A lot of stuff from the trailers wasn't there either which makes me think the movie was much longer and was shortened (maybe that version spaces things out better).

I've heard that the original cut was over 3 hours long. Did you know Loki was cut from the film? They cut Goddamn LOKI from the film! Why??


He's scary serious one second and the next he's cracking a one-liner that just deflates the pressure entirely. His CGI body is cool, but I can;t get over how his seemingly metal mouth moves in a very un-metal like fashion. Like it's muscle. The voice could have been darkened a little too (like the trailer).



Yeah, the Ultron we were shown in the trailer was nothing like the one we got in the movie. Ultron has cool lines in the trailer; he has jokes at the end of each sentence in the movie. His mouth moves robotic-ly in the trailer; it moves like a person's in the movie. His voice was dark and sinister in the trailer; it was forgettable and almost corny in the movie.

The one moment of Ultron's in the film I liked was when he took off Klaw's arm almost accidentally and immediately apologized, as if he didn't realize how fragile humans were. I wanted more of that Ultron, the one who though he knew everything in the world but was surprised by the most obvious things - hell, that'd be great motivation for him: a know-it-all who thinks his way is the best, not understanding that the best way to help humanity is to let them evolve and become better. But as you said, his motivation in the film is vaguely defined.


Claudia Kim is a doctor that appears out of nowhere who is liked by all immediately (reminded me of how Maya Hansen should've been portrayed) but again, nobody is really invested in her survival. Or finding out about her personality.

I had no idea why they introduced her in the film. They didn't even bother trying to make her interesting before blowing a hole through her chest.


Cobie Smulders tries and fails to make Maria Hill relevant. Once again. Which, again, is a shame.

Yeah... I feel that, if she couldn't hold her own in The Winter Soldier, then she doesn't have much chance at being widely recognized. I'm sure there are people who wonder who she is each time she shows up in a movie, even if they've seen all the others. Sometimes I almost forget who she is... A real shame, since she's a neat character and a talented actress.


Finally, the new duo. The twins.

Scarlet Witch is my new favorite Avenger. Her powers are amazing. Did anyone else catch that neat movement she made after attacking Cap, when she moved back to close the door, but it was sped up or something? Holy shit! That was awesome! Why couldn't we get more of that??

Quicksilver... man, what a letdown. Very little of his powers are seen, and he spends most of the final battle huffing and puffing before saving Hawkeye from those bullets. Hey, couldn't he have just moved them out of the way with his super-speed? Why not grab the bullets like DoFP Quicksilver did? I wonder if Marvel gave up making an interesting Quicksilver after Fox made the superior one.


And in case it isn't obvious, the editors on this film should've been fired and never be allowed to touch another Marvel film again.

:this:




Oh and let's just conveniently forget that Tony no longer has the deadly shrapnel in his chest which was the reason he had the Arc Reaktor in there anyway and also that he decided (and promised to Pepper, mind you) that his Iron Man days are behind him. Oh and also, that he blew up all his suits to give us a multi-billion dollar light show.

Yeah. SCREW YOU IRON MAN 3!!! Christ, what an abomination...


And apparently, despite leaving everything and pretending he doesn't exist, Fury still acts and eventually becomes the top dog at the new(?) S.H.I.E.L.D. if you can call it that. With Helicarriers and shit.


Yeah. I thought he burned his eyepatch. I mean, I guess he could have bough a new one at the eyepatch store, but isn't SHIELD supposed to be Coulson's thing now? I know Whedon despises the idea of Coulson being resurrected, but have some respect for the shared universe, dude.

That's what I noticed. Whedon doesn't have respect for the shared universe. None of the characters have apparently evolved since The Avengers. Tony's still Iron Man - despite the events of IM3, Cap's still a trusting Boy Scout- despite being betrayed by his favorite organization, and Black Widow has apparently lost all of her badassery skills that she had in TWS. Whedon almost pretends that these events never happened in terms of character development. They're spouting off one-liners at each other like the Battle of New York was yesterday. You could introduce someone to the MCU by showing them The Avengers followed by AoU, and they wouldn't notice something amiss at all.


What really disappoints me about this movie is that the trailers looked great. GREAT. Ultron was menacing, the tone seemed just right, and the use of Strings was masterful. In the movie, we get a "Strings" quote out of fucking NOWHERE, Ultron's cracking jokes that no one thinks are funny, and it all seems very unfocused.

That's exactly how I felt with Iron Man 3. Great trailers, poopy movie. I thought that IM3 was a fluke, but apparently Marvel's quality control may be getting lower... AoU was especially disappointing after the treats that were The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy. 2014 was a fantastic year for the MCU.

The jokes in Age of Ultron were very hit-and-miss. Sometimes I think Joss Whedon read about something called hoo-mor in a book and wanted to use it in his films. This is what I'm talking about:

*Iron Man shoots bad guys*
Iron Man: Good talk.
Bad guy: No it wasn't!

