Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

[Shannon L.]

Thanks for the rundown, Dandesun!

 

One of the previous articles stated something about it being Natasha to have to calm the Hulk and bring Bruce back.  Like that nurturing quality was so horribly sexist and out of blue.  We could debate the sexist part, but The Avengers was on tv last night and, while I haven't seen the movie in it's entirety in a long time, I was reminded that there was at least one, quick moment, where you could see that nurturing side of her just under the surface:  when she was taking care of Hawkeye after he came out of Loki's spell.  She shushed him quietly and said "Don't.  That was Loki. That was magic and monsters.....(and things we weren't trained for? I don't remember the last part of it)".  Now, it could have been the way Scarlett played it, but it felt very nurturing to me.  And again, I don't think any of this takes away from her being a bad ass superhero. 

[VCRTracking]

 

Which proves if it had been Clint that Natasha was involved with nobody would have a problem with it AT ALL.

 

If Natasha was really just a "love interest" for Bruce and not the other way around, if she were really "damselled"  we would have been shown Bruce shooting his way through an army of Ultron drones guarding Natasha and being the courageous hero to the rescue. The whole romantic story would have been about him proving he's just as badass as  "puny Banner" and not just the Hulk so he can deserve this woman. It's because it's not about him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2015 by VCRTracking

[BatmanBeatles]

It could have been worse. We could have had a love triangle.

[VCRTracking]

Take away the whole gamma monster thing and Bruce Banner is basically Peeta and nobody thinks Katniss Everdeen is weak for liking Peeta.

 

 

 

Yep. They are both serial storytelling with shifting writers/regimes and casts. Both involve outlandish stories. Death means very little in either. Soaps have more sex and comics have more explosions but both have involved crazy, eye-catching fashion choices.

The thing that kept the Spider-Man comics going after Steve Ditko(who plotted a lot of the stories) left, was that Stan Lee made Peter Parker's life one of the greatest soap operas ever only to be surpassed by Chris Claremont's entire run on X-Men.

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2015 by VCRTracking

[Zuleikha]

, but, Conan, if you slept with four of the six Avengers no matter how much fun you had, you’d be a slut, just saying,” Renner said. “I’d be a slut.”

 

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.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Zuleikha

[Amethyst]

My friends who have seen it have all also agreed that Quicksilver is totally alive. I mean, the guy has a long ass history in Marvel comics, and with the Avengers. It would be pointless to write him out of the MCU permanently. Besides, how many people have died in the MCU? How many have turned up again? Eventually, we`re going to find out that Pietro took a vacation to Tahiti or something, I`ll put money on it. 

 

That's the problem though; they can't keep "killing" characters and bringing them back, because it's manipulative and cheap.  Joss said that even though he was a part of bringing back Coulson, he wished he hadn't because it took away the poignancy of his death, since it supposedly brought the Avengers together.  

 

Feige said that Quicksilver's death is meant to push Wanda towards being an Avenger, so I don't think he was long for the world anyway.  Quicksilver was the easy choice for the death they teased about in AoU, since he was technically an Avenger but the audience wasn't as attached to him because he was brand new and they gave him so little to do.  Wanda did most of the heavy lifting, plot-wise, and that was intentional.  And while I preferred this Quicksilver to the X-Men version, some characters have to stay dead.  Otherwise, the audience won't take the movie seriously.

[Joe]

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.

Yes. In four movies, she's kissed two people. And one of those was stated to be a distraction. The other one, who knows? We'll see where it goes or doesn't go.

[Shannon L.]

 

, but, Conan, if you slept with four of the six Avengers no matter how much fun you had, you’d be a slut, just saying,” Renner said. “I’d be a slut.”

 

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.

 

 

 

Another thing that bothers me is that he can say "I'd be a slut" all he wants, the fact is, nobody calls him (or Tony or any guy who gets around) a slut.  It's only women who have a few partners in their lives who get called that.

[lion10]

Another thing that bothers me is that he can say "I'd be a slut" all he wants, the fact is, nobody calls him (or Tony or any guy who gets around) a slut. It's only women who have a few partners in their lives who get called that.

When you say "nobody", do you mean men won't call him a slut or that no one, men and women will call him a slut?

[VCRTracking]

Former on Man and Avengers writer Kurt Busiek tweeted that Tony was a slut after the whole brouhaha.

