Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

[Dandesun]

As far as apparel: 

 

Redbubble

We Love Fine

Her Universe

 

are all good options and all have Black Widow stuff. (I am also currently wearing my Agent Carter T-Shirt from Redbubble.)

 

As far as toys go... I haven't got any news on that front. ::sad face::

Edited May 14, 2015 by Dandesun

[frenchtoast]

I know we can get stuff online. It's just not fair that walking past the boys stuff in Target--loads of stuff. Walking past the girls stuff, not so much. But, yeah, they're not marketing to girls/women and they don't care. She's not really interested in toys, but she would notice that they switched out Widow for Cap in that toy set and wonder why they would do that. Because seriously, that makes no sense. 

[Dandesun]

It doesn't make sense and it really is stupid. They didn't cut Leia out of merchandising back in the 70s when Star Wars came out. She was part of the movie, therefore, she was part of the merchandise. She was shooting Stormtroopers before Han and Luke ever got into the game; she was in the trash compactor... she was part of the action so when you had play sets you needed her to fill out the story just as much as you needed Han or Luke.

 

Black Widow is part of the action. Make the god damn action figures. When Nickelodeon tested out Legend of Korra in order to ascertain whether or not boys would want to watch the show led by a girl it was revealed that boys didn't care that Korra was a girl, they cared that she was awesome.

 

Black Widow is awesome. Make the fucking toys!!

[nobodyyoucare]

What bothers me most about this quote is not exactly that Renner calls Black Widow a slut, but that as far as I know, in the MCU, Black Widow has slept with a grand total of zero of the Avengers. So he's both wrong and an a-hole.

 

Also, comic books Hawkeye has a reputation for being a slut.

You need to read the Ultimate Marvel series and hope the movie universe doesn't use certain story lines of that universe. Especially regarding Hawkeye. 

 

Black Widow used seduction to get close to her targets. Notice how Cap knew she was really interested in Banner and not just flirting? 

[VCRTracking]

 

What bothers me most about this quote is not exactly that Renner calls Black Widow a slut, but that as far as I know, in the MCU, Black Widow has slept with a grand total of zero of the Avengers. So he's both wrong and an a-hole.

 

Seeing the actual interview it was clearly meant to be just a joke. He's pretending to be hurt that she's with Banner as opposed to Hawkeye or Cap. He also said she has a "prosthetic leg anyway" which is also obviously wrong. Of course then you had people offended that he made an 'ablest' joke and saying "He's making fun of Natasha's prosthetic leg!" She doesn't even have a prosthetic leg you idiot! To me he was reacting to a inane question about the characters' love lives.

 

Edited May 16, 2015 by VCRTracking

[Bruinsfan]

It's really their reactions to the backlash that are defining, not what they said in the clip above. There's being chastened that your words have offended people and making a sensitive apology and resolution to do better (the Evans approach), and then there's being butthurt that people dared to take issue with what you said and going on to repeat the jokes/dismissively whine about people's reaction on national television (the Renner approach).

Edited May 16, 2015 by Bruinsfan

[VCRTracking]

That's why they make a great Cap and Hawkeye. He tweeted a sweet Happy Mother's Day geeting to Scarlett so I'm pretty sure he likes the actress.

[JBC344]

It's really their reactions to the backlash that are defining, not what they said in the clip above. There's being chastened that your words have offended people and making a sensitive apology and resolution to do better (the Evans approach), and then there's being butthurt that people dared to take issue with what you said and going on to repeat the jokes/dismissively whine about people's reaction on national television (the Renner approach).

As much as I agree with this sentiment for a lot of what comes out of entertainer's mouths.  I also think that there is something to be said when a public figure takes a stand and demands that "You the media/public/whomever are not going to disregard intention and take something I said and make it into something it wasn't for your own pleasure".  Personally, I don't know if I would have repeated the joke on Conan, but I like that Jeremy Renner isn't allowing people to bully him into making this situation something it clearly wasn't.

 

Truth be told I wish that the lack of Black Widow merchandise received just as much attention and outrage as people are making about the Black Widow "slutgate".  To me that is a real issue of gender inequality and misogyny than a stupid joke taken out of context.  

[ChelseaNH]

Truth be told I wish that the lack of Black Widow merchandise received just as much attention and outrage

 

Depends on where you hang out.  I've seen more virtual ink devoted to the merchandising problem.

[Kel Varnsen]

I saw it on the weekend. It was fun, although kind of predictable. Ultron's plan was crazy but kind of worked, the whole creating an extinction level event by dropping the city. Although other than for dramatic reasons, why not just find a huge chunk of rock in the middle of no where a drop that. 

 

Hawkeye's big reveal was fun. I totally thought that when he yelled "Honey I'm home" it was going to be some kind of safehouse code phrase. Plus him having a family kind of explains for me where he was during The Winter Soldier. Because if not on a mission of course he would be spending all his time with his family. 

 

Only a couple of little things bugged, I can't believe for a second that a super high level intelligence agent like Barton, wouldn't be able to pronounce the word Wakanda, especially considering the country's importance. And it seemed to me that Wanda's accent was all over the place. 

 

I liked vision though, and his head gem being the stone from Loki's staff totally worked for me. Plus since it was an infinity stone, then I can kind of accept that it would give him phasing powers, as well as give him the power to erase Ultron from the internet. 

