good pivot to Marvel Civil War, Infinity War, and the movies. And for being a building future movies, it was really good.
Contrary to what seems to be the majority opinion, here, I didn't really like the first Avengers, but I did quite enjoy Age of Ultron!
While yes, Ultron's plan was ultronmately dumb ( ), it was very theatrical - which I would expect, given that he was based off of Stark's personality. I called the Quicksilver death as soon as he and Witch had their "moment of redemption", though I wouldn't have been opposed to a War Machine death, either.
I was disappointed at how easy it seemed to beat Ultron, in spite of him being made out of vibranium. I also didn't fully understand how Vision came to exist, nor how it tied in to Thor's "vision", but I guess good for him? He seemed super deus ex machina, though; and in a literal sense, no less.
Anyway, I think that the characters were written much better than the previous Avengers movie, which I felt was a big hang-up I had with the first one. That said, I really wanted Ultron to be more "omnicidal maniac" like the trailers suggested and less "misunderstood, angry manchild" like he turned out to be. I didn't see a HUGE problem with the way he was written, but I wanted him to be more...genocidal, I guess. His "last hurrah" in the jet near the end just felt forced.
I felt like they hugely underplayed Scarlet Witch's power, and that she could have probably taken out at least 2 or 3 of the Avengers on her own.
Also disappointed that they didn't show continuity between Quicksilver's lack of accent in Days of Future Past and his presence of accent in Age of Ultron. Oh well, guess you can't expect too much out of that.
I really had no problem with the rest of the movie. They put more action in where it was needed, and the fact that they didn't have to build the whole "reluctant alliance" thing from the start was also a huge help - you could tell, at that point, that the team had been working together for a while.
I also liked that they didn't make Banner so self-pitying like they did in the first one. He had an appreciation for his role in the team, even though he took the first chance he could to back out of it.
I think, aside from Scarlet Witch's addition to the team, that the New Avengers are going to be painfully underpowered. Which makes sense, given Civil War's premise - they have to balance out the teams somehow, right?
I also saw the trailer for Ant Man while waiting. It didn't look anywhere near as bad as I was expecting.
Anyway, I'm anticipating the next Marvel installment!
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
The problem is that if we're talking about a 3.5 hour movie vs. a 2 hour 20 minute-ish movie, we're talking an hour and ten minutes of footage that they chose to cut. That doesn't give me high hopes. The problem wasn't just a matter of more Ultron needed, the problem was Ultron needed to have any consequence at all, and that's just it, he didn't.
Ultron had exactly zero motivation for doing anything.
"I will save the world by destroying the Avengers. And also by destroying the world."
That doesn't make any ******* sense at all. And at no point do they even attempt to make it so. And the whole movie suffers because of it.
And what gets me is that this hour and ten minutes of footage is the stuff that they cut. The stuff that they deemed inessential. Now, granted, this could be a Donnie Darko scenario where the reason why the movie's a confused mess is because of the cutting, but I'm not optimistic.
I'm facepalming so hard right now after watching this movie.
I've been a comic book fan for upwards of 20 years now. That...that was not Ultron that we just watched. Ultron isn't this jokey ha-ha villain. He's one of the biggest threats that the Avengers ever faced. (Well, before Jonathan Hickman did the crazy crap he did that I had to give up on because it wasn't going anywhere)
COOL STUFF:
Chris Evans and Jeremy Renner carried this sucker! They were both fantastic.
Seeing Sam Wilson as the Falcon again.
The party scene was solid. Probably the best in the movie.
The not-creepy looking Olsen sister was excellent. I like how they went for the middle, in between her old school silly hex powers, and her Bendis years dear god wtf level powers.
Andy Serkis as Ulysses Klaue was awesome. I love that they've been using these silly villains like Batroc the Leaper and Klaw. Too bad there was a plot hole there the size of the one left when Ultron levitated the city.
The middle finger given to Fox by using Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch!
WAKANDA!
BAD STUFF:
Horrible editing.
Hulk was dumbed down significantly from the first movie. He at least had dialogue in the first movie. I think the entire Hulk script for this one was GRRGGHHHGHHGHRAARRRRR! I mean, I don't expect Hulk to be brilliant, but c'mon now, at least be consistent.
We're going to introduce this corny-yet-classic Marvel villian, lop off his arm so that all the fans who know what's up pee their pants a bit, and then we're never going to mention him again. Oh yeah, and lets make it the wrong arm too.