 

This article kind of shocked me:

 

Moments after a producer told Paul Bettany his career was dead, he was asked to play a superhero in the ‘Avengers’ sequel

 

I was stunned because Bettany's been such a good actor and  I've always liked him in movies. That producer is nuts. It must have been really hard for Bettany hear because he turned down The King's Speech due to overwork and it got Colin Firth the Oscar.

[Shannon L.]

 

Another thing that bothers me is that he can say "I'd be a slut" all he wants, the fact is, nobody calls him (or Tony or any guy who gets around) a slut. It's only women who have a few partners in their lives who get called that.

 

When you say "nobody", do you mean men won't call him a slut or that no one, men and women will call him a slut?

 

I guess most people in general.  You hear it on occasion to describe men, but not with the same frequency.  It's like Tony said in the first one:  He's a "playboy".  Not that someone would call themselves a slut, but still "playboy" sounds more like how men who get around are described.  Women don't typically get a nicer adjective like that one.

 

 

Former on Man and Avengers writer Kurt Busiek tweeted that Tony was a slut after the whole brouhaha.

 

Or maybe I need to read more on social media  :)

Edited May 8, 2015 by Shannon L.

[Dandesun]

Tony also had Captain America looking down his nose at him at the time. Of course, tossing 'playboy' into the ring is not going to impress Steve. And it didn't. "I know guys with none of that worth ten of you."

 

Steve sure doesn't mince words, does he?

 

But you're right... if a man gets around he's a playboy and if a woman does the same she's a slut. It's that whole patriarchal 'women are only valuable through her purity and reproductive organs' that society has dealt with for eons. I think in some areas it's getting better... or at least being called out as a raging double-standard.

 

I certainly call Tony a slut. Because he is. He's also quite a douche... but that's kind of the point. Stan Lee made him unlikable on purpose to see if he could make such a character into a superhero. And apparently, he got quite a response from the female audience back then. In the positive. Which just made me sigh and go 'Oh, the Sixties. You changed so much and yet... you still made bad choices.' But it makes sense in a way. Tony Stark was Don Draper before Don Draper ever showed up, you know?

 

The point does remain, though, that I have no fucking clue what Renner is talking about regarding anyone sleeping with four of the six Avengers much less Widow. Who hasn't. But even if that was the case who is she sleeping with?! Tony is supposed to be in a committed relationship with Pepper. Clint is married with kids. Thor is in a relationship with Jane and Steve is mixed with being completely devoted to Peggy and only just reaching out to his neighbor for a cup of coffee only to find out that she was a SHIELD agent planted by Fury to keep an eye on him.

 

Bruce is the only option! And that's only because... does anyone know what the hell happened with Betty?

 

Although now that there's new blood, Natasha now has the option of Rhodey and Sam. Frankly, at this point, I'd say Natasha has more than earned the right to jump on some hot new Avenger and have some fun... given that she clearly hasn't before.

[KatWay]

I don't think Tony is unlikeable in the Movie Universe. I also don't think he qualifies as that bad boy with hidden woobie side (that's more Loki) and that the female fans who like him want to date him (even if he seems to be a good boyfriend to Pepper now). Tony's bad side lasted until the first ten minutes of the movie, then it became all about working through his trauma and making up for stuff. Thinking that he was dying, he went seriously overboard with the douchey-tude in the second one, but again, he's hardly a bad boy. Jerk is about the worst that he gets, and a lot of that comes from the fact that he's an eccentric genius with no filter, rather than a genuine desire to hurt people.

 

I'll admit that Tony is one of my favourite characters, because I enjoy seeing characters who have changed fundamentally and are striving to make up for past sins (Natasha is a second favourite for that reason, though we don't know as much about her). That's why I thought Thor was really underrated in his own movie, because the character really had a journey, which got overlooked because of the flashier Loki character.

 

 

Although now that there's new blood, Natasha now has the option of Rhodey and Sam. Frankly, at this point, I'd say Natasha has more than earned the right to jump on some hot new Avenger and have some fun... given that she clearly hasn't before.

 

She did flirt with Sam, didn't she? That seemed vaguely more "purposeful" to me than her interactions with Steve. I wouldn't mind them hooking up, but the one thing I really, really do not want is a love triangle. No pining, no sad looks, no woman deciding between two guys. If Bruce and Natasha are done and over (although their story feels like there could be more) then fine, move them on. But please no love triangle. Words cannot express how over them I am.

