Age of Distraction: Where Avengers Messed Up

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Sniper Team 4:

Fanghawk:

I agree. But Age of Ultron could've easily gone one step further and ended with Iron Man and Cap still pissed at each other. It perfectly explains why Stark leaves the Avengers, and makes it easier to generate tension between them in Civil War. There's no reason to smooth their relationship over if the rift will just be torn open again immediately.

My friend was supposed to go with us to see it, but he got tied up so we went without him. The next day, he went and saw it with another group, and this was one of his criticisms. He liked how Cap and Iron Man were at each others' throats for pretty much the whole movie, but then that end just punched it all in the head. And it's totally true. Every time in the movie those two yelled at each other, I kept going, 'Civil War, Civil War,' but then they patch it up at the end.

That surprised me even more because usually in a trilogy (though technically Avengers is now a tetralogy ...) the second part finishes on a distinctly darker tone (such as Empire Strikes Back), and a lot of commentators were predicting it would. I think this was missing a trick; the Captain and Iron Man could fought together for the purposes of taking down Ultron (which is essential) but then been unable to be reconciled at the end of the film -- that would have given some emotional punch, a lot more build-up to Civil War, and frankly been more "realistic" (since Stark was the driving force between the film's entire dilemma).

I think Age of Ultron was a worldbuilder as much as anything and really made me look forward for phase 3.
There were loads of action, but in between there were character traits coming up, who thinks what about different ideological stuff (civil war). Then we had the "new team" at the end (old people gonna die? Civil War, Thor3?) with Hulk gone, IronMan businessing and Thor back in Asgard, and a few new important characters introduced (Maximoffs and Vision). Then there was loads of stuff going on "behind the scenes", we know new people have their hands on adamantium (Black Panther) and we got a new infinitygem (which everyone knew was there of course). We had people rebuilding SHIELD all this time (Agents of Shield).

I have to say I loved the fact that Hawkeye got more screentime and his secret just brought a major smile upon my face. I seem to be in the minority but I really like the character!

Age of Ultron absolutely was necessary. It is the bridge between the old team and the new. It wraps up plot elements left over from Winter Soldier. It serves as a deeper look at some of the characters. It finally shows us the mind stone.

What did IM3 give us? Nothing from that film has had seemingly any impact on anything. The big bad has not come back nor has his scheming caused any further trouble. Tony retired for about 30 seconds. Pepper gained and lost her powers. IM3 gave us nothing that tied into anything so far as I can see and was easily the most surperfluous of any of the films to date. (I also personally find it the lest interesting. I'd rather watch IM2 over and over than suffer through Tony's 'crisis' again.)

Fanghawk:
Age of Distraction: Where Avengers Messed Up

Avengers: Age of Ultron is a fun movie, but does it add anything substantial to the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

Read Full Article

You should do a similar piece questioning why Marvel even started a movie like Civil war based on an Arc that spanned the entire Marvel Universe midway into their movieplans.

I mean the point about Civil war wasn't just the Cap VS Iron Man confrontation.

It was about the superhuman registration act and how that impacted the entire world.

Obviously due to The Fantastic Four and X-Men not being usable the Civil war premise already took a big hit but...

They regained Spiderman and as of now it doesn't even sound like they're going to include him even though he was supposed to be sort of "the eye of the reader" in this story.

TLDR: There's next to no set-up for Civil War to happen and it's pretty much doomed to taste at least a little bad in regards to the comic book counterpart.

Evonisia:
Captain America: The Winter Soldier flipped everything on its head... until both Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Age of Ultron quietly omit that it ever happened.

How did Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D omit anything?

Omitting means intentionally leaving out.

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D's entire second season was tied around the demolition and intentional rebuilding of S.H.I.E.L.D

Politrukk:
Snip.

Yes, poor choice of words. My point that Winter Soldier didn't change anything when both AoS and AoU both went to lengths to revert everything back to status quo still stands. By Age of Ultron (so in the film universe, the very next film, Guardians doesn't count), everything is back to normal, all Winter Soldier did was reveal the existence of the Twins.

Bits I liked in Ultron:

Bit I didn't like in Ultron:

Everything else.

Yeah, sorry but I disagree. Avengers 2, like the first, was needed to setup the next phase.

And please, Guardians contributed nothing to the overall MCU storyline, save that it was about one of the gems.

Impossibilium:
-snip-

You're partially right about Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. explaining it. The episode before the movie came out had Coulson discovering the location of Loki's sceptre and Strucker, then passing the info on to Maria Hill. I would assume she or Tony gathered the Avengers together between that and the movie. They probably didn't show the get-together scene so they could jump into the action immediately.