As I called it on Twitter: AVENGERS 2: Age of Audi: Brought to you by SAMSUNG Very distracting.
Hey, let's linger on these Beats headphones, but showing Banner getting to the cell where Black Widow was held? Nah, F that.
Killing Baron Von Strucker, another classic Marvel villain, after about five minutes total screen time, off screen.
Also, can we just admit that Joss Whedon sucks now? I mean, I know it takes different strokes to move the world and all, but I have no idea what wave this dude has ridden to the popularity he has. Every single thing I have read or watched that came from him, outside of the first Avengers movie, has been outright garbage. That guy has a nutterbutter Tumblr-crazy level fanbase, and for what? Fray was crap. The Buffy comics were crap. He took Runaways, one of the best things Marvel had done in years at that point, and literally destroyed the series beyond all recognition. Oh yeah, and it took him a year to put out four issues. TERRY MOORE couldn't even rejuvenate it. If you're into comics, yes, THAT TERRY MOORE.
HAY GUISE! WHAT DOES A TOAD DO WHEN IT GETS HIT BY LIGHTING? IT CROAKS. HAR HAR HAR HERKA DERKA I'M JOSS WHEDON.
Man, between this and Star Trek: Into Darkness, I feel as if I should never get my hopes up about anything ever again ever in the history of ever.
Also, can we just admit that Joss Whedon sucks now?
No, because he's produced a library of quality work outside of this film. Including, y'know, the first Avengers film.
Which really is rather baffling, as this movie fails story 101 in so many different ways. I originally wrote it off as Marvel executives tying Whedon's hands, but then I watched an interview with him and I'm not sure exactly how much of the problems in this film were Whedon's own doing and which weren't.
I mean, I know it takes different strokes to move the world and all, but I have no idea what wave this dude has ridden to the popularity he has. Every single thing I have read or watched that came from him, outside of the first Avengers movie, has been outright garbage.
Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Serenity, Dollhouse, Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog, Cabin in the Woods.
And Much Ado About Nothing was charming. Weak in the first half, but picked up. I liked the treatment.
Man, between this and Star Trek: Into Darkness, I feel as if I should never get my hopes up about anything ever again ever in the history of ever.
It would be nice to see the big action film that's been hyped up actually be good. Hasn't really happened since the last Avengers.
The problem is that if we're talking about a 3.5 hour movie vs. a 2 hour 20 minute-ish movie, we're talking an hour and ten minutes of footage that they chose to cut. That doesn't give me high hopes. The problem wasn't just a matter of more Ultron needed, the problem was Ultron needed to have any consequence at all, and that's just it, he didn't.
Ultron had exactly zero motivation for doing anything.
"I will save the world by destroying the Avengers. And also by destroying the world."
That doesn't make any ******* sense at all. And at no point do they even attempt to make it so. And the whole movie suffers because of it.
And what gets me is that this hour and ten minutes of footage is the stuff that they cut. The stuff that they deemed inessential. Now, granted, this could be a Donnie Darko scenario where the reason why the movie's a confused mess is because of the cutting, but I'm not optimistic.
Ultron never says "I will save the world by destroying the Avengers. And also by destroying the world."
Ultron has a singular motivation: world peace. That was explicitly stated by Stark when he briefly explained the Ultron project. The reason you are confused is because they didn't show Ultron twisting that protocol into his own demented version, instead we see the "givens" that Ultron sees and and then his "conclusion". In his birth scene, Ultron is browsing the net and quickly being distressed by the amount of unrest and violence going on, then after the hammer lifting scene at the after party, he tells the Avengers that they're all killers and not worthy. We're suppose to draw the conclusion that Ultron determined that both humanity and the Avengers are detrimental to world peace therefore Ultron has to eliminate them both to satisfy his mission.
It depends on what the hour and ten minutes adds. If it's more shlock, then no. But if they go more into the characters and flesh out the story, especially Ultron, then yes. I'll take an extra hour and ten minutes. And given some of the hints the movie dropped of trying to be smarter than it came out to be, I'm with Jay on this one: I think more time would help.
I don't believe additional time is actually going to result in this movie being any better than it is.
Although, I am curious what the alternate ending of the film is going to be.