 

Seeing the Helicarrier was fun too, over on the Agents of Shield page a few weeks before the movie opened I was wondering what happened to that thing.

[nobodyyoucare]

I saw it on the weekend. It was fun, although kind of predictable. Ultron's plan was crazy but kind of worked, the whole creating an extinction level event by dropping the city. Although other than for dramatic reasons, why not just find a huge chunk of rock in the middle of no where a drop that. 

 

Hawkeye's big reveal was fun. I totally thought that when he yelled "Honey I'm home" it was going to be some kind of safehouse code phrase. Plus him having a family kind of explains for me where he was during The Winter Soldier. Because if not on a mission of course he would be spending all his time with his family. 

 

Only a couple of little things bugged, I can't believe for a second that a super high level intelligence agent like Barton, wouldn't be able to pronounce the word Wakanda, especially considering the country's importance. And it seemed to me that Wanda's accent was all over the place. 

 

I liked vision though, and his head gem being the stone from Loki's staff totally worked for me. Plus since it was an infinity stone, then I can kind of accept that it would give him phasing powers, as well as give him the power to erase Ultron from the internet. 

 

Seeing the Helicarrier was fun too, over on the Agents of Shield page a few weeks before the movie opened I was wondering what happened to that thing.

Remember he was using the chitauri stuff that hydra had at that base to lift up the city. Plus it was where his robot bodies were being built. Plus having his base in a populated are means the Avengers or the world cannot use heavy weapons due to collateral damage. 

Wakanda is pretty much unknown to the world Its super isolationist. No sat images of it exist for example and even the countries around it have no idea of the culture of the people there or how to get inside its borders. Also wasn't it Banner trying to pronounce it? 

[lion10]

Is it just me or did Tony's back up AI system sound like Natasha?

[ChelseaNH]

Argh, I just realized that it's his "girl Friday."

[Bruinsfan]

I heard an Irish accent when Friday was speaking. Though if I were Tony, I'd have used Majel Barrett's voice for my suit AI systems.

I liked vision though, and his head gem being the stone from Loki's staff totally worked for me. Plus since it was an infinity stone, then I can kind of accept that it would give him phasing powers, as well as give him the power to erase Ultron from the internet.

I'd assume the Vision's density control powers come from the weird fusion of vibranium and artificial flesh that his body is made out of.

[Amethyst]

I heard an Irish accent when Friday was speaking. Though if I were Tony, I'd have used Majel Barrett's voice for my suit AI systems.

 

You're on the right track.  F.R.I.D.A.Y was voiced by Kerry Condon, who is Irish.

[Danny Franks]

Just got around to seeing this. I was... whelmed (is that a word? I think it is in Europe). Not anywhere near as good as the first one, but not bad either. The action scenes were overly long, and eventually descended into the same pit that most movie action scenes do now. That is, masses of pixels moving so fast that I can't really tell what's going on.

 

I loved Wanda. Really loved her. Elizabeth Olsen did vulnerable and strong so well, and the instability of the character really came across. Her powers were visualised so well, and she had a clearly defined journey, through the movie. Pietro was a bit shortchanged, and felt more like a hanger on than someone making decisions for himself. But then he went and died because some snot-nosed kid couldn't pick himself up and run.

 

The Vision was a lot cooler than I thought he would be. A character I never had time for in the comics, but one that worked well in this story. I liked him copying Thor with the cape, and the hammer gag was beautifully done. A nice bit of shorthand to answer all the 'why should we trust you?' questions.

 

Ultron himself, though? I was not impressed. Too wacky, too irreverent, and he just didn't feel like the overpowering threat I was meant to see him as. I think Whedon fell into the trap of trying to get too many laughs from his villain, and it just undercut the menace. Also, he should never have given Ultron a mouth. That was just goofy.

 

Hawkeye was far more Hawkeye than he has been before. Even in those moments in the first movie when he wasn't brainwashed, he was boring. In this one, he actually had a personality that felt more fitting for the guy from the comic books. The wife and kids were a surprise, but not an unwelcome one. Of all these characters, he's the one who had the best shot at being normal.

 

Natasha is freakin' awesome. Except when she's mooning over Banner. What the hell? I have no idea where any of that came from, and I resented the hell out of it by the time the third or fourth random person talked about how sweet they were together. It felt like scenes stitched in from a completely different movie. I could understand it if Bruce acted like a cute dork, as Natasha seemed to be trying to sell. But he doesn't. Ruffalo plays Banner like a twitchy heroin addict in withdrawal. It's what made his performance in the first movie so much better than those who had played the character before him.

 

And when you look at the Marvel movies as a whole, I can kind of see the point that Chris Evans and Jeremy Renner were making in that infamous interview, even if I don't agree with the obnoxious way they made it.

 

Iron Man 2 - Natasha gets her flirt on with Tony

Avengers - Natasha has a very close, unexplained connection with Hawkeye

Cap 2 - Natasha flirts with Steve and sticks her tongue down his throat to keep their cover

Avengers 2 - Natasha is, for some reason, suddenly gaga and mooneyed over Banner

 

Actually, it does make sense in one way. It's Whedon doing what Whedon does so often when he writes comic books: Sticks two characters together, who have never been in a relationship, to 'stamp his own mark' on the canon. That's exactly what it felt like here. So forced, and so desperately trying to make the audience feel like this was some glorious, starstruck romance in the making. "Did you know what would happen, back then?" No, Natasha. No one did. Not even the actors playing you and Bruce, because they seemed as baffled by it as I was, and that really came through in their scenes together. Scarlett Johansson just seemed incredibly self-conscious and uncomfortable, and Ruffalo was giving her nothing to play off. Shame this had to come at the expense of... well, of anything else that Natasha could have done. Hell, she even got her silly girl self captured, and had to rely on her manly boyfriend-to-be rescuing her.