HAHAHA. No wait, that's a little dumb. The best jokes are often the ones made by the actors, not the ones through snappy dialogue. Like when Cap nearly lifted Mjolnir, and Thor got scared. Then Cap couldn't, and Thor smiled and laughed. THAT'S FUNNY! It was funny because of Hemsworth's acting, not because of the situation necessarily.


The good news is the same writers and directors are not only doing Cap 3 but the Infinity Wars. And perhaps we'll get an extended cut of AoU one day, a version that makes more sense.

I'm both excited and fearful for that. Cap 2 is one of my favorite movies, and the idea that the same team is coming back for Cap 3 and Avengers 3 and 4 is amazing. But I worry that they might get burnt out, and produce a lackluster product like AoU.

Fun fact: when Hawkeye kissed his wife, a little boy in the theater I went to shouted, "Ewww!" :laugh:

Remember how fanboys/girls reacted to the news that Quicksilver was going to be in X-Men: DOFP & Avengers: AoU?

Remember the negative response to the character's costume? (The 1970's will be remembered for the music - at least the first half of the decade because in the second half . . . disco - and the movies, but never for the clothes: platform shoes? wide-ass lapels? bell bottomed jeans? polyester!!!!) Plus he's a teenager, an age group not exactly known for sartorial splendor.)

Remember how Whedon's version of Quicksilver was going to own Singer's version?

Not hearing those voices now.

Ummm... ok, I really am out of here now 'til I've properly caught up with the MCU. Too many unspoilered spoilers. :p

I agree with the general consensus. AOU was a letdown. Not a bad film, but nowhere near to what it could have (should have) been.

Pros:

1. Character Development for Hawkeye.
2. Lots of true laugh out loud moments (1 liners, banter etc...)
3. Most action scenes are much more interesting than Avengers 1.

And then we get the much longer list...
Cons:

1. Plot was convoluted and messy
2. Besides Hawkeye, character's development stops, or even in some cases takes a step backwards. The Avengers almost felt like caricatures at times.
3. Some action scenes felt choppy (probably from trimming the run-time) and too goofy at times. Which is sad because at times the action was great.
4. Ultron was underdeveloped and underwhelming (Loki and Winter Soldier remain the only interesting Marvel villains). Ultron was goofy and un-menacing. Like a 2 yr old who weighs 200lbs. Dangerous perhaps, but not threatening. Okay, not the best analogy ever. :)
5. Hydra went from an interesting new threat, to nothing in the first 10 minutes of the film.
6. My biggest complaint is the horrible 3rd act. It just DRAGGED. Ultron drones became as easy to destroy at the equally forgettable Chitauri. And Ultron's big "destruction" plot was just dumb. Quicksilver's death made no sense. My biggest 3 reasons being:
A). Why did he run into the path of the bullets instead of grabbing Hawkeye and the kid and running to safety?
B). We see blood stains on both sides of Quicksilver's shirt, so the bullets passed through him, meaning they should have also killed Hawkeye and the kid.
C). Why did Hawkeye just sit in the open instead of grabbing the kid and diving for cover? Him huddling over the kid isn't gonna save his life.


Ummm... ok, I really am out of here now 'til I've properly caught up with the MCU. Too many unspoilered spoilers. :p

Probably a good idea. :)

Yeah, this thread is a bit of a minefield right now! I'll be back in a few months' time... ;)

Yeah, this thread is a bit of a minefield right now! I'll be back in a few months' time... ;)

I read this and then went searching for a GIF of that "Jessie don't go" Geico commercial. No luck. :(

I read this and then went searching for a GIF of that "Jessie don't go" Geico commercial. No luck. :(

Is the commercial on YouTube?

Is the commercial on YouTube?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgMVMaK1NnY
What I was looking for was a gif of seconds 19 - 25. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgMVMaK1NnY
What I was looking for was a gif of seconds 19 - 25. :D

Ah yes, I forgot to say that I already looked it up and found it. I also found about 3,285,924 other commercials and wasted about 20 minutes. :p

They're rather good! Strange to think I was in a commercial once.

Strange to think I was in a commercial once.

You as is you or you as in Sulley? :)

You as is you or you as in Sulley? :)

Me, as in the half of my dual personality that says "whilst" a lot. Not the furry monster half.