Not likely, but weeding the cast would. There were too much for any particular one point to shine. Two ways to fix this. One: add more space for the ideas to grow. Two. Remove ideas to develop others one more carefully and expansive *see my post on page 2*. To be honest, everything Age of Ultron wanted to tackle in one giant movie could have been better fleshed out as a season or at least an arc of Agent's of Shield because television has more space to develop.
To be honest, if we want to talk alternate ending to Age of Ultron, an overt pyrrhic victory would probably be a much better ending to this movie. There are hints that is what actually took place, but being a happy-go-skippy summer event meant to overtake the first would never take such an overt risk. While Ultron succeeding in his extinction level event could never have worked for the sake of we're in the middle of the story, why do we have to wait for Civil War for the Avengers to go to war with themselves? Ultron went on about how the Avengers were monsters, and even Captain America gives the movie's half time speech that their fight is also about proving Ultron wrong that their monsters. I think things would have been better if the Avengers left the make-shift meteor still uncertain.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Ultron has a singular motivation: world peace. That was explicitly stated by Stark when he briefly explained the Ultron project. The reason you are confused is because they didn't show Ultron twisting that protocol into his own demented version
You're right, they didn't show why Ultron decided to become evil. And that's why I don't care about anything Ultron does.
No, because he's produced a library of quality work outside of this film. Including, y'know, the first Avengers film.
Which I mentioned as being good. Literally every other thing I have read or watched by Whedon, I have found to be utter drivel. I've tried, trust me. In many of these cases, I try to see what the hoopla is about.
Incidentally, I feel the same way about Robert Kirkman. Thief of Thieves was great, but everything else has been miserable. I reach a point with some creators where I just throw up my hands and give up. Whedon, Kirkman, Grant Morrison and Alan Moore are all on that list, and I KNOW that Morrison and Moore have written some amazing comics.
Ultron has a singular motivation: world peace. That was explicitly stated by Stark when he briefly explained the Ultron project. The reason you are confused is because they didn't show Ultron twisting that protocol into his own demented version
You're right, they didn't show why Ultron decided to become evil. And that's why I don't care about anything Ultron does.
I think the producers/Whedon expected us to make that leap ourselves without having to show it on screen. After all, the whole "corrupted robot trying to rid the world of humans" is a fairly common trope in science fiction
Ultron has a singular motivation: world peace. That was explicitly stated by Stark when he briefly explained the Ultron project. The reason you are confused is because they didn't show Ultron twisting that protocol into his own demented version
You're right, they didn't show why Ultron decided to become evil. And that's why I don't care about anything Ultron does.
I think the producers/Whedon expected us to make that leap ourselves without having to show it on screen. After all, the whole "corrupted robot trying to rid the world of humans" is a fairly common trope in science fiction
I think that as well. Mind you, like I mentioned above, I have a long background of reading comics, and that's kind of Ultrons thing. I thought it was kind of obvious to be honest, what with Scarlet Witch flat out saying that he wanted to destroy humanity.
How come nobody was affected by the high altitude from Ultron levitating the city? They broke through the cloud cover, they must have been at least in the upper troposphere. The air gets very thin and very cold up there to the point where it's impossible for any human to be there without protective gear and a pressurized suit. I guess the writers decided to forget about physics for a small section of the movie?
How the hell did Loki get his hands on an Infinity Stone? Isn't Thanos trying to get hold of them? Why would he give Loki the Mind Stone? And furthermore, if Loki has the Mind Stone, and it has THAT much power, why was Loki not able to accomplish more than just tapping people with it? The thing contains BOUNDLESS energy, right?
In the comics, the potential of the infinity gems roughly scales with the power level of whoever is wielding them. Loki can't mindscrew the entire universe with the Mind Stone for example, even though the Mind Stone gives the wielder virtually unlimited telepathic prowess. Thanos is one of the few people out there that can tap into the unlimited potential of the infinity stones because he is so ridiculously powerful to begin with.
How come nobody was affected by the high altitude from Ultron levitating the city? They broke through the cloud cover, they must have been at least in the upper troposphere. The air gets very thin and very cold up there to the point where it's impossible for any human to be there without protective gear and a pressurized suit. I guess the writers decided to forget about physics for a small section of the movie?
They actually at least bell that cat - there is a line from cap something like "We need to get these people off ASAP - even I've started to feel short of breath up this high". So at least a movie version of "high is bad"
Ultron has a singular motivation: world peace. That was explicitly stated by Stark when he briefly explained the Ultron project. The reason you are confused is because they didn't show Ultron twisting that protocol into his own demented version
You're right, they didn't show why Ultron decided to become evil. And that's why I don't care about anything Ultron does.