 

Anyway, as an addition to the Marvel series, it's middling. Better than the Thor movies and Iron Man 3, worse than all the others.

[Kel Varnsen]

Also wasn't it Banner trying to pronounce it? 

You're totally right it was Bruce, and not Clint.

 

I heard an Irish accent when Friday was speaking. Though if I were Tony, I'd have used Majel Barrett's voice for my suit AI systems.

I'd assume the Vision's density control powers come from the weird fusion of vibranium and artificial flesh that his body is made out of.

The fact that his power comes from an infinity stone probably doesn't hurt. I am sure the flesh and vibranium allow it to happen but the fact that something like that controls it allows me to suspend disbelief a bit (if that makes any sense).

 

. Except when she's mooning over Banner. What the hell? I have no idea where any of that came from, and I resented the hell out of it by the time the third or fourth random person talked about how sweet they were together. 

So I guess if Bruce/Natasha is going to be a thing then I guess Marvel wants us to completely forget about Betty Ross  I get why they didn't want Ed Norton to come back, but what's the problem with Liv Tyler? If they can keep mentioning Natalie Portman's character, why not at least even mention Betty?

[Zuleikha]

And when you look at the Marvel movies as a whole, I can kind of see the point that Chris Evans and Jeremy Renner were making in that infamous interview, even if I don't agree with the obnoxious way they made it.

 

Iron Man 2 - Natasha gets her flirt on with Tony

Avengers - Natasha has a very close, unexplained connection with Hawkeye
Cap 2 - Natasha flirts with Steve and sticks her tongue down his throat to keep their cover
Avengers 2 - Natasha is, for some reason, suddenly gaga and mooneyed over Banner

 

I don't think that's a fair summary though. I haven't seen IM 2 (although my understanding is any flirting was done as part of her persona, not her, and never developed into anything beyond flirtation), but her Avengers connection with Hawkeye is played totally platonically on the screen. It could have been a romantic relationship, but it's not retconny at all that it wasn't. In Cap 2, she doesn't flirt with Steve. She spends most of the movie teasing him about his lack of a dating life and trying to set him up. The kiss was very clearly all about safety and not romantic or sexual, and there's no suggestion of either a relationship or a fling. They're friends and colleagues. One of the (many!) things I loved about Winter Soldier actually was seeing a hot, sexy man paired with a hot, sexy woman in a movie with no hint of romantic or sexual tension. It's a distressingly rare phenomenon.

 

So Renner was just being an idiot and an asshole. 

[nobodyyoucare]

 

 

So I guess if Bruce/Natasha is going to be a thing then I guess Marvel wants us to completely forget about Betty Ross  I get why they didn't want Ed Norton to come back, but what's the problem with Liv Tyler? If they can keep mentioning Natalie Portman's character, why not at least even mention Betty?

Banner doesn't want anything to do with Betty or any woman who could bear children. His dna is tainted. As for Natalie Portman's character odds are she will show up in the next Thor movie. 

[Danny Franks]

I don't think that's a fair summary though. I haven't seen IM 2 (although my understanding is any flirting was done as part of her persona, not her, and never developed into anything beyond flirtation), but her Avengers connection with Hawkeye is played totally platonically on the screen. It could have been a romantic relationship, but it's not retconny at all that it wasn't. In Cap 2, she doesn't flirt with Steve. She spends most of the movie teasing him about his lack of a dating life and trying to set him up. The kiss was very clearly all about safety and not romantic or sexual, and there's no suggestion of either a relationship or a fling. They're friends and colleagues. One of the (many!) things I loved about Winter Soldier actually was seeing a hot, sexy man paired with a hot, sexy woman in a movie with no hint of romantic or sexual tension. It's a distressingly rare phenomenon.

 

So Renner was just being an idiot and an asshole. 

 

I'm talking about the way the writers used her character in those movies to elicit responses from the audience. The only one that I would give them a pass on would be Iron Man 2, because she is only getting up close and personal to Tony as part of her job, and that's made clear. In the others... well it's not like writers don't realise how stuff will play on screen when they write it. They knew that a close, undefined relationship with Clint, and teasing hints at their past would get some fans salivating. Just like they knew that having her kiss Steve in Cap 2 would get more fans salivating. 

 

It feels disingenuous to me, and they never do that with the male characters. Each of them gets a 'true love' right off the bat. Even Tony, who slept with Leslie Bibb's character and expressed an interest in Natasha, was all about Pepper apart from that. Natasha is used to tease connections with each of them in turn. Given all the other issues revolving around Marvel's treatment of female characters (and Natasha in particular), I don't think it looks good.