Thread revival time

Initial consensus on upcoming Ant-Man seems to be mixed to positive. It seems to be veering into a more comedic territory than the rest of the MCU but I fear Iron Man 3 like gags instead of the good Guardians type stuff. The director has done a good job apparently replacing my one and only reason to ever get an ounce of excitement with regards to the superhero who turns tiny. Peyton Reed, with some stints on New Girl and doing films like The Break-Up, Bring It On, Yes Man and an almost 2005's Fantastic Four, none of which inspire confidence, has managed to come into this film minus key crew with the same release date as was agreed upon with his predecessor (who happened to have been working on the film for just eight years). The script was rewritten by star Paul Rudd and Anchorman's Adam McKay when Rudd and Reed joined forces. One of the members of the crew that departed was Oscar winner Steven Price in the music department, so instead Christophe Beck will provide the score. Similarly instead of Bill Pope, Russell Carpenter will be DoP.

Rotten Tomatoes is at 64%, Metascore is 65/100 and IMDb is at 8.2/10 at present.
It'll be out on July 17. Amazon says the score will be out August 7 (which is weird and incorrect methinks)

As far as I'm concerned, after reading a couple of reviews I'm intrigued. After my main man left, I realized that I had no interest in the film and therefore proceeded to completely ignore its existence up until the first trailer came out. It was also, not interesting at all. More of the vibe the third Iron Man (film, not the awesome trailer) was pushing. The premise sucked, the poster sucked, the soundtrack cover sucked, Beck has one single half-good cue in EoT that's the only reason I have the damn score in the first place and of course Paul Rudd sucks. I mean, he's done some good work over the years and has been a part of some really good movies. But he is not superhero material. At all. No idea why Reed thought he was a good casting choice (maybe cause their last names start the same, end the same and have the same length?). Evangeline Lilly is awesome and her career just died after Lost until Tauriel (which was just not well-written IMO) and the forgettable Reel Steel or something. I've always for some reason thought Michael Douglas was cool, I've watched everything that man's ever done (including the truly pathetic stuff, I'm looking at you Ghosts of Girlfriends Past). Corey Stoll was alright in House of Cards but if the trailer's any indication, he will suck. Michael Pena's character has been appreciated by most reviewers. Bobby Canavale will be Bobby Canavale, loud and seemingly funny. Judy Greer will prolly redo her Jurassic World role all over again. T.I. will bring that ghetto feels to the movie. Who else? Oh yeah Hayley Atwell will appear in yet another Marvel installment further proving what a colossal mistake it was not to give Peggy Carter her very own movie. John Slattery will also attempt to confuse people even further by trying to erase memories of Dominic Cooper as daddy Stark and remind everyone of a little known movie called Iron Man 2.

Ant-Man looks fun. Not epic and serious, but fun. And I'm personally pleased Marvel is trying to stick to consistency and use John Slattery again. I can believe him as an older version of Dominic Cooper. And I did like him in Iron Man 2.

And who knows? Maybe Paul Rudd will be great? Isn't that the whole idea with superheroes? They start off as people who aren't the hero type, but then turn into one?!

I actually like D. Cooper but as Stark, meh. Slattery was more forceful and accurate in his approach. The firmness and the aloofness that drove Tony away was there as was the overflowing passion for his work. Cooper's version is basically another rehash of Tony Stark instead of Howard Stark who was a very different character.

Not Paul Rudd, I give you that.
He'll always be Apatow's lil guy or Brian Fantana for me. Or like an SNL version of a superhero maybe.

I'm not sure what to expect from Ant-Man. But I will say this, I have been loving the recent trailers. The early ones I wan't crazy about, but the more recent clips and tv spots have been making me very interested...

I actually like D. Cooper but as Stark, meh. Slattery was more forceful and accurate in his approach. The firmness and the aloofness that drove Tony away was there as was the overflowing passion for his work. Cooper's version is basically another rehash of Tony Stark instead of Howard Stark who was a very different character.

Not Paul Rudd, I give you that.
He'll always be Apatow's lil guy or Brian Fantana for me. Or like an SNL version of a superhero maybe.

We didn't see much of Howard in Iron Man 2, but you're right - what we did see looked very good, and I'm really interested to see him "live" in Ant-Man, not just in old video footage.

I think Paul Rudd will surprise us. Pleasantly.

---------- Post added at 01:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 AM ----------


I'm not sure what to expect from Ant-Man. But I will say this, I have been loving the recent trailers. The early ones I wan't crazy about, but the more recent clips and tv spots have been making me very interested...

Same. The early trailers did not look like they were for a MARVEL film. But the recent ones do... sort of. I'm excited for it, at least to a certain extent.

nevermind

That's an old pic. Spider-Man has since moved universes.

Well A Lot of this Is Still Valid.

Yeah, but MARVEL's stuff has been rejigged to accommodate a solo Spider-Man movie in 2017.

okay.

Can you find an up-to-date one anywhere?

Not Paul Rudd, I give you that.
He'll always be Apatow's lil guy or Brian Fantana for me. Or like an SNL version of a superhero maybe.

Well, as the man said about acting, dying is easy, comedy is hard.

Updated May 2, 2015: So we guess it's time to remove Avengers: Age of Ultron from the schedule...