Sure they did. It was in a very indirect way, that being Ultron browsed the internet and arrived at a distasteful opinion of humanity. I thought it was quite clear what was going on.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
How come nobody was affected by the high altitude from Ultron levitating the city? They broke through the cloud cover, they must have been at least in the upper troposphere. The air gets very thin and very cold up there to the point where it's impossible for any human to be there without protective gear and a pressurized suit. I guess the writers decided to forget about physics for a small section of the movie?
Like it was mentioned Cap. has a line where he say's "we need to hurry the air's getting thinner", and honestly the only ones really with enough screen time to show this were the avengers themselves, and from those Hawkeye looked severely tired early on in the fight, Widow is likely explained by her being super trained and all that, Cap is Cap, Iron Man has his armor, the Hulk does what he wants, and Quicksilver was affected enough that he got shot, scarlet witch was also clearly exhausted and affected by the end.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
Like it was mentioned Cap. has a line where he say's "we need to hurry the air's getting thinner", and honestly the only ones really with enough screen time to show this were the avengers themselves, and from those Hawkeye looked severely tired early on in the fight, Widow is likely explained by her being super trained and all that, Cap is Cap, Iron Man has his armor, the Hulk does what he wants, and Quicksilver was affected enough that he got shot, scarlet witch was also clearly exhausted and affected by the end.
I was thinking more about the civilians that should have been suffering from altitude sickness and the temperature drop. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the heroes wouldn't have a problem with it, but it's something that an average human couldn't tolerate.
That guy has a nutterbutter Tumblr-crazy level fanbase, and for what? Fray was crap. The Buffy comics were crap. He took Runaways, one of the best things Marvel had done in years at that point, and literally destroyed the series beyond all recognition. Oh yeah, and it took him a year to put out four issues.
I just find it odd, when you make this pronouncement, you only talk about his comics work and not the stuff that actually won him his fanbase. Hell, you dismiss the Buffy comics but don't comment on Buffy! What's that about? Are you telling us you haven't watched Buffy? It's fine if you haven't - lots of people haven't - but it does mean you probably shouldn't speak so authoritatively about Whedon's oeuvre. It's like dissing Stephen Spielberg without mentioning Jaws or E.T. or Indiana Jones.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think the producers/Whedon expected us to make that leap ourselves without having to show it on screen.
... Seriously?
Hey, Raver, what if the Avengers just ended halfway through? Just immediately cut to black?
"Hey, what happened?"
"Oh, the good guys win."
"Yeah, but, how do they win?"
"Oh, you'll just have to infer how they win."
Is that good storytelling?
No, of course it's not. Why? Because how the good guys win is a key part of the story, and our desire to experience it is the entire damn point of us being in the theater.
"Why is Ultron evil?" "They wanted us to infer why." That means they didn't explain it! And Ultron being evil is the entire point of this damn film!
After all, the whole "corrupted robot trying to rid the world of humans" is a fairly common trope in science fiction
So Ultron is evil to fulfill the position of Generic Doombot McBoring #5768?
That means he's not a character, Raver. "Evil because we needed a villain for this movie" is not a human motivation. Ultron rebels against Tony Stark. Why? Ultron tries to kill the Avengers. Why? The movie harps on and on about how angry Ultron is. Why? Ultron does horrible things. Why? Why does Ultron do horrible things? Why does Ultron do anything that he does?
See, that's the thing about Loki. There are reasons for why he does things. We have an understanding of who he is, what type of person he is, what emotions he's ruled by, and why he acts on them in specific ways. We know what he wants, we know what he does to get what he wants, we know specifically why he chooses that course of action to get what he wants as opposed to another. The fact that Loki — by virtue of being a power-hungry, vain, jealous diva — has a personality that we, as human beings, can recognize and understand is actually a PLOT POINT, as Tony Stark is able to suss out what Loki will do based on this.
What about Ultron? Why does Ultron do what he does? Why does Ultron do anything, first of all, and when you've answered that question, why does he choose the specific plan that he does choose, as opposed to any other course of action he could have taken?
If I don't know the answers to these questions, I don't treat Ultron like he's a character. I treat him like he's a random doombot created as a plot device for a story, and thus cease to care about anything he says or does. That's the opposite of what you want in a film.