Although . . . now that I think about it, neither the show nor any of the other movies make mention of the team hanging out together on a regular basis, like Age of Ultron implies. Maybe they've been hanging out at Avengers Tower together this whole time? Seems weird, and probably should've been addressed in Winter Soldier at the very least.[/quote]

My issue with Agents of Shield having the necessary set up information is that it is the spinoff show. It worked best when you see the aftermath of Winter Soldier and the fallout of SHIELD, essentially filling in information about what the multinational information agency was doing after it got taken over, but doesn't work well when it takes expository infromation away from the movie. Looking at SHIELD's ratings, more people are seeing the movie than the show. SHIELD should have stuck with looking at Strucker's research, setting up more of the universe without detracting from the main event.
And the setup could be handled by Iron Man asking "Who gave us the tip about Strucker?" with Cap going "Maria got a tip from an old friend about Strucker's operations"
"Who?"
"Wouldn't say, she trusts him"
Essentially teasing Coulson, giving a background that could be delivered anytime during the scene, and showing Hill keeping information from the Avengers. I feel like Whedon might have been a little too excited about getting his TV show to relate to the movie, and hurt the film's beginning in the process. And the cartoony (IMO) CGI during that sequence let me think more about other weaker elements there.

And with the team hanging around, I'm not sure if that can really be explained well. I mean, Dark world had Thor leave Asgard with no real ability to return, so he could just be milling around on Earth - but it happened before Winter Soldier, that doesn't give a reason why it wouldn't have been mentioned then. Bruce and Tony are shown to be working together after Iron Man 3, and reveals in AoU reveal why Hawkeye isn't present in Winter Soldier, while still having him be able to talk to Black Widow, so those cases explain communication between the members. There's just no explanation to bring EVERYONE back together other than to fight Strucker, who isn't set up well (granted, he's a filler villain). However, the actions during the fight imply they've been working together for a while - something I bought into while watching, and something that could have been menitoned in SHIELD as a world-building line to fill a plothole that fans analyzing it later would notice.

On one hand...this article and that this thread is needed pains me...the nitpicking! Some people liked it, some don't, why must we discuss this in committee? I'm no better, adding to the mess, lol!

On the other hand...it's so awesome that we have so many hero movies (and quality ones) that such a debate is even considered (much less a common occurrence).

Yeah...Age of Ultron was a fun action flick, but an absolute mess of editing.

I'd love to see the scenes that were cut from the theatrical version, because it feels like 75% of Thor's stuff is just flat out missing.

Yuuki:

Still can't take her seriously when characters like Iron Man, Hulk and Thor are around. We've actually seen those heroes at their strongest and weakest, we can sympathize with what they've been through, and we can respect them at the height of their amazing power.

Black Widow is pretty much just all talk. "Ohhh my past, my training, ledger is red, etc" well boo fucking hoo missy -_-

I think the main difference between her "demons" and theirs is that for the longest time Black Widow killed without conscience or remorse, pretty much because she was told to, while the others have had that choice for the most part (minus Hulk, obviously, but I'll get to that).

Her time spent with S.H.I.E.L.D., Hawkeye and (more recently) Bruce Banner have given her reason to consider the ramifications of what she actually did all that time.

(the collapse of S.H.I.E.L.D. gave her a chance to walk away from that life entirely)

While Hawkeye is also an assassin, he wasn't drafted and shaped from birth to be one.
As it turns out, he's actually pretty well adjusted and "normal" when he's off the job (while Black Widow...isn't).

So, while I'm not at all on board with the romance between Widow and Banner (which came out of fucking NOWHERE; I dunno, maybe I missed something because I only watch the movies?) I actually get why they're mirroring the two to each other and why she keeps banging on about her past.

Virtual Boy:
I didn't like how there was no explanation as to why the Avengers were the Avengers again. In the last Avengers movie they all go there separate ways, through the phase 2 they have no interaction throughout all of their individual movies. Then all of a sudden out of nowhere they're a team again with no explanation as to why. I get that they were going after Hydra, but a scene where they reform would have been nice.

Theta Protocol.

EDIT (so i don't get hit with low content...): to understand why the intro sequence is the way it is, you had to have watched Agents of Shield. Theta Protocol was teased for awhile, and then the last episode before the movie came out, they reveal what it is and what's going on in the age of ultron intro, and why.

I just assumed that Age of Ultron was just to set up the Mind Stone, Thanos claiming the Gauntlet, and the third Thor movie.

Scars Unseen:
Also keep in mind that Ultron was born of Stark's hubris... and the Mind Stone. It also establishes that Stark is willing to go to unreasonable lengths to make the world secure(important for Civil War). Honestly, aside from the building of the team itself, I can't really say that the first Avengers was any more important in the long term than the second. And it would be a little weird to go straight from "The Avengers have formed and they are awesome!" to "And now they in an all out war against each other because reasons!"