2015:
July 17: Ant-Man
August 7: Fantastic Four (Fox)

2016:
February 12: Deadpool (Fox)
March 25: Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice
May 6: Captain America: Civil War
May 27: X-Men: Apocalypse (Fox)
August 5: Suicide Squad
October 7: Gambit (Fox)
November 4: Doctor Strange

2017:
March 3: Untitled Wolverine sequel (Fox)
May 5: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
June 2: Fantastic Four 2 (Fox)
June 23: Wonder Woman
July 28: Marvel Studios co-produced Spider-Man film (Sony)
November 3: Thor: Ragnarok
November 17: Justice League, Part 1
Unscheduled: Bloodshot (Valiant/Sony)

2018:
March 23: The Flash
May 4: Avengers: Infinity War, Part 1
July 6: Black Panther
July 13: Untitled Fox Mystery Marvel film
July 20: Spider-Man Animated Feature (Sony)
July 27: Aquaman
November 2: Captain Marvel

2019:
April 5: Shazam
May 3: Avengers: Infinity War, Part 2
June 14: Justice League, Part 2
July 12: Inhumans

2020:
April 3: Cyborg
June 19: Green Lantern

DC and Marvel Comic Book Movie Lineup - 2015 to 2020 | Newsarama.com (http://www.newsarama.com/21815-the-new-full-comic-book-superhero-movie-schedule.html)

I'd like to remove Avengers: Age of Ultron from memory. IMO, a big step backwards for Marvel.

I really liked Age of Ultron. It was just a huge fun blast and a pretty great movie. IMO it's just like the Pixar situation with Cars, Brave and Cars 2 where people consider it to be bad just because it's not mind blowingly brilliant like Marvel's other films, even though Age of Ultron is miles better than most other superhero films.

IMO it's just like the Pixar situation with Cars, Brave and Cars 2

I give Pixar a pass for Cars 2 since all their other films are so brilliant. :laugh:

I Liked Cars 2 LOL Now I Would Pass Brave, Up And Wall.e Any Day!

But The Marvels The Only One So Far (From The Disney Avengers Series) I Hated Was The Incredible Hulk.

Outside The Disney Owned Ones I Pretty Much Liked Them All Except the Daredevil Movie! God I Hated That. I Am Still A Bit Like Wether to See Fantastic Four This Year... Will It Be Good or Not? I Liked The Other 2.

I Am Still A Bit Like Wether to See Fantastic Four This Year... Will It Be Good or Not? I Liked The Other 2.

Don't waste your money. If the trailers and behind-the-scenes info are any indication, the actors are untalented, the director has no idea what sort of film to make, the writing is garbage, and it's connected to the FF in name only.

Let's see how much inspiration the lead actress had to get from reading the source material and learning about who Sue Storm really is:

"I've never been a fan of comics, I've never actually read one. I was going to for this movie but the director said it wasn't necessary. Well, actually he told us that we shouldn't do it because the plot won't be based on any history of anything already published. So I chose to follow his instructions. The one fact is I am a fan of comic book movies, so it's very exciting to be part of a movie like this." (http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/fantastic-four/237339/josh-trank-told-kate-mara-not-to-read-fantastic-four-comics)

:notgood:

I really liked Age of Ultron. It was just a huge fun blast and a pretty great movie. IMO it's just like the Pixar situation with Cars, Brave and Cars 2 where people consider it to be bad just because it's not mind blowingly brilliant like Marvel's other films, even though Age of Ultron is miles better than most other superhero films.

Yes, it was quite unlike other masterpieces Marvel has produced recently like Iron Man 3 or Thor: The Dark World, maybe or even dare I say, the entire first Captain America movie except Red Skull (I have a soft spot for Weaving).

Totally /s by the way.



Thing is, we'd totally give Ultron the pass if it was if not better than as good as the worst installments in the franchise except no, it turned out to set a new low for the MCU. And this is coming after Guardians and Winter Soldier, both of which were clear examples showing why Marvel is so good at the Cinematic Universe thing. I know bringing in Shane Black was a mistake and hoped Marvel had learnt from it. I also thought Joss Whedon would realize that he, quite unlike his workhorse characters, has very human limits.

Don't waste your money. If the trailers and behind-the-scenes info are any indication, the actors are untalented, the director has no idea what sort of film to make, the writing is garbage, and it's connected to the FF in name only.

Let's see how much inspiration the lead actress had to get from reading the source material and learning about who Sue Storm really is:

"I've never been a fan of comics, I've never actually read one. I was going to for this movie but the director said it wasn't necessary. Well, actually he told us that we shouldn't do it because the plot won't be based on any history of anything already published. So I chose to follow his instructions. The one fact is I am a fan of comic book movies, so it's very exciting to be part of a movie like this." (http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/fantastic-four/237339/josh-trank-told-kate-mara-not-to-read-fantastic-four-comics)

:notgood:
WTF! How Dissapointing :( Oh Well At Least We Had 2 Decent F4 Movies. I Am Interested To Deadpool Tho! I Read Gore Like (Blade and Punisher) So Fun Fun Fun!