 

Like I said, this sub-plot just felt so completely like Whedon saying, 'I'm going to put my stamp on this, and no one can stop me' that it really bugged. So he gives Natasha a weird Oedipal Complex thing with Bruce/Hulk, because none of the other characters are available for it. It felt so utterly unearned at the end, where she's standing forlornly in the hangar because the Hulk flew off to Fiji (and my only reaction was, 'he's just not that in to you', because Ruffalo never played an ounce of interest that I could see). Completely jarring moment that was presumably meant to resonate.

 

Also, this has just been brought back to me. In the first movie, Natasha is all about making up for the terrible things she's done. She felt an obligation to repay Fury and to help people. Now... she wants to run away with Bruce and not fight any more? So I guess she's done enough now, and saving the world from a malevolent robotic menace is someone else's job? That doesn't feel like Natasha Romanoff to me.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Danny Franks

[stealinghome]

Now... she wants to run away with Bruce and not fight any more? So I guess she's done enough now, and saving the world from a malevolent robotic menace is someone else's job? That doesn't feel like Natasha Romanoff to me.

But isn't that why Natasha ultimately elected to stay? I took that to be the point of her brief "yeah, okay, let's go" with Bruce, only to ultimately turn back around and kick him down into the pit. That at the end of the day, Natasha can't walk away and not fight for the world. That running away was a fantasy--but not because they couldn't make it work. Because Natasha isn't ever going to be able to know that she could be out there saving the world, helping people, and choose not to do so. It's easy, when you're Steve and have no life, or Natasha in the first Avengers movie with like one meaningful human connection, to be married to the job. It's a whole lot harder when you have something--someone--you actually value and could make a life with, leaving the job behind. (See also Hawkeye in this movie.)

 

Frankly, that's the real reason Natasha and Bruce don't have a viable long-term future as a couple. Natasha will never walk away from the job, while Bruce would give it all up in a heartbeat if he could.

Edited May 20, 2015 by stealinghome

[Llywela]

Also, this has just been brought back to me. In the first movie, Natasha is all about making up for the terrible things she's done. She felt an obligation to repay Fury and to help people. Now... she wants to run away with Bruce and not fight any more? So I guess she's done enough now, and saving the world from a malevolent robotic menace is someone else's job? That doesn't feel like Natasha Romanoff to me.

Natasha was very clear about wanting to finish the job of saving the world from a malevolent robotic menace before going anywhere with Banner - she even forces him back into that fight because it isn't done and they are both needed. The only reason she talks about running away at all is because Banner wants to and she wants to be with him.

 

I mean, yes, the would-be relationship is kind of out of nowhere and doesn't play smoothly on-screen. But Natasha isn't running away from the job before it's done.

 

Edit - or, you know, what stealinghome said.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Llywela

[Danny Franks]

But did they not have the same conversation, but taking opposite sides, earlier in the movie? At the farmhouse, didn't Natasha want to walk away and Bruce said they couldn't? I'll be honest, I was pretty bored by that entire, overly long scene, so I stopped paying attention to the romance melodrama dialogue.

 

I flat out didn't believe that Natasha wanted to be with Bruce, because despite the dialogue, Johansson was not selling it. No surprise, when she admitted herself she didn't understand how it fit the character.

[VCRTracking]

Actually, it does make sense in one way. It's Whedon doing what Whedon does so often when he writes comic books: Sticks two characters together, who have never been in a relationship, to 'stamp his own mark' on the canon. That's exactly what it felt like here. So forced, and so desperately trying to make the audience feel like this was some glorious, starstruck romance in the making. "Did you know what would happen, back then?" No, Natasha.

 

 

He did that with Tony and Bruce, who have never been friends in the comics, but their bromance became one of the most popular things about it. It didn't feel like a glorious romance. Just two people who were trying to make a connection but it didn't work out. People are so used to seeing couples living happily ever after or are soulmates that are tragically doomed in movies that they don't recognize a relationship that fails just because two people aren't right for each other.

 

Also, this has just been brought back to me. In the first movie, Natasha is all about making up for the terrible things she's done. She felt an obligation to repay Fury and to help people. Now... she wants to run away with Bruce and not fight any more? So I guess she's done enough now, and saving the world from a malevolent robotic menace is someone else's job? That doesn't feel like Natasha Romanoff to me

 

.

People always conveniently forget that she chooses to stay and fight. Not only that she's willing to sacrifice herself and not leave the floating city.

 

It feels disingenuous to me, and they never do that with the male characters. Each of them gets a 'true love' right off the bat. Even Tony, who slept with Leslie Bibb's character and expressed an interest in Natasha, was all about Pepper apart from that. Natasha is used to tease connections with each of them in turn. Given all the other issues revolving around Marvel's treatment of female characters (and Natasha in particular), I don't think it looks good.

 

Black Widow in Iron Man 2 was on assignment. When Tony found out she was a spy he was pissed. We now know her relationship with Hawkeye is strictly platonic so those scenes in the first Avengers are not romantic. They could have had Natasha be involved romantically with Cap in The Winter Soldier but they didn't. Yes, she flirted as Steve tells Bruce but in the end it's more a solid friendship. She wasn't looking for anything more. With Bruce she does want more so that's why she acts different. She explains to Bruce that all her friends are fighters but she likes Bruce because he avoids the fight.

 

But did they not have the same conversation, but taking opposite sides, earlier in the movie? At the farmhouse, didn't Natasha want to walk away and Bruce said they couldn't? I'll be honest, I was pretty bored by that entire, overly long scene, so I stopped paying attention to the romance melodrama dialogue.