[lion10]

^ Seconded. No love triangles of any kind. At all.

[ChelseaNH]

She did flirt with Sam, didn't she?

 

It was a drive-by flirt, but Anthony Mackie is definitely worth a "Heeeey."

 

I suppose one could assume from Tony's "I want one" in IM2 that he and Natalie Rushman slept together, and that spending time alone with Steve in CA:TWS means they must have slept together, and that the close relationship between Clint and Natasha in the first Avengers movie requires sex, but that's a whole lot of assuming without much actual evidence.

[dusang]

It was a drive-by flirt, but Anthony Mackie is definitely worth a "Heeeey."

 

I suppose one could assume from Tony's "I want one" in IM2 that he and Natalie Rushman slept together, and that spending time alone with Steve in CA:TWS means they must have slept together, and that the close relationship between Clint and Natasha in the first Avengers movie requires sex, but that's a whole lot of assuming without much actual evidence.

 

Now that I'm thinking about how much Anthony Mackie is worth a "Heeeey" I am realizing that several of the MCU women have "glanced appreciatively" at the men (particularly Thor).  Although that could be viewed as women be pining and shit, I've always thought of it more as a fun gender reversal since the women are awesome and the guys are the eye candy.  YMMV.

 

And that is a whole lot of assuming on Natasha's sexual history.  And I am going to say, any person who jumped to those assumptions is probably a douche.

[Jazzy24]

Kevin Feige who is the Marvel Studio president said that Quicksilver was 100% dead and wasn't coming back, which sucks.

I don't have the link so if anyone can post it TIA.

[VCRTracking]

 

I don't think Tony is unlikeable in the Movie Universe. I also don't think he qualifies as that bad boy with hidden woobie side (that's more Loki) and that the female fans who like him want to date him (even if he seems to be a good boyfriend to Pepper now). Tony's bad side lasted until the first ten minutes of the movie, then it became all about working through his trauma and making up for stuff. Thinking that he was dying, he went seriously overboard with the douchey-tude in the second one, but again, he's hardly a bad boy. Jerk is about the worst that he gets, and a lot of that comes from the fact that he's an eccentric genius with no filter, rather than a genuine desire to hurt people.

 

His nicest moments are with Bruce in the first Avengers. It's the most generous I've seen Tony as he tries to make Bruce feel better about his condition. He wants to help him. The comparison I've always make is Tony is Ferris Bueller and Bruce is Cameron.

[Bruinsfan]

I'm only onboard with a love triangle if it's Natasha/Bucky/Steve, and Bucky's the one who has to make the choice.

 

Bruce is the only option! And that's only because... does anyone know what the hell happened with Betty?

I'm guessing that aborted love scene where Bruce's heart started racing and he almost Hulked out in the Ed Norton movie? I can see how that might have put him off continuing his romance with Betty, while not entirely ruling one out with far-less-vulnerable-and-innocent Black Widow.

[lion10]

Is the Edward Norton Hulk movie canon in the MCU?  And more civilians should've died in this movie.  A LOT more.  Was there even a single civilian fatality?  There are literally armies of murder bots rampaging through the city and no one dies?  Bullshit.  As a lead up to Civil War, it would make sense to see people getting caught in the crossfire during the Hulk and Iron Man and during the final battle with Ultron to justify why the government wants to register every single superhero.

 

ETA:  I kept expecting the seeds of the Civil War to be planted in this movie but that didn't really happen.  There was no catastrophic loss of life that would definitely shake up the world order and I expected the Avengers to have some falling out because of ideological differences or some event that happened in the movie but that didn't happen either.  I thought we were seeing the beginnings of that where Bruce, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and the Twins have a small fight inside the Avengers Tower but that was resolved quickly when Vision was made.  Instead, the movie ends pretty much like the first movie with the exception of the Hulk disappearing.  The Avengers part on good terms with a new Avengers (Defenders?) team on the way.  I feel like there should've been more unresolved issues to justify a Civil War where Tony and Steve are at each other's throats.  Thoughts?