But The Marvels The Only One So Far (From The Disney Avengers Series) I Hated Was The Incredible Hulk.

Well then you're either TEAM BANA or TEAM RUFFALO.




Outside The Disney Owned Ones I Pretty Much Liked Them All Except the Daredevil Movie! God I Hated That. I Am Still A Bit Like Wether to See Fantastic Four This Year... Will It Be Good or Not? I Liked The Other 2.

I thought the last FF duology was perfectly average at best. I preferred Chris Evans as Johnny Storm over Cap though. But this new one looks like a catastrophe. The director (he did Chronicle btw, a movie that has its good things and its very poor things), has had a huge amount of issues while in production and almost everyone involved in the movie is pissed off. Josh Trank, the guy, was going to do a Star Wars spin off but got fired from that gig because he didn;t communicate with the producers well and also Simon Kinberg (who was one of the producers on FF and the SW spinoff) told everyone how bad the FF production was causing his rep with the SW people to plummet.

Agree with SkeletonMan here, don't bother. Or at least until the home media comes out (out of curiosity that is).

Yes i think waiting for a very cheap dvd is an option here thanks for the imput.

I agree the marketing on FF was/is/will be terrible. Almost as ham fisted, club footed, wrong headed as the marketing for Terminator: Genisys, which, btw, totally occupies that patch of ground known as "not good at all."

However, I will see it. Hollywood and the entertainment media loves to denigrate a film and film makers, especially when they've had success. They're waiting in the wings with their long knives out. I liked, not loved however, Trank's Chronicle, the actors are good and I don't believe in pre-judging a film. Trank might have gotten in over his head with his second film being such an EFX spectacle. (Fox should have put an experienced producer on set to help Trank navigate such a massive production.) As for the other two FF films, they were noted more for Ms. Alba's form-fitting costumes than anything else.

And lest we forget, Mad Max:Fury Road was beset with problems and Hollywood called it a failure before Warner released so much as one frame of film. I hope FF will be that sort of pleasant surprise.

P.S. And wasn't Ant-Man pronounced DOA by critics? Now, early reviews are saying it's anything but.

Cars 2 had some bum moments, and the overall feel by the end of the film is a bit of a let down, but it also has some smashing action set pieces and stunning atmosphere. The opening in the Pacific Ocean is pure gold dust.

So is Spidey confirmed - officially confirmed - for Civil War, or is that still a rumor?

It's just common to call a film bad if the studio/series/director has had a particular good run of films. I'm just a fan of taking a film on it's own merits and not comparing it to other films. For example: People complained The Dark Knight Rises wasn't as good as The Dark Knight and tried to make it seem the movie was bad because of this. However, The Dark Knight Rises is a pretty great film despite not being as good as The Dark Knight. I just hate how people expect a studio/director to hit the same level of quality with every film. It's impossible, even for studios like Marvel and Pixar. It's just life. I'm an actor, and even though I've given some amazing performances that's no guarantee all of them are going to be equally amazing. It's just impossible.

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 PM ----------


So is Spidey confirmed - officially confirmed - for Civil War, or is that still a rumor?

It's been confirmed by Marvel. They even confirmed Holland had screen tests with Robert Downey Jr and Chris Evans before they cast him.

The Internet is rarely a place for reasoned and reasonable arguments and/or discussions. Rather, it's the place to let the Id monsters Hulk out and go on a rampage.

However, I will see it. Hollywood and the entertainment media loves to denigrate a film and film makers, especially when they've had success. They're waiting in the wings with their long knives out. I liked, not loved however, Trank's Chronicle, the actors are good and I don't believe in pre-judging a film. Trank might have gotten in over his head with his second film being such an EFX spectacle. (Fox should have put an experienced producer on set to help Trank navigate such a massive production.)


Would you call Simon Kinberg, Matthew Vaughn, Hutch Parker, Robert Kulzar, Avi Arad and Gregory Goodman inexperienced? He had his pick of the litter with producers and they still didn't like him. Trank left his cats inside a closed set and overnight they caused thousands of dollars in damages. The man constantly kept producers and studio heads out of the loop and on top of that he caused those weird delays. It's not that the pressure was too much, there was a lot but his lack of professionalism and good work ethic let him down here.



And lest we forget, Mad Max:Fury Road was beset with problems and Hollywood called it a failure before Warner released so much as one frame of film. I hope FF will be that sort of pleasant surprise.