 

The romantic melodrama of Natasha revealing she can't have children because the people who trained her to be an assassin and had her sterilized so she would making her a more efficient, remorseless killer? Bruce said there was no where on Earth where he wasn't a threat and didn't want to run away with her because he couldn't give a normal life with kids like the Bartons had. That's when Natasha tells her she can't have kids either. That gets misinterpreted by people who think Natasha calls herself a monster because of being sterile when it's because she was  a ruthless killer. It seems people were so squicked out by Bruce and Natasha that they missed the very important line of how Natasha said she had a dream she was an Avenger that felt real and not the cold assassin she was made to be.

 

Superheroes think about quitting to have a normal life but ultimately don't because they're needed. It happened to Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man and it happened to Black Widow.

Edited May 20, 2015 by VCRTracking

[Danny Franks]

He did that with Tony and Bruce, who have never been friends in the comics, but their bromance became one of the most popular things about it. It didn't feel like a glorious romance. Just two people who were trying to make a connection but it didn't work out. People are so used to seeing couples living happily ever after or are soulmates that are tragically doomed in movies that they don't recognize a relationship that fails just because two people aren't right for each other.

The success or failure of the relationship doesn't change the fact that Whedon was using some rather trite dialogue to sell the Importance of this nonsense. "Did you know what would happen?" "I adore you". None of it felt real.

 

As for Tony and Bruce, I wasn't that sold on them either. The 'Science Bros' fandom stuff wasn't particularly interesting to me. It felt like a Brian Michael Bendis idea, and those have always been very hit or miss.

 

Black Widow in Iron Man 2 was on assignment. When Tony found out she was a spy he was pissed. We now know her relationship with Hawkeye is strictly platonic so those scenes in the first Avengers are not romantic. They could have had Natasha be involved romantically with Cap in The Winter Soldier but they didn't. Yes, she flirted as Steve tells Bruce but in the end it's more a solid friendship. She wasn't looking for anything more. With Bruce she does want more so that's why she acts different. She explains to Bruce that all her friends are fighters but she likes Bruce because he avoids the fight.

And like I said, that's Whedon tying up all the loose ends as it suits him, after other writers have used the character to tantalise the audience. The scenes in the first Avengers movie were not written as strictly platonic, I think that's evident. They were deliberately ambiguous, and while I've long been on record here, and at TWoP, as saying that I felt it would be much stronger if they were only platonic, even I doubted that was the intention.

 

 

The romantic melodrama of Natasha revealing she can't have children because the people who trained her to be an assassin and had her sterilized so she would making her a more efficient, remorseless killer? Bruce said there was no where on Earth where he wasn't a threat and didn't want to run away with her because he couldn't give a normal life with kids like the Bartons had. That's when Natasha tells her she can't have kids either. That gets misinterpreted by people who think Natasha calls herself a monster because of being sterile when it's because she was  a ruthless killer. It seems people were so squicked out by Bruce and Natasha that they missed the very important line of how Natasha said she had a dream she was an Avenger that felt real and not the cold assassin she was made to be.

The romantic melodrama of the coy, 'Oh, I didn't know you were in the shower. I would have joined you' nonsense. Not interested. If they'd cut that shit out and gone straight for her backstory, I might have stuck with it.

[VCRTracking]

 

"Did you know what would happen?"

She wasn't asking Fury if he knew she and Banner would hook up. She was asking him if he knew Banner would one have to leave the team eventually.

 

The romantic melodrama of the coy, 'Oh, I didn't know you were in the shower. I would have joined you' nonsense. Not interested. If they'd cut that shit out and gone straight for her backstory, I might have stuck with it.

 

 

The scene began with Natasha alone flashing back to the Red Room and getting the "procedure" and all the things Wanda made her remember. Bruce was still upset over the Hulk rampaging and hurting innocent people. The whole scene between them was underlined by both Bruce and Natasha's fears and the coyness was just them trying to cover the hurt  they were both feeling because of what happened in Africa.

 

 

"I adore you".

That was before kissing him and then pushing him off a ledge and making him turn into the Hulk.

 

And like I said, that's Whedon tying up all the loose ends as it suits him, after other writers have used the character to tantalise the audience.

 

The only other writers that filled up her backstory were the ones for the Winter Soldier who to me was working from what Whedon had already established(based on the comics) in The Avengers, with the hospital fire, her relationship with Hawkeye and that Natasha was trained from an early age and that she had "red in her ledger".

[Advance35]

Bruce/Natasha wouldn't have been my first choice (So far I tend to like when he's paired up with Tony from a character stand point) But I really liked Natasha in this.   I thought she was resourceful and clever, and in the end I felt for her, in that something she was hoping would work didn't.  She's a soldier to the end, kind of like Peggy Carter in a way.

 

Steve said (and was right) she's not the most open person and I think that's what the end was about, in terms of her staring at the wall.  She was just taking a moment and then when Steve found her, like flipping a switch she was back to business.   She was like that throughout the movie and it fit in her dynamic with Bruce as he's the closest thing to a civilian between the two.   She made a definitive choice that her personal wants and goals would come 2nd to the mission, proving that like CA she's a true Avenger, she's not just having a "dream" like she seemed to think (and may still) though I liked that we the audience were reminded she's a hero.