Edited May 9, 2015 by lion10

[VCRTracking]

 

 

Is the Edward norton Hulk movie canon in the MCU?  And more civilians should've died in this movie.  A LOT more.  Was there even a single civilian fatality?  There are literally armies of murder bots rampaging through the city and no one dies?  Bullshit.  As a lead up to Civil War, it would make sense to see people getting caught in the crossfire during the Hulk and Iron Man and during the final battle with Ultron to justify why the government wants to register every single superhero.

 

There obviously were civilian casualties but just like the last movie they weren't shown. There's supposed to be an incident in the beginning of Civil War that's so terrible that' it's the final straw and the government says "enough is enough".

 

 

[spaceytraci1208]

I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. The fight scene between the suped-up Iron Man and the Hulk was incredible.

When Vision, struggling to self-identify, just simply says "I am" I couldn't help but just nod and say "Word..." lol

I found myself thinking several times that Scarlet Witch is more what Jean Grey should be in the X-Men movies

Edited May 10, 2015 by spaceytraci1208

[lion10]

I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. The fight scene between the suped-up Iron Man and the Hulk was incredible.

When Vision, struggling to self-identify just simply says I am" I couldn't help but just nod and say "Word..." lol

I found myself thinking several times that Scarlet Witch is more what Jean Grey should be in the X-Men movies

 

When Vision said that, the first thing I thought of was the verse in the Bible where God says in answer to Moses asking who he is, "I AM THAT I AM".

[benteen]

About Black Widow, she was captured and spent all of ten seconds as a prisoner.  She's rescued by Banner in a very non-descript way and it's her, not Banner, who wants to stay and fight.  Doesn't seem like much of a damsel to me.

[JessePinkman]

The singular problem with the betrayal of the Black Widow in these films is that she is the only woman on the team until the last 5 seconds of the movie, which means she has to be everything to everyone. If she's at all maternal then she's stereotyped as the mother, if she's at all aggressive then she's just the bitch. It's as though a handful of conversations with Bruce somehow discounted several dozen scenes of her kicking ass across 4 movies.

It makes me happy that Sam and Rhodey are gonna be in Cap 3 so neither has to carry the baggage of being The Only One.

[VCRTracking]

Saw it again last night, this time in IMAX and liked it just as much as I did the first time, probably even more. I never thought the action scenes were that confusing(at least compared to a Transformers movie) but it was clearer on a bigger screen. The parts I enjoyed, I still do and it's flaws bother me less. There are newer things I appreciated. Like I really love the cameraderie and easy rapport the Avengers had in the beginning of this movie, whether in battle or on their downtime. You really believe that everybody even Thor  are friends, not just teammates. I like that if felt the scope got bigger because they got to go to locations, like Korea, South Africa, and Europe. In the last movie there were scenes that supposedly took place in Germany and India but you could still tell it was filmed on a backlot or filmed in the US. Pietro even got more likable the second time, which made his I actually shed a tear even though I knew it would happen. The first time I was disappointed that it never felt like "Hawkeye's movie" like someone who was at an early screening tweeted, because I was expecting that more of the movie be from his POV. This I can appreciate how he came into focus in the middle of the movie and how important he is just as the ordinary guy among "gods" who does his job and that makes him(and Natasha) even more brave to me during the final act.

Edited May 10, 2015 by VCRTracking

[frenchtoast]

I saw it again on Saturday and it did make it a better movie for me, though I couldn't laugh with most of the audience at the first, "Didn't see that coming?" because I'm bummed he died. But, after the first time I saw it, it felt disjointed. I described to someone as a series of vignettes kind of linked together by battles. But on second viewing, knowing the main plot lines, it was much easier to get the tone and feel of the movie. I actually enjoyed it more. I remember walking out of Winter Soldier and nearly buying a ticket for a second showing. I didn't feel like that after Ultron. But after a second viewing, I'm really looking forward to the Blu-ray release to be able to see it again.  

 

One thing that I think is just me, but I get the feeling that the image of the fallen Avengers that Tony saw is the flip side of the monument that we see during the credits. It just feels like such a hopeful way to end a somewhat depressing film. Even though they "won" it feels like they lost some of the friendship and team that they had built. It's still there, but like Clint said, they took a hit and they're not over it. They still have the friendship and team work, but they need time away to see how they fit together now. I can see why there wasn't a shwarma scene at the end. It wouldn't have felt right.

 

Even with a second viewing, I still feel like Ultron's feelings and motives aren't quite fully developed. As great as Spader is, the character still feels thin to me. 