I think that as well. Mind you, like I mentioned above, I have a long background of reading comics, and that's kind of Ultrons thing. I thought it was kind of obvious to be honest, what with Scarlet Witch flat out saying that he wanted to destroy humanity.
Yeah, it's obvious that he's evil. It's not obvious WHY he's evil.
Seeing as how everyone else in this thread but you seemed to make that leap without any help...
Yeah.
"Why is Ultron evil?" "They wanted us to infer why." That means they didn't explain it! And Ultron being evil is the entire ******* point of this damn film!
The point of the film is not Ultron being evil. The point of the film is a group of individuals that band together to face a threat too much for one person to handle.
So Ultron is evil to fulfill the position of Stupid Generic Doombot McBoring #5768?
Ultron is evil to fulfill the position of Stupid Generic Doombot McAwesome #5768 because he is played by James Spader.
Ultron isn't suppose to be complex character, your need for him to be some godlike literary character is confusing.
Ultron rebels against Tony Stark. Why?
His disdain for Stark stems from the fact that Stark made him and he does not like being associated with Stark (or the Avengers).
Ultron tries to kill the Avengers. Why? The movie harps on and on about how angry Ultron is. Why? Ultron does horrible things. Why?
He finds the avengers to be part of the reason why world peace hasn't been achieved. To kill them (and the rest of humanity) would solve that problem.
If I don't know the answers to these things, I don't treat Ultron like he's a character. I treat him like he's a random doombot created as a plot device for a story, and thus cease to care about anything he says or does. That's the opposite of what you want in a film.
Seriously, there is no need for Sherlock level deduction skills here. They did a perfectly acceptable job presenting Ultron's motivation without actually having to. They took 5 seconds to show Ultron becoming distressed over the reality of the world he was born into and then 5 minutes later they have Ultron giving a speech about how in order for world peace to be achieved, there has to be some serious changes made. At that point, everyone and their mothers could figure out what was going on with Ultron. Now if you had been in the bathroom or waiting for popcorn for about 30 minutes or so after the movie started and then came into the theater, then yeah, I would accept your confusion.
That said, I think they should've showed Ultron's thought process in warping his only protocol. Not because it wasn't clear to us, but because I feel like James Spader would've made that scene memorable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
War Machine/Iron Patriot aka the other guy in a Stark suit
I don't believe additional time is actually going to result in this movie being any better than it is.
Although, I am curious what the alternate ending of the film is going to be.
I'm with the rest of the boys here, more Ultron screen time would've made this movie a lot better.
an hour might be a bit too much for little kids to sit through, but 30 minutes on top of 2 hours? Shouldn't be that much of a problem
I was disappointed at how easy it seemed to beat Ultron, in spite of him being made out of vibranium. I also didn't fully understand how Vision came to exist, nor how it tied in to Thor's "vision", but I guess good for him? He seemed super deus ex machina, though; and in a literal sense, no less.
Anyway, I think that the characters were written much better than the previous Avengers movie, which I felt was a big hang-up I had with the first one. That said, I really wanted Ultron to be more "omnicidal maniac" like the trailers suggested and less "misunderstood, angry manchild" like he turned out to be. I didn't see a HUGE problem with the way he was written, but I wanted him to be more...genocidal, I guess. His "last hurrah" in the jet near the end just felt forced.
I felt like they hugely underplayed Scarlet Witch's power, and that she could have probably taken out at least 2 or 3 of the Avengers on her own.
Also disappointed that they didn't show continuity between Quicksilver's lack of accent in Days of Future Past and his presence of accent in Age of Ultron. Oh well, guess you can't expect too much out of that.
I really had no problem with the rest of the movie. They put more action in where it was needed, and the fact that they didn't have to build the whole "reluctant alliance" thing from the start was also a huge help - you could tell, at that point, that the team had been working together for a while.
I also liked that they didn't make Banner so self-pitying like they did in the first one. He had an appreciation for his role in the team, even though he took the first chance he could to back out of it.
I think, aside from Scarlet Witch's addition to the team, that the New Avengers are going to be painfully underpowered. Which makes sense, given Civil War's premise - they have to balance out the teams somehow, right?
I also saw the trailer for Ant Man while waiting. It didn't look anywhere near as bad as I was expecting.
Anyway, I'm anticipating the next Marvel installment!