 

Though I like how throughout the movies she keeps her dryly cynical edge.  Her "Nothing last forever" came off humorous but at the same time a little world weary.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Advance35

[millennium]

I just saw Ultron today and thought it a grand disappointment.

 

The disillusionment began in the first moments, in the battle in the forest.   The CGI was Harryhausenish, so noticeably artificial that it disspelled all atmosphere of believability.

 

The stand the Avengers made at the core ("is that the best you got?") was just as absurd.  All that slow motion, all the choreographed moves, it felt like interpretive dance more than a life or death battle.

 

James Spader's voice was so immediately recognizable I could hear Ducky saying, "Blaine?  That's a name you give a refrigerator."  (Which seems a bit prophetic in retrospect.)   It also made me want Shatner on board as Denny Crane.

 

I wasn't buying the Hulk pain or the Hulk shipping.   There were too many characters to become invested in any of them individually, and they didn't get me there as a team either. 

 

The movie had no heart, no soul.    Its vast emptiness was depressing.   Even the heroic moments felt plotted and manufactured.

 

In the end, it amounted to a lot of light and sound, a few one-liners, and Samuel L. Jackson not saying "What's in your wallet?" although what's in our wallets is the only thing this movie was really about.

 

This is the last Avengers movie I'll see.  

Edited May 25, 2015 by millennium

[Danny Franks]

 

The disillusionment began in the first moments, in the battle in the forest.   The CGI was Harryhausenish, so noticeably artificial that it disspelled all atmosphere of believability.

 

Yeah, that opening scene was... not good. It was obviously meant to excite the audience and invoke an 'oh boy, this is awesome already!' feeling, but it just didn't. I agree that the effects looked ropy and it all felt too choreographed and rehearsed. I'm thinking of another superhero movie that opened with an action sequence, many years ago, and absolutely blew my mind. X-Men 2. That opening with Nightcrawler infiltrating the White House was everything that this opening sequence wasn't.

 

The big action scenes were really trying to recreate that great sequence from the first Avengers movie, which took in all of the characters as they fought the Chitauri in New York, but none of them hit the mark. Trying too hard, without enough new ideas.

 

I think Whedon has burned himself out, or just stopped caring enough, and I'm glad he's stepping away. The Russo brothers already made Marvel's best movie, with Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and I think they can do a good job taking the franchise forward. If they're allowed to. Because it seems like Marvel are forcing more and more characters into these movies, and the result seems to be a misjudged, crowded and rushed movie. Trying to force even more characters into subsequent films? I think we'd be into 'bloated mess in need of a reboot' territory.

[millennium]

 Because it seems like Marvel are forcing more and more characters into these movies, and the result seems to be a misjudged, crowded and rushed movie. Trying to force even more characters into subsequent films? I think we'd be into 'bloated mess in need of a reboot' territory.

 

They're making the same mistake made with all the Batman movies -- too many heroes/villains, too many individual storylines.  In the Batman movies, with the exception of the first Burton film, it was multiple villains in every movie, compounded by the later addition of Robin, Batgirl and rubber nipples (which I contend were actual characters in the film since they received as much or more attention from the press than the actors themselves).    I was surprised and dismayed to see Nolan make the same multi-villain mistake in his films.   I'm guessing DC will try to remake the Avengers with Justice League, with all the same pitfalls. 

 

Personally, I'd rather see smaller scale and a stronger story any day of the week (especially when paying $15+ for a ticket).   These movies are becoming more like amusement park rides -- you come away remembering moments and sensations but story?  Not so much.

 

The big action scenes were really trying to recreate that great sequence from the first Avengers movie, which took in all of the characters as they fought the Chitauri in New York, but none of them hit the mark. Trying too hard, without enough new ideas.

 

They've kind of painted themselves into a corner.   If they don't have a villain who can spawn minions by the hundreds or thousands, what are all the heroes going to do for the final hour of the movie?  

Edited May 25, 2015 by millennium

[DrSpaceman]

I didn't care at all about the romantic storyline with Banner. Found myself wishing I could fast forward through those scenes.

It was an OK movie, but nothing great.

And from the previews, really, now they are making Ant Man? really leaving no stone unturned in the Marvel universe to scrape a movie together.

[millennium]

I didn't care at all about the romantic storyline with Banner. Found myself wishing I could fast forward through those scenes.

It was an OK movie, but nothing great.

And from the previews, really, now they are making Ant Man? really leaving no stone unturned in the Marvel universe to scrape a movie together.

 

Antman unintentionally puts it all in perspective right in the preview, when the villain goes "Antman?" and he replies, "Yeah, I know.  It wasn't my idea."

 

I'd rather see a Tomb of Dracula movie.   Or Werewolf By Night even.

[nobodyyoucare]

Tomb of Dracula? Wasn't that where Blade was introduced?

 

 

[Joe]

I didn't care at all about the romantic storyline with Banner. Found myself wishing I could fast forward through those scenes.

It was an OK movie, but nothing great.

And from the previews, really, now they are making Ant Man? really leaving no stone unturned in the Marvel universe to scrape a movie together.

Ant-Man was Edgar Wright's personal project, only he left. I think the movie was too far along in production to suddenly do something else.