[dusang]

One thing that I think is just me, but I get the feeling that the image of the fallen Avengers that Tony saw is the flip side of the monument that we see during the credits. It just feels like such a hopeful way to end a somewhat depressing film. Even though they "won" it feels like they lost some of the friendship and team that they had built. It's still there, but like Clint said, they took a hit and they're not over it. They still have the friendship and team work, but they need time away to see how they fit together now. I can see why there wasn't a shwarma scene at the end. It wouldn't have felt right.

 

Not just you -- a trivia item on the IMDb page says that it is.  Although that's not a definitive reference, at least you can say that other people saw it too.

[Jaded Sapphire]

VCRTracking already mentioned it but the "slut" thing by Renner is just a (bad) joke. He's making fun of the idea presented in the original interview that Widow slept with Bruce and Cap. She hasn't slept with either and if you watch, its clear that his slut comment is practically dripping with dry sarcasm. He just exaggerated it even further for the Conan interview. Edited May 11, 2015 by Jaded Sapphire

[Bruinsfan]

I was willing to give him a pass the first time as just telling a joke that went over like a lead balloon. But after he caught backlash for it and gave the world's least sincere "I'm sorry people were offended by what I said" apology, doubling down on the slut-shaming jokes on Conan came across as really crass and disrespectful.

 

Every time he gives an interview the tiny bit of residual affection carrying over from playing a character I really like gets further eroded.

[anna0852]

I think one of the things I liked most about this movie was that it did a very good job of setting up how Tony Stark comes down on the side of the government during Civil War.  He is absolutely terrified of what is out there and what may have to be done to protect the earth. If organization and registration means that the next time the Chitauri or Thanos or Loki or whomever comes knocking, earth is ready then I can see how he thinks it's worth it. He is clearly still blaming himself for 'opening the door' as it were by building that suit in the first place, (not to mention providing the arc reactor used to help open the wormhole in the first movie) that he'll do anything to make it right. Even if that means cooperating with the government.

[Dandesun]

I think one of the things I liked most about this movie was that it did a very good job of setting up how Tony Stark comes down on the side of the government during Civil War.  He is absolutely terrified of what is out there and what may have to be done to protect the earth. 

 

Meanwhile, Steve's stance was made very clear in Winter Soldier. "This isn't freedom. This is fear."

 

Which just furthers the idea that it's Tony's fear that drives him. Plus, he probably never really recovered from the PTSD he was obviously suffering in IM3. It's like, he can deal with Thor... he's one guy and he looks human (if ridiculously buff and hot) and he can probably deal with Loki the same way. One dude with a penchant for flamboyant headgear... but the things that came through that wormhole and what he saw when he went through obviously hit him right where he lives. "I don't get that. I can't build something to deal with that." 

 

Steve is more along the lines of 'We face what comes and we deal with it together as a team because it's only as a team that we can succeed... if we are alone then we are truly lost.' Steve is the kind of guy who will always believe that no one man is the difference... it's a united front... despite the fact that he's very much the one man who can make the difference.

 

And Tony is the loner who can't do it alone.

[anna0852]

I think both Steve and Tony need to learn from each other and that is what I hope ultimately happens in Civil War (cause God know's they'll need to get it together for Infinity War). Steve's insistence on the 'team' mentality comes with it's own vulnerabilities, the same as Tony's loner outlook. Steve needs to develop the ability to see the team as individuals as well as parts of the whole because otherwise he's going to recognize far too late when one of them is in the kind of trouble that will destabilize the team. Like Tony's raging PTSD and Banner's gradual breakdown through this film. I don't recall Steve addressing either of these very real issues. Tony said it the first film, he's not a solider. He's just a person trying to do good in the world with the resources that he has been blessed with. 

 

I think Steve's biggest blind spot is recognizing that with the possible exception of Thor (and now Rhoady and Wilson) none of the Avengers are soldiers. Barton was a SHIELD agent, Natasha a spy and Banner a scientist (with a very bad temper). Vision and Wanda aren't soldiers either. If Steve wants to be able to utilize the skills they bring, then he's going to have to recognize that each person/Asgardian/android will have to be approached at least a little differently.