Mad Max, the franchise has been George Miller's baby through and through and he'd been working it for almost a decade before they could make it happen. Although Miller's situation is similar (one huge movie and then meh) but is not the same as Trank's. Trank has one movie, granted it went huge but still it's one movie. Miller's biggest film was a sequel and he made a dozen other films (not as successful and frankly in very weird directions that man went) before helming Fury Road.


P.S. And wasn't Ant-Man pronounced DOA by critics? Now, early reviews are saying it's anything but.

I still won't believe until I see it. I admit I'll be a little biased going in. The same thing happened with Interstellar, I kept imagining another far better version that could've been.

As far as FF is concerned, I'd totally see it on the first day, it's not that I'll miss it. I intend to watch the crap outta that film someday but considering admittance at movie places these days, I have to conclude that I can't justify spending that money on watching what every trailer and every bit of news has thus far alluded, it's going to be a very forgettable film.

And as always, I hope they prove me wrong. :)

Well I Finally Saw AOU And.... Well It Was No Where Near As Good As Avengers Assemble. And I Am Not Really Excited For Any Man. But Will Have A Look...

Saw Ant-Man last night. Quick spoiler-free review if you're on the fence about it:

Even though the trailers were intriguing and I liked the way development seemed to be going, I had little interest in the final installment of Phase 2. I mean, it's a man who can become small and talk to ants. How can you make an entertaining film about that?

I don't know how, but they did it. The film was essentially flawless in its plot, characters, effects, and dialogue. It's much more humor based like Guardians of the Galaxy, though the humor is a lot more subtle here. It's a different type of funny.

It's easy to surmise from the trailers that the movie is about Ant-Man stopping an evil CEO from misusing the Pym Particle technology. Sounds like Iron Man. Yeah, in a lot of ways the villain of this film is like Obadiah Stane, but that doesn't at all mean that Ant-Man is a ripoff or very predictable. The trailers were also very clever about how much of the plot they showed, and wisely omitted the presence of an unexpected but very welcome character in the film's second act (speaking of trailers, there seemed to be a lot of footage not used in the final cut of the film... hmm...).

I'm not a Beck fan, so the music of this film didn't really stand out to me.

And yes... there are two post-credits scenes, so stay seated during the credits! The first one is pretty cool, but the second one... it is worth the fuckin' wait.

Ant-Man will return in Civil War. And I am pumped, baby.

So out of ten how would you place it.....

Ant Man was incredible. It was just a total blast. Say what you will about Marvel, but they know how to make entertaining movies. It's a perfected art by them at this point.

So out of ten how would you place it.....

A nine, I guess? It didn't blow me away, but it was still very wonderful and a treat after that travesty Age of Ultron.

Also: did anyone catch the Spider-Man reference in the film? :D

I hope Shane Black watches this film and learns that THIS is how you make a Marvel film that's set post Avengers. Not like what he did in Iron Man 3, which ignored the wider universe at every opportunity (even creating plot problems because of it) barring a few references.

I never knew the comics to Ant Man, but I did hear they were more comedic in nature.
It looks like a solid comeback for Paul Rudd that doesn't rely on being the background character for gags.
Back when he was in F.R.I.E.N.D.S. I never would have ever imagined him being a super hero later on. :laugh:

It's great to see comedy super heros.
A lot of forever-supporting-cast actors are getting their lime light.

So encouraged by these reviews!! Looking forward to seeing it someday soon. :)

And am I to take it that my prediction about Paul Rudd pleasantly surprising us was correct?

So, I just got back from seeing Ant-Man! My review would be basically just a mirror of Skeleton's (http://forums.ffshrine.org/f76/marvel-cinematic-universe-discussion-thread-176679/12.html#post3007244). I'll have to let it sink in for awhile before I try to place it amongst the other Marvel Films. It's hard to give it a star rating because sadly the crowd I saw it with was not a "good crowd". The in-your-face funny moments made them laugh, but the more subtle humor seemed to be wasted on them. So even though I liked the film, the overall experience could have been better...

---------- Post added at 10:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 PM ----------


Also: did anyone catch the Spider-Man reference in the film? :D

I did not catch the Spider-Man reference... Could you explain to me please?

Never mind, I googled it. :D

The in-your-face funny moments made them laugh, but the more subtle humor seemed to be wasted on them. So even though I liked the film, the overall experience could have been better...

The place I used to live at was like that.
Such a boring place to watch movies.

Went to a different theater with different demographics and it was the best experience ever.
Such lively people.

The place I used to live at was like that.
Such a boring place to watch movies.

Went to a different theater with different demographics and it was the best experience ever.
Such lively people.

This theater that I go to is usually very good. But it was weird tonight. First off, the crowd wasn't nearly as big as I expected. And then they just didn't seem into the film that much...

I never knew the comics to Ant Man, but I did hear they were more comedic in nature.

All the comics that aren't about Hank Pym are comedic with a touch of seriousness and drama, while everything about Pym usually has a tragic mood.