I think that for Civil War to not be an abrupt "where the fuck did that come from" disruption of the MCU, it is important that they showed that the Avengers are important for more reasons than just one battle they fought in New York. Call it filler if you like, but they needed to be shown doing things together before we rip them apart.

The problem with doing "Civil War" properly is that both sides have to be shown as having an equally valid point. The comics version of "Civil War" started out promisingly on this level but then derailed itself into becoming a left wing criticism of real world politics and to me that wrecked a lot of what was going on and the characterizations. I think the whole thing jumped the shark when they decided they want to have a clear 'right' side and thus did things like having Luke Cage ranting about how the pro-registration movement was tantamount to slavery (I kid you not). This also relied on a lot of characters being written very out of character, and then of course let's not forget The Skrulls were also a part of it although we don't find out the extent to which they were involved until later.

As an initial concept Civil War kind of worked because Marvel *DID* have a lot of characters who managed to operate successfully with public identities. Reed Richards and The Fantastic Four, Iron Man (although he had a secret identity beforehand), and others all ran into problems due to accountability but still managed to function. The counter argument was that if heroes became accountable there was no way they could stop villains if they always had to worry about being sued (which has happened), anyone could track them down fairly easily, and of course they would be fighting bad guys who don't worry about such things, many heroes succeeding because they take out the bad guys from within the same shadows the bad guys operate in. On some levels I found it kind of disturbing and out of character that Captain America of all people would be argueing for a lack of accountability, and what's more team up with the bloody Punisher because of it, although there is a falling out since The Punisher didn't believe in bringing villains into the fold (to put it lightly).

If they decide they want this story to be straightforward I think they will be ruining the entire point of trying to do a new version of it, and frankly while what Iron Man did pissed a lot of people off, I'm not exactly sure I'm sold on that being a good reason for there to be a civil war, especially seeing as I'm not sure who would back him except Rhodey.

I'll also be blunt, more than a civil war we need some better villains. See, I hated "Iron Man 3" because to me that was the opportunity to bring out a serious new enemy for them to face, The Mandarin being pretty huge in the comics, but they turned it into a huge joke in my mind and instead of a super villain we had Iron Man duking it out with a guy using his own creation. At least Iron Man 2 had a real villain (Whiplash), even if it made a huge joke out of Justin Hammer who should have been a much bigger deal.

The writer has managed to put into words a lot of what I didn't realize. I know I left the film feeling... whelmed.

You know when you finish a good movie or game and just sit for a few minutes and don't want to take in anything else and just bask in what you just saw/played? I didn't get that from the film, despite its good points.

Another (very minor) gripe I had was the mooks/henchmen. I get the "we are legion" schtic, but killing the same guy over and over gets dull. Why wouldn't have Ultron built different kinds of foot-soldier Ultrons to fight/wreak havok? Especially when he's going up against the Avengers and with (sort of) the knowledge of various Iron Man suits and tactics.

Therumancer:

The problem with doing "Civil War" properly is that both sides have to be shown as having an equally valid point. The comics version of "Civil War" started out promisingly on this level but then derailed itself into becoming a left wing criticism of real world politics and to me that wrecked a lot of what was going on and the characterizations. I think the whole thing jumped the shark when they decided they want to have a clear 'right' side and thus did things like having Luke Cage ranting about how the pro-registration movement was tantamount to slavery (I kid you not). This also relied on a lot of characters being written very out of character, and then of course let's not forget The Skrulls were also a part of it although we don't find out the extent to which they were involved until later.

Disney has certain...loyalties to uphold I imagine, but I wonder if Whedon will put his foot down and say no? Winter Soldier was a giant middle finger to the NSA (sort of). Usually controversy/debate sells, but I hope they are gonna avoid that and (in this instance) improve on the source material and keep it a "What do you think?" sort of story.

ChaoGuy2006:
The writer has managed to put into words a lot of what I didn't realize. I know I left the film feeling... whelmed.

You know when you finish a good movie or game and just sit for a few minutes and don't want to take in anything else and just bask in what you just saw/played? I didn't get that from the film, despite its good points.

Another (very minor) gripe I had was the mooks/henchmen. I get the "we are legion" schtic, but killing the same guy over and over gets dull. Why wouldn't have Ultron built different kinds of foot-soldier Ultrons to fight/wreak havok? Especially when he's going up against the Avengers and with (sort of) the knowledge of various Iron Man suits and tactics.