[MisterGlass]

I think Steve recognizes them as individuals, and respects their differences and abilities.  In the first Avengers he assigned everyone a role based on what they could do.  He does focus on what the team can accomplish, but that's his role.  Steve is also unique in that he would rather lose the right way than win the wrong way.  That is why he's Captain America.  It is his calling to lead by example and he is irritated when people try to take shortcuts because he knows what the end result may be.

 

It is unfortunate that Falcon wasn't at the final battle, but I'm going with the idea that Rhodey was on hand because he's still active military, and Sam couldn't be called up in time.

 

 

Cap 3 is shaping up to be Avengers 3 and I don't know how to feel about that. Winter Soldier was so nice and pared down.

I get more nervous with every casting announcement.  CA:TWS is the perfect example of why characters need side projects to grow and develop, rather than serving only as appendages to the main narrative.  Both Cap movies have had the chance to explore the range of comic characters, first in a period war movie and then in a modern spy thriller.  I hope that all these characters keep to the background, and let the core trio from CA:TWS continue their narrative.  Steve, Natasha, and Sam made a great team.  Maria Hill and Bucky can be in it too.

 

 

Comics are soap operas with colorful spandex costumes.

So, so true.  But I also support the no-cinematic-love-triangles motion.

[dusang]

I think one of the things I liked most about this movie was that it did a very good job of setting up how Tony Stark comes down on the side of the government during Civil War.  He is absolutely terrified of what is out there and what may have to be done to protect the earth. If organization and registration means that the next time the Chitauri or Thanos or Loki or whomever comes knocking, earth is ready then I can see how he thinks it's worth it. He is clearly still blaming himself for 'opening the door' as it were by building that suit in the first place, (not to mention providing the arc reactor used to help open the wormhole in the first movie) that he'll do anything to make it right. Even if that means cooperating with the government.

Tony didn't open the door, the Tesseract did, which Tony had nothing to do with. The Tesseract was powering itself, the ARC reactor wasn't involved. Tony just provided the venue for Loki by building a big tower with his name in lights.

[anna0852]

I could have sworn JARVIS said something about having shut down the ARC reactor but that the rig for the Tesseract was already self powering.

[stealinghome]

I could have sworn JARVIS said something about having shut down the ARC reactor but that the rig for the Tesseract was already self powering.

Yes--I believe Loki used Tony's arc reactor to get the tesseract rig juiced up, but once it was "on" it was self-powering.

 

I agree that Tony had absolutely nothing to do with the alien invasion of Earth--that was all Thor and SHIELD--but it's Tony. He's massively egotistical. I can totally buy that he somehow thinks he's responsible.

 

I think one of the things I liked most about this movie was that it did a very good job of setting up how Tony Stark comes down on the side of the government during Civil War.  He is absolutely terrified of what is out there and what may have to be done to protect the earth. If organization and registration means that the next time the Chitauri or Thanos or Loki or whomever comes knocking, earth is ready then I can see how he thinks it's worth it. He is clearly still blaming himself for 'opening the door' as it were by building that suit in the first place, (not to mention providing the arc reactor used to help open the wormhole in the first movie) that he'll do anything to make it right. Even if that means cooperating with the government.

I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, I have a REALLY hard time reconciling this Tony with the Tony that was massively distrustful of the government from like thirty minutes into Iron Man on. MCU!Tony's entire MO has pretty much been anti-government from the jump. I understand that fear is a powerful motivator, but it's really hard for me to believe that Tony could be so afraid that he would willingly go in with the same people who ordered a nuclear strike on Manhattan. If that is what Cap 3 is going to try to push, well, good luck to the Russo brothers, because they'll need it....

[Bruinsfan]

I get more nervous with every casting announcement.  CA:TWS is the perfect example of why characters need side projects to grow and develop, rather than serving only as appendages to the main narrative.  Both Cap movies have had the chance to explore the range of comic characters, first in a period war movie and then in a modern spy thriller.  I hope that all these characters keep to the background, and let the core trio from CA:TWS continue their narrative.  Steve, Natasha, and Sam made a great team.  Maria Hill and Bucky can be in it too.