Interesting. Looks like Spidey's intro into the MCU features him fighting Captain America. Spidey's on Team Stark and he will sport a Stark designed spider suit. Hmmm, figured he'd side with Cap but Peter's a science nerd and Stark is the MCU's premier science nerd, so sometimes similar poles do attract.

Interesting. Looks like Spidey's intro into the MCU features him fighting Captain America. Spidey's on Team Stark and he will sport a Stark designed spider suit. Hmmm, figured he'd side with Cap but Peter's a science nerd and Stark is the MCU's premier science nerd, so sometimes similar poles do attract.

Where's This Infomation From?

Where's This Infomation From?

Let me Google that for you. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Spider-Man+news#)

Thanks But I'm Currently Upping Covers Which Is Really Slowing My Server. So I'll Check Later. :D

Maybe the next Cap movie can undo the damage from the last Avengers film.

Interesting. Looks like Spidey's intro into the MCU features him fighting Captain America. Spidey's on Team Stark and he will sport a Stark designed spider suit. Hmmm, figured he'd side with Cap but Peter's a science nerd and Stark is the MCU's premier science nerd, so sometimes similar poles do attract.

Not surprising actually. In the comics Peter was on Stark's side before he switched to Cap when he found himself disagreeing with Tony's decisions.

Maybe the next Cap movie can undo the damage from the last Avengers film.

Do you mean damage, as in to Marvel's reputation? Or physical damage to the world in the movie? :p

Good to know. I didn't read the Civil War series. I can see Pete initially siding with Stark but switching allegiances.

Maybe the next Cap movie can undo the damage from the last Avengers film.

What damage? AOU was a fun action movie with a nice story and most of the characters came out much stronger from it. Bruce and Clint feel a lot more three dimensional, Tony's PTSD is handled a lot better (with him taking huge risks to try and stop a repeat of the Avengers without thinking the risks through instead of getting a panic attack and then getting over it and never mentioning it again), Steve feels a lot more "Man out of time" than in Winter Soldier (where he felt too at ease with the modern world), We finally see the reason for Natasha's self loathing (with her viewing herself as a machine built to kill and not as a person), Ultron was a pretty cool villain and a great dark mirror of Tony (it's essentially Tony vs pre-Iron Man Tony if pre-Iron Man Tony wanted to rule the world), Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch and Vision were brilliant. And the film showed the Avengers at their best. They got shaken but came together and saved the world easily and cockily. Which is perfect because it shows how woefully unprepared they are to fight Thanos and why they'll need backup from not just the other superheroes on Earth but from the Guardians as well. AOU is the middle chapter and a lot of the decisions will make a lot more sense after Infinity War.

---------- Post added at 03:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:22 PM ----------


Do you mean damage, as in to Marvel's reputation? Or physical damage to the world in the movie? :p

Well Marvel's reputation is fine. The movie made a ton of money and all the critics agreed the movie was good. Just not AS good as the first Avengers and Winter Soldier. Which is fine. You can't get the gold everytime, sometimes you get the silver or bronze. But you still did a damn good job. And I don't think anyone will claim AOU is worse than Spider-Man 3, Daredevil, Elektra, Hulk, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Batman and Robin and Superman 4. And if anyone did, I'd have concerns for their tastes.

As for physical damage... well let's just say no one will be buying property in Sokovia anytime soon.

You can't get the gold everytime,

Did You Call? LOL

I can only speak for myself, but AOU is pretty near the bottom of the marvel pack. It was still enjoyable, but it also fell short in many ways. Ultron was so under developed. He had such potential but the film was too stuffed for us to get invested. Banner reverted back to what he was like at the beginning of the first Avengers film, instead of the more confident character we saw at the end. Thor was underused also. I will give the film props for Hawkeye and Vision however. Those two were great. The other avengers weren't done badly, but neither did they stand out.

Do you mean damage, as in to Marvel's reputation? Or physical damage to the world in the movie? :p

Well, Marvel seems to be finally owning up to all the physical damage caused by their heroes. (I guess the magic phrase "evacuate the city" that instantly transported civilians out of harm's way lost its magic. Having conducted building evacuations I know how long those take.) And in Civil War Cap references in dialogue about not being able to save everyone. Apparently civilian deaths triggers the Civil War.

But I meant damage to Marvel's rep in taking chances with the superhero genre. TWS impressed me because it was a relatively mature look at the notion of freedom vs. security. Cap articulates this when he talks about punishment without a trial and the difference between freedom and fear. The villain wasn't the Red Skull but a career diplomat who'd learned the wrong lessons from Fury's methods. And Zola nailed it when he said Hydra couldn't take freedom from people but you could get them to give it away in the name of security. And by the end of the film SHIELD was gone and Hydra was back and things weren't looking so good for the good guys.