[Danny Franks]

They're making the same mistake made with all the Batman movies -- too many heroes/villains, too many individual storylines.  In the Batman movies, with the exception of the first Burton film, it was multiple villains in every movie, compounded by the later addition of Robin, Batgirl and rubber nipples (which I contend were actual characters in the film since they received as much or more attention from the press than the actors themselves).    I was surprised and dismayed to see Nolan make the same multi-villain mistake in his films.   I'm guessing DC will try to remake the Avengers with Justice League, with all the same pitfalls. 

 

Personally, I'd rather see smaller scale and a stronger story any day of the week (especially when paying $15+ for a ticket).   These movies are becoming more like amusement park rides -- you come away remembering moments and sensations but story?  Not so much.

 

I can't really think of any superhero movie franchise that hasn't fallen into that trap. X-Men and Spider-Man both did, but at least they managed to get two movies done before it happened. I thought that Whedon and Marvel would be smarter, this time around, but alarms started going off when they first unveiled Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, then they said that Falcon and War Machine (not Iron Patriot because Whedon can't be arsed paying attention to other writers) would be in it, and then the Vision. Too crowded, and not enough time for them all.

 

Yes, Hawkeye finally got to do more than frown and fire arrows, and Wanda was pretty great, but that was at the expense of Thor ('I must disappear offscreen for twenty minutes to discover plot'), Cap and Iron Man. The idea of Tony feeling obligated to act rashly because of his guilt over a possible future could honestly have been a mainstay of the plot, but it was reduced to a few minutes of macguffin required to create Ultron and then Vision. I guess they needed more time for awkwardly written, awkwardly acted 'romance'.

 

Oh, and haven't they also agreed a deal for Spider-Man to appear in the next one? Oh dear. All they're missing now is Wolverine.

[nobodyyoucare]

Iron Patriot armor was part of AIM's plan. So why would he still be named Iron Patriot after AIM's plan was revealed? Wouldn't he change back to War Machine armor and public identity as War Machine to get rid of the association of what occurred with the whole kidnapping the president bit? 

Edited May 26, 2015 by nobodyyoucare

[Kel Varnsen]

Yeah, that opening scene was... not good. It was obviously meant to excite the audience and invoke an 'oh boy, this is awesome already!' feeling, but it just didn't. I agree that the effects looked ropy and it all felt too choreographed and rehearsed. I'm thinking of another superhero movie that opened with an action sequence, many years ago, and absolutely blew my mind. X-Men 2. That opening with Nightcrawler infiltrating the White House was everything that this opening sequence wasn't.

The opening scene didn't bother me quite as much, although I do agree that some of the effects looked pretty bad. And that slow-motion shot of all the avengers jumping in slow motion was super cheesy. It was like something out of a bad cartoon.

 

As far as the number of characters go I agree it is getting kind of crazy. I can't imagine what the next avengers movies are going to be like, since  you have to figure that the Guardians of the Galaxy are going to show up, along with possibly the Black Panther and Captain Marvel. For awhile now I thought they should start doing Marvel Team-Up movies. Pick a couple of characters who aren't big enough to support their own solo movie, but would make a good movie if it was two heroes. Vision and the Scarlett Witch would be a good one. 

Edited May 26, 2015 by Kel Varnsen

[magicdog]

Just saw it yesterday - overall I was disappointed.

 

 

The action scenes were overly long, and eventually descended into the same pit that most movie action scenes do now. That is, masses of pixels moving so fast that I can't really tell what's going on.

 

This.

 

Too many people, too many plots or subplots, and heaven knows what else to try to fit into this film and it made me tune out completely.

 

I never bought the Natasha/Bruce attraction.   Bruce was not romantically interested in anyone in this film, even Natasha should have seen that.

 

I didn't find Ultron to be that great of a villan.  He was far more effective and menacing in is animated incarnation from Avengers - EMH.  

 

Usually there's a period in which the proverbial monster turns on his master after a period of time, Ultron was a bad seed from the get go.  Then Vision comes along despite the big mistake Tony made with Ultron (which goes against comic canon but whatever).   BTW, did anyone think of this as a 'Less than Zero' reunion of sorts with Robert Downey, Jr. & James Spader?

 

I did like the surprise of Hawkeye having a wife and kids at home.    Ditto the gag with Vision being able to pick up Thor's hammer.

 

They mentioned Wakanda so that means a Black Panther movie is coming.  

 

Ultron's plot to wipe out the human race was also a bit extreme.  He could have done it differently without having to drop half a city on the planet.  If anything it would have made more sense to hack into nuclear launch codes and try to blow the earth up that way.  Conveniently, he was locked out.  In fact, there's a TV movie that airs occasionally called, "Avengers Heroes of Tomorrow" in which we see a world in which Ultron pretty much succeeded in decimating the human population and had virtual tentacles in the robot world he created in its wake.  

 

Had an issue with the twins.  I'm assuming this movie is not part of the same universe as the recent X-Men films since THAT Quicksilver was a teenaged punk from 1973 and not a 20 something kid from Eastern Europe in the present.  Plus - why kill him?  He was one of the Avengers too at some point with his sister, right?

[nobodyyoucare]

 

Ultron's plot to wipe out the human race was also a bit extreme.  He could have done it differently without having to drop half a city on the planet.

it is what the resources he had on hand for the plan B if he didn't get the launch codes. He was simulating the effect of an asteriod impact. Enough to wipe out the majority or all of mankind but not destroy the planet. 