Age of Ultron actually eased my worries on that score. It was so stuffed with characters it threatened to burst like Bruce Banner's wardrobe at times, but Steve was pitch-perfect from the first scene of the movie to the last. As long as Chris Evans has a lock on the character and the writing supports him, everything else will fall into place.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Bruinsfan

[shrewd.buddha]

This one just felt underwhelming compared to the first. It was as if director Whedon was just following a formula established in the first movie :

A) One big fight between two of the heroes

B) Bickering among the group 

C) The heroes must form a circle jer..., uhmmm,  circle of power during the final battle

D) Someone significant needs to die

 

It also seems as if the Scarlet Witch's powers could be described as "whatever is needed by the plot". She could put people out of commission with visions, or induce a rage state, or activate all the breaks on a commuter train. Her pulling a 'heart' out of a android also seemed bit odd. 

 

And while we did enjoy all the spectacle and destruction and the hero's concern for civilian casualties, there were a few clunky plot points.

Such as :

The A.I. villain creating a keyhole that must be activated manually - thus allowing for the hero circle.

The creation of the Vision somehow seemed unnecessary -  so they added some excuse to make it seem necessary. 

 

Overall, I think the experience suffered from all the hype, sneak peeks, and behind-the-scenes information leaked to create rabid anticipation. I felt like I knew most of the movie's story already and the actual movie just filled in the gaps. 

Edited May 12, 2015 by shrewd.buddha

[Dandesun]

It also seems as if the Scarlet Witch's powers could be described as "whatever is needed by the plot". She could put people out of commission with visions, or induce a rage state, or activate all the breaks on a commuter train. Her pulling a 'heart' out of a android also seemed bit odd. 

 

To be fair, that's pretty much what Wanda's powers have turned into. Originally she affected probability but since then she's expanded into reality warping and chaos magic so, essentially, 'whatever we need her to do for the plot.' And probability manipulation is so vague in and of itself... of course writers over the years have turned it into vastly different things.

[dusang]

To be fair, that's pretty much what Wanda's powers have turned into. Originally she affected probability but since then she's expanded into reality warping and chaos magic so, essentially, 'whatever we need her to do for the plot.' And probability manipulation is so vague in and of itself... of course writers over the years have turned it into vastly different things.

 

Oh my God, I finally realized what "probability manipulation" reminded me of!!  The Infinite Improbability Drive from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy! Just be glad Joss didn't throw in a random whale.

[Glory]

This article kind of shocked me:

 

Moments after a producer told Paul Bettany his career was dead, he was asked to play a superhero in the ‘Avengers’ sequel

 

I was stunned because Bettany's been such a good actor and  I've always liked him in movies. That producer is nuts. It must have been really hard for Bettany hear because he turned down The King's Speech due to overwork and it got Colin Firth the Oscar.

I was just having this conversation with my husband, but Paul Bettany is one of those actors that I always thought should be more famous then he was. I think his talented and charming and handsome - so why hasn't he made more movies? I was extremely pleased to see him actually show up as Vision and not just as the voice of JARVIS. 

[Bruinsfan]

To be fair, that's pretty much what Wanda's powers have turned into. Originally she affected probability but since then she's expanded into reality warping and chaos magic so, essentially, 'whatever we need her to do for the plot.' And probability manipulation is so vague in and of itself... of course writers over the years have turned it into vastly different things.

Yeah, in the comics Wand has even resurrected the dead, which we've been told for decades is a feat beyond the Sorcerer Supreme. Call it what you will, but her power is effectively that of Plot Contrivance.

[ribboninthesky1]

Overall, it think the experience suffered from all the hype, sneak peeks, and behind-the-scenes information leaked to create rabid anticipation. I felt like I knew most of the movie's story already and the actual movie just filled in the gaps. 

 

I posted in another thread months ago that I felt like I'd seen the movie just based on the trailers.  Watching the actual movie didn't change my mind.  

[ChelseaNH]

It also seems as if the Scarlet Witch's powers could be described as "whatever is needed by the plot".

 

At this point, it's telepathy and telekinesis.  Although neither term is especially well-defined, there are some general scope boundaries.

[VCRTracking]

 

Again, a repeated viewing

 

This article from Birth.Movies.Death the themes and character arcs of the movie. Excerpt:
 

Earth’s Mightiest Monsters: The Character Arcs Of AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON

A second viewing of Avengers: Age of Ultron - a viewing free of hype and hope, a viewing in which you’re armed with a basic understanding of the plot, allowing you to dig a little deeper - pays off in enormous ways. The film, a slightly too-breathless, sort of too-dense blockbuster, suddenly opens up, the little character moments emerging from between the set pieces and the fights. Most of my niggling problems with the film simply melted away on a second viewing, and many of the lingering questions felt answered.