As for GoTG Marvel surprised me by focusing on a little known comic and hiring exactly the right writer/director to bring it to the screen.

Then Avengers: AoU arrived and pissed it all away. Hydra: gone in the first ten minutes. Strucker: a cameo appearance. Ultron: one of Marvel's weakest villains to date. Quicksilver: should have worn a red shirt and a sign saying "I'm dead, Jim." And Ultron's master plan? Throwing a giant rock at the planet? He borrow that bit of genius from Wil E. Coyote? (All that excavation and no-one noticed or felt the slightest temblor? No seismic monitoring in Europe?)

Avengers 2 was the series running in place. Let's hope Cap 3 sprints for the gold.

I can only speak for myself, but AOU is pretty near the bottom of the marvel pack. It was still enjoyable, but it also fell short in many ways. Ultron was so under developed. He had such potential but the film was too stuffed for us to get invested. Banner reverted back to what he was like at the beginning of the first Avengers film, instead of the more confident character we saw at the end. Thor was underused also. I will give the film props for Hawkeye and Vision however. Those two were great. The other avengers weren't done badly, but neither did they stand out.

See I thought Ultron was pretty great. And yes the film was overstuffed, but that's the fault of Marvel wanting a shorter running time and not letting Whedon have the 2 hours 40 minutes he wanted. As for Banner, well he's clearly in the middle of his character arc. He got confident, then the Africa incident broke him completely making him fall back on what he knows works: Running away to protect everyone. Infinity War will finish his character arc and see him finally embrace the Hulk as part of himself and not another entity.

---------- Post added at 04:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

Right. You can't take chances with every film and make it a game changer, because you know, you'll eventually run out of chances to take. AOU's purpose was to show the Avengers at the height of their prowess so when Thanos arrives, the audience is aware how woefully underprepared they are.

HYDRA isn't gone. Agents of SHIELD and Ant Man have made that VERY clear. HYDRA is still out there, it's just shrunk back into the shadows making them harder to face. HYDRA will have a part to play in Civil War (considering the villain is Baron Zemo). Strucker's base was not the last of HYDRA. It was the last HYDRA base the Avengers found. Agents of SHIELD and Ant Man proved that this isn't the end for them. As for Strucker, well the movies never hyped him as a huge villain so it's ok he's dead. He was pretty much the first act villain for AOU. Quicksilver died to further Wanda's character development and will influence her character in future movies. Plus it removes the awkward rights sharing with Fox, Fox is going to use Quicksilver and stay away from Scarlet Witch and Marvel will use Scarlet Witch and not use Quicksilver (for the foreseeable future at least). Ultron's plan is actually clever. Physics dude. Easiest way to wipe out life on Earth? Drop something big and heavy on the planet from the right height and there you go. And it fit's into Ultron's delusions he's the next step in evolution and his fascination with the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs. "Whenever the Earth begins to settle, God throws a stone at it. And believe me, he's winding up." He thinks he has to create a cataclysmic event similar to the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs to wipe out humanity and let his new species inherit the Earth. In his eyes, humanity had it's chance and failed so it's his turn. Ultron is delusional. That's the point. His plan is insane because he is insane. And it's not cartoony at all. The Dinosaurs were wiped out by a huge rock hitting the planet. And Ultron didn't do all the excavating. He built his machine to raise the city in the tunnels under Sokovia that Strucker already had in place and were allowed to be built because when they were built it was almost certainly SHIELD building it.

Glad you liked it. I did not. 'Nuf said.

I'm still perplexed as to why they thought Natasha and Bruce should be a pair.


I can only speak for myself, but AOU is pretty near the bottom of the marvel pack.

Nothing can get close to the atrocity known as Iron Man 3. That movie...just why.

I'm still perplexed as to why they thought Natasha and Bruce should be a pair.

Until we hear Joss's commentary on the film, we probably won't know. But I'm willing to guess it was a mixture of various reasons including: Scarlett Johansen and Mark Ruffalo having great on screen chemistry in the first film, Marveld and Whedon deciding the two were a good match in this universe as it suited the general directions of both of their similar character arcs (both are emotionally distant people who are slowly beginning to open up to others).

---------- Post added at 05:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 AM ----------


Glad you liked it. I did not. 'Nuf said.

No offence meant here and I might be completely wrong (even then I'm talking more in general about audience reactions), but it seems you're mainly disappointed that Age of Ultron didn't meet the high expectations you set for it. You got a good movie, not a mind blowing one. Which is honestly a problem a lot of people have with movies and something I think needs to be addressed. When a director or franchise has a great run of films, everyone expects every film to be of the same level of quality. The problem is, it's actually impossible for any franchise or director to do that all the time. Look at Pixar. People dislike Brave mainly because it's not as good as Toy Story 3, Up and Wall:E, completely ignoring that