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
"I will save the world by destroying the Avengers. And also by destroying the world."
That doesn't make any ******* sense at all. And at no point do they even attempt to make it so. And the whole movie suffers because of it.
And what gets me is that this hour and ten minutes of footage is the stuff that they cut. The stuff that they deemed inessential. Now, granted, this could be a Donnie Darko scenario where the reason why the movie's a confused mess is because of the cutting, but I'm not optimistic.
I've been a comic book fan for upwards of 20 years now. That...that was not Ultron that we just watched. Ultron isn't this jokey ha-ha villain. He's one of the biggest threats that the Avengers ever faced. (Well, before Jonathan Hickman did the crazy crap he did that I had to give up on because it wasn't going anywhere)
COOL STUFF:
Seeing Sam Wilson as the Falcon again.
The party scene was solid. Probably the best in the movie.
The not-creepy looking Olsen sister was excellent. I like how they went for the middle, in between her old school silly hex powers, and her Bendis years dear god wtf level powers.
Andy Serkis as Ulysses Klaue was awesome. I love that they've been using these silly villains like Batroc the Leaper and Klaw. Too bad there was a plot hole there the size of the one left when Ultron levitated the city.
The middle finger given to Fox by using Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch!
WAKANDA!
BAD STUFF:
Hulk was dumbed down significantly from the first movie. He at least had dialogue in the first movie. I think the entire Hulk script for this one was GRRGGHHHGHHGHRAARRRRR! I mean, I don't expect Hulk to be brilliant, but c'mon now, at least be consistent.
We're going to introduce this corny-yet-classic Marvel villian, lop off his arm so that all the fans who know what's up pee their pants a bit, and then we're never going to mention him again. Oh yeah, and lets make it the wrong arm too.
As I called it on Twitter: AVENGERS 2: Age of Audi: Brought to you by SAMSUNG Very distracting.
Hey, let's linger on these Beats headphones, but showing Banner getting to the cell where Black Widow was held? Nah, F that.
Killing Baron Von Strucker, another classic Marvel villain, after about five minutes total screen time, off screen.
Also, can we just admit that Joss Whedon sucks now? I mean, I know it takes different strokes to move the world and all, but I have no idea what wave this dude has ridden to the popularity he has. Every single thing I have read or watched that came from him, outside of the first Avengers movie, has been outright garbage. That guy has a nutterbutter Tumblr-crazy level fanbase, and for what? Fray was crap. The Buffy comics were crap. He took Runaways, one of the best things Marvel had done in years at that point, and literally destroyed the series beyond all recognition. Oh yeah, and it took him a year to put out four issues. TERRY MOORE couldn't even rejuvenate it. If you're into comics, yes, THAT TERRY MOORE.
HAY GUISE! WHAT DOES A TOAD DO WHEN IT GETS HIT BY LIGHTING? IT CROAKS. HAR HAR HAR HERKA DERKA I'M JOSS WHEDON.
Man, between this and Star Trek: Into Darkness, I feel as if I should never get my hopes up about anything ever again ever in the history of ever.
Which really is rather baffling, as this movie fails story 101 in so many different ways. I originally wrote it off as Marvel executives tying Whedon's hands, but then I watched an interview with him and I'm not sure exactly how much of the problems in this film were Whedon's own doing and which weren't.
Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Serenity, Dollhouse, Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog, Cabin in the Woods.
And Much Ado About Nothing was charming. Weak in the first half, but picked up. I liked the treatment.
It would be nice to see the big action film that's been hyped up actually be good. Hasn't really happened since the last Avengers.
Ultron has a singular motivation: world peace. That was explicitly stated by Stark when he briefly explained the Ultron project. The reason you are confused is because they didn't show Ultron twisting that protocol into his own demented version, instead we see the "givens" that Ultron sees and and then his "conclusion". In his birth scene, Ultron is browsing the net and quickly being distressed by the amount of unrest and violence going on, then after the hammer lifting scene at the after party, he tells the Avengers that they're all killers and not worthy. We're suppose to draw the conclusion that Ultron determined that both humanity and the Avengers are detrimental to world peace therefore Ultron has to eliminate them both to satisfy his mission.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Which I mentioned as being good. Literally every other thing I have read or watched by Whedon, I have found to be utter drivel. I've tried, trust me. In many of these cases, I try to see what the hoopla is about.