More than that, the character arcs of the original Avengers stood bright against the backdrop of Ultron’s machinations; they’re easy to miss on a first viewing because they’re woven so completely into the film’s plot, but once you have that plot under control you can begin to see the ways that the Avengers’ personalities - and their journeys across almost a decade of Marvel Studios films - informs everything.

 

 

 

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/05/12/earths-mightiest-monsters-the-character-arcs-of-avengers-age-of-ultron

 

I agree that the second viewing I new things like Cap's arc and his search for "Home." In the beginning when Steve talks about trying to find a place in Brooklyn even though it's expensive, Falcon says "Home is home." and Steve gets this pensive look on his face. At the end when they're at the new Avengers facility in upstate New York and Steve tells Tony "I'm home.'

 

Thor got the least deep character stuff but that's probably because his personal problems are HUGE and he doesn't even know it, because Loki has (probably) killed his father Odin, and replaced him as ruler of Asgard. Things that won't get resolved until the next Thor movie.

 

 

This one just felt underwhelming compared to the first. It was as if director Whedon was just following a formula established in the first movie :

A) One big fight between two of the heroes

B) Bickering among the group

C) The heroes must form a circle jer..., uhmmm,  circle of power during the final battle

D) Someone significant needs to die

It's the same but it's also different because in the last movie they were all strangers, in this one these are friends and people who've fought side by side for a few years. The bickering is different because they know each other very well. The big fight isn't just between the Iron Man and Hulk, it's between Bruce and Tony(Science Bros!). It's significant because the Hulkbuster armor in the comics is pretty ineffective but in the movie actually works because Bruce helped Tony design it. I like the joke of it being called "Veronica" because of Bruce's ex "Betty).

[Bruinsfan]

What I want to know is why Tony didn't use Veronica against Ultron in the big final battle(s). That thing was powerful enough to take down the Hulk in a drawn-out fight; seems like it might have come in handy against a vast horde of robot villains, including one that was all but indestructible. Hell, if he could have gotten the original containment device back in service he could have dropped that on Ultron's trigger mechanism and kept it safe until they were ready to blow the city up.

[anna0852]

I think Hulk busted Veronica up pretty good. I seem to remember him swiping the support container out of the sky. Plus that suit was hard to manuever in. Great for fighting Hulk but dozens and dozens of smaller ultrons would probably have ripped to shreds.

[VCRTracking]

Whoever posted these in the "Headscratchers" section of the AoU page at TVTropes agrees:
 

* We have no idea of in what shape the Hulkbuster itself was left after bringing down that skyscrapper, we only got to see one arm. It's perfectly possible that the armor simply wasn't in sufficently working order, and couldn't be repaired quick enough. Plus, the Hulkbuster was designed to engage one single, extremely powerful and durable enemy, not hundreds of robot drones which needed to be destroyed quickly and over a large area. They already had a Hulk, so that part was covered.
* The Hulkbuster, while more powerful with its multiple unibeam-strength repulsors, brute force, and easily replacable parts, was a brute force solution to a brute force problem. It was designed with the sole goal of being able to overpower, restrain, or incapacitate The Hulk when he's out of control and raging. As a result, it's not as mobile as most Iron Man suits are, has a blind spot on its back, and is about as agile as you'd expect from a 11 foot walking tank. Against the more agile and numerous drones that just have to get past it, the Hulkbuster wouldn't do nearly as well.

[Shannon L.]

I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier.  Re:  apparel for girls, try this site:  Think Geek

 

It's one of my family's favorite sites--we've purchased a lot from them over the years (they also have toys, trinkets...all sorts of things from $5 up to a couple hundred).  They have girls clothing (mostly for bigger kids and adults, though), with Marvel characters (although, sadly, Black Widow is left out once again), DC characters, Star Wars, Dr. Who, etc.....Some are silly, but some are really nice.  Since my daughter is a Dr. Who fan and science is her favorite subject (there's a lot of science related stuff), we spend most of our money there for her t-shirts and gifts. U

 

Unfortunately, they also have quite a few things that are out of stock--some of their items go fast.  And, I just did a more thorough look and there are a few things with Black Widow on them:  a tank top, a t-shirt and a jacket that's labeled "Black Widow jacket". 

Edited May 14, 2015 by Shannon L.