[Danny Franks]

Had an issue with the twins.  I'm assuming this movie is not part of the same universe as the recent X-Men films since THAT Quicksilver was a teenaged punk from 1973 and not a 20 something kid from Eastern Europe in the present.  Plus - why kill him?  He was one of the Avengers too at some point with his sister, right?

 

This version of them was far closer to the source material than the X-Men: Days of Future Past ones were. Twins from Eastern Europe with special powers is pretty much the core of the characters, before they were revealed to be Magneto's kids. And yeah, in the comics they first joined an Avengers group that consisted of them, Cap and Hawkeye.

 

They were one of the brighter spots of the movie, for me, and I was annoyed that they killed Quicksilver. But better him than Wanda, who I think should be a mainstay of the group, moving forward. A second woman (imagine that!), and one with pretty cool powers. But I think Pietro will be returning. I wonder if they'll go for some version of Scarlet Witch altering reality to bring him back, as she did so famously in Avengers Disassembled and House of M.

[nobodyyoucare]

You have to introduce death of one of the heroes some time. How many movies has it been in the Marvel Cinematic universe prior did no superpowered heroes die? Ten films. No superhero death for what appeared to be for good.

 

But better Quicksilver then Scarlet Witch due to abilities and her upcoming roles as to events. 

[Jazzy24]

Speaking of superheroes dying I think in the next Avengers movies we will be seeing a lot of heroes dying.

[Kel Varnsen]

One thing I forgot to mention that kind of annoyed me about the movie. I really wish we had gotten the movie equivalent of this scene. At least just the line.

 

Edited May 26, 2015 by Kel Varnsen

[dusang]

Had an issue with the twins.  I'm assuming this movie is not part of the same universe as the recent X-Men films since THAT Quicksilver was a teenaged punk from 1973 and not a 20 something kid from Eastern Europe in the present.  Plus - why kill him?  He was one of the Avengers too at some point with his sister, right?

 

 

This version of them was far closer to the source material than the X-Men: Days of Future Past ones were. Twins from Eastern Europe with special powers is pretty much the core of the characters, before they were revealed to be Magneto's kids. And yeah, in the comics they first joined an Avengers group that consisted of them, Cap and Hawkeye.

 

They were one of the brighter spots of the movie, for me, and I was annoyed that they killed Quicksilver. But better him than Wanda, who I think should be a mainstay of the group, moving forward. A second woman (imagine that!), and one with pretty cool powers. But I think Pietro will be returning. I wonder if they'll go for some version of Scarlet Witch altering reality to bring him back, as she did so famously in Avengers Disassembled and House of M.

 

I'm pretty sure killing Quicksilver was part of the agreement between Marvel and Fox to allow him to appear in Avengers.  Although there's tonnes of legal wrangling over whether he's an X-person or an Avenger, I'm pretty sure Fox has the primary claim.  And Kevin Feige, president of Marvel Films, has said rather definitively that Pietro is really, truly, for reals dead.

[VCRTracking]

 

One thing I forgot to mention that kind of annoyed me about the movie. I really wish we had gotten the movie equivalent of this scene. At least just the line.

It's a great line from a great story arc(Ultron Unlimited by Kurt Busiek and George Perez) but MCU Thor hasn't been speaking with the Olde English "thees" and "thous" like his 616 counterpart.

 

I think the reason I liked AoU more than most was because my favorite part of the first movie wasn't the action scenes at the end). It was the characters interacting in the middle section and I'm glad we got more of it in this movie.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

It's a great line from a great story arc(Ultron Unlimited by Kurt Busiek and George Perez) but MCU Thor hasn't been speaking with the Olde English "thees" and "thous" like his 616 counterpart.

So then just ditch the "thee" and make him say Ultron! We would have words"..Replace Firestar with Wanda and the Black Panther with the Widow, and there it is. I actually met Kurt Busiek years ago and got him to sign my cover of Avenger Volume 3 #19 with Ultron on it. He said that was his most favourite cover that George Perez did on their Avengers run.

[Lantern7]

Maybe they're saving that moment for Thanos in the next movies. Also nice to translate: "OH, YEAH?!? WELL, MY GOD HAS A HAMMER!!!" Sorry if I biffed the quote.

[VCRTracking]

Thor's anger in the comic was justified in that Ultron's plan in the Ultron Unlimited story was way more horrifiying. He basically killed everybody in some small country(also in Eastern Europe) and turned their corpses into zombie cyborgs.

[lion10]

I was confused about the time line of the movie. How long was Ultron missing to allow him to rig a city with gigantic thrusters? I felt this movie was disappointing in regards to character deaths, not to be bloodthirsty lol. Just Quicksilver died and I knew that no one else would die.

I feel that Civil War may be a little stuffed. They've got to put in the catastrophic event that makes the government want to have tighter control over the capes, Tony's reaction, Steve's reaction, and the ensuing shitstorm that engulfs everyone.

[dusang]

I was confused about the time line of the movie. How long was Ultron missing to allow him to rig a city with gigantic thrusters? I felt this movie was disappointing in regards to character deaths, not to be bloodthirsty lol. Just Quicksilver died and I knew that no one else would die.

I feel that Civil War may be a little stuffed. They've got to put in the catastrophic event that makes the government want to have tighter control over the capes, Tony's reaction, Steve's reaction, and the ensuing shitstorm that engulfs everyone.

He didn't set up the thrusters - that was the HYDRA lab.