Incidentally, I feel the same way about Robert Kirkman. Thief of Thieves was great, but everything else has been miserable. I reach a point with some creators where I just throw up my hands and give up. Whedon, Kirkman, Grant Morrison and Alan Moore are all on that list, and I KNOW that Morrison and Moore have written some amazing comics.
I think the producers/Whedon expected us to make that leap ourselves without having to show it on screen. After all, the whole "corrupted robot trying to rid the world of humans" is a fairly common trope in science fiction
I think that as well. Mind you, like I mentioned above, I have a long background of reading comics, and that's kind of Ultrons thing. I thought it was kind of obvious to be honest, what with Scarlet Witch flat out saying that he wanted to destroy humanity.
They actually at least bell that cat - there is a line from cap something like "We need to get these people off ASAP - even I've started to feel short of breath up this high". So at least a movie version of "high is bad"
Sure they did. It was in a very indirect way, that being Ultron browsed the internet and arrived at a distasteful opinion of humanity. I thought it was quite clear what was going on.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Hey, Raver, what if the Avengers just ended halfway through? Just immediately cut to black?
"Hey, what happened?"
"Oh, the good guys win."
"Yeah, but, how do they win?"
"Oh, you'll just have to infer how they win."
Is that good storytelling?
No, of course it's not. Why? Because how the good guys win is a key part of the story, and our desire to experience it is the entire damn point of us being in the theater.
"Why is Ultron evil?" "They wanted us to infer why." That means they didn't explain it! And Ultron being evil is the entire point of this damn film!
So Ultron is evil to fulfill the position of Generic Doombot McBoring #5768?
That means he's not a character, Raver. "Evil because we needed a villain for this movie" is not a human motivation. Ultron rebels against Tony Stark. Why? Ultron tries to kill the Avengers. Why? The movie harps on and on about how angry Ultron is. Why? Ultron does horrible things. Why? Why does Ultron do horrible things? Why does Ultron do anything that he does?
See, that's the thing about Loki. There are reasons for why he does things. We have an understanding of who he is, what type of person he is, what emotions he's ruled by, and why he acts on them in specific ways. We know what he wants, we know what he does to get what he wants, we know specifically why he chooses that course of action to get what he wants as opposed to another. The fact that Loki — by virtue of being a power-hungry, vain, jealous diva — has a personality that we, as human beings, can recognize and understand is actually a PLOT POINT, as Tony Stark is able to suss out what Loki will do based on this.
What about Ultron? Why does Ultron do what he does? Why does Ultron do anything, first of all, and when you've answered that question, why does he choose the specific plan that he does choose, as opposed to any other course of action he could have taken?
If I don't know the answers to these questions, I don't treat Ultron like he's a character. I treat him like he's a random doombot created as a plot device for a story, and thus cease to care about anything he says or does. That's the opposite of what you want in a film.
Yeah, it's obvious that he's evil. It's not obvious WHY he's evil.
Have you? Which of the list I've posted have you actually watched?
You might not *like* his other work, but you seem to be dismissing Whedon without having seen ANY of his other work.
Seeing as how everyone else in this thread but you seemed to make that leap without any help...
Yeah.
The point of the film is not Ultron being evil. The point of the film is a group of individuals that band together to face a threat too much for one person to handle.
Ultron is evil to fulfill the position of Stupid Generic Doombot McAwesome #5768 because he is played by James Spader.
Ultron isn't suppose to be complex character, your need for him to be some godlike literary character is confusing.
His disdain for Stark stems from the fact that Stark made him and he does not like being associated with Stark (or the Avengers).
He finds the avengers to be part of the reason why world peace hasn't been achieved. To kill them (and the rest of humanity) would solve that problem.
Seriously, there is no need for Sherlock level deduction skills here. They did a perfectly acceptable job presenting Ultron's motivation without actually having to. They took 5 seconds to show Ultron becoming distressed over the reality of the world he was born into and then 5 minutes later they have Ultron giving a speech about how in order for world peace to be achieved, there has to be some serious changes made. At that point, everyone and their mothers could figure out what was going on with Ultron. Now if you had been in the bathroom or waiting for popcorn for about 30 minutes or so after the movie started and then came into the theater, then yeah, I would accept your confusion.
That said, I think they should've showed Ultron's thought process in warping his only protocol. Not because it wasn't clear to us, but because I feel like James Spader would've made that scene memorable.