Therumancer:

The problem with doing "Civil War" properly is that both sides have to be shown as having an equally valid point. The comics version of "Civil War" started out promisingly on this level but then derailed itself into becoming a left wing criticism of real world politics and to me that wrecked a lot of what was going on and the characterizations. I think the whole thing jumped the shark when they decided they want to have a clear 'right' side and thus did things like having Luke Cage ranting about how the pro-registration movement was tantamount to slavery (I kid you not). This also relied on a lot of characters being written very out of character, and then of course let's not forget The Skrulls were also a part of it although we don't find out the extent to which they were involved until later.

Disney has certain...loyalties to uphold I imagine, but I wonder if Whedon will put his foot down and say no? Winter Soldier was a giant middle finger to the NSA (sort of). Usually controversy/debate sells, but I hope they are gonna avoid that and (in this instance) improve on the source material and keep it a "What do you think?" sort of story.

Well, one argue "Winter Soldier" in a number of directions in a political context given that at the end of the day it was all about infiltration and one could argue that half the problem was that SHIELD didn't go far enough.

The comics themselves as a general rule tend to be a bit more balanced on matter of national security although the leftism does come through (spoilers ahead). For a long time now SHIELD has been doing some pretty ruthless things without being considered the bad guys, Nick Fury for example is to put it bluntly incredibly ruthless, and so is Maria Hill. Daisy Johnson briefly ran SHIELD and was ruthless as well but pretty much demonstrated why you don't give teenagers authority by making some very rash decisions that lead to her getting run out. "Original Sin" directly broached the subject of proactive action and "the ends justify the means" ruthlessness through defining Fury as "the man on the wall" and expanding what his role was retroactively before apparently retiring him, of course half the point of the story was that even if the more moralistic heroes wind up taking him down it was accepted in the meta context that what he's doing is right and needed and he was replaced by Daisy and The Winter Soldier doing the same job. While a lot of this stuff is fairly recent (and I'm picking examples people can most easily verify) there has been a degree of balance in the comics in the past, with "Civil War" though they pretty much let the liberals get out of hand in spinning things, it was disappointing largely because Marvel has always had a talent for showing both sides, and balancing out, concepts like moralism and politics in a big picture. It's noteworthy that Marvel has say both Captain America and Wolverine. Or perhaps a much better example would be that while not an A-lister characters like The Black Widow have been around for a while and she does indeed seduce/murder/torture as a matter of course, even joking about it occasionally, and then of course we have "The Punisher" who while hated by many other heroes is still defined as being a hero especially as far as his own comics go. Cap was personally an idiot in "Winter Soldier" and I've suspected what he did to the infrastructure "on principle" might wind up having some fallout in later movies, and indeed if written well might very well contribute to "The Civil War" by way of being presented as one of the things he did that was clearly wrong. In a world where such things are necessary one could always argue the other side gets going by stepping up to try and fill the void he created, especially since "The Avengers" can't be everywhere at once... but that's entirely a guess on how they could do things. As I said, I have my concerns about them being able to do a real "civil war" type story with equally right "what do you think" sides.

When it comes to Whedon Vs. Disney, I honestly think Joss has the ability to do a story like that as a lot of what he's done in the past seems to enter into some very gray areas. Disney has the potential to do it well at the same time, but over the years it's become somewhat bi-polar given that for most of it's history it was a very "conservative" company and has been trying to waffle between that and liberalism based on what they think will get them the most money at the time. The big trick with them seems to be able to convince them that a storyline without any clear bad guys or good guys will actually be more profitable and popular than turning it into some kind of a "message movie". Of course at the same time with Disney one also has to always wonder if they understand their audience for something like this, since they might also be concerned that am ambigious story would go over the heads of the children they feel make up the majority of the audience (which in this case is hardly true).

That said if I had to guess early I'd say they will probably borrow a page from "Civil War" and it's resolution, and probably have the entire thing secretly being run by the Chitari or something as part of a plan to grab gems and weaken what Thanos probably now recognizes as potential opposition given what happened to the army he gave Loki which will act as an excuse to get away from any kind of serious in-world issues especially if they explain that from the beginning, as opposed to what they did in the comics where you don't find out about "The Secret Invasion" until later. The movie version could very well be one where the viewers know about manipulation from the beginning and while there are more hero vs. hero brawls like the movies have had before, it will move towards a predictable outcome where everyone gangs up on the manipulating force.

Politrukk:

Evonisia:
Captain America: The Winter Soldier flipped everything on its head... until both Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Age of Ultron quietly omit that it ever happened.

How did Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D omit anything?

Omitting means intentionally leaving out.

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D's entire second season was tied around the demolition and intentional rebuilding of S.H.I.E.L.D

Going by movies alone (and why have it any other way?), everything is more or less status quo from one movie to the next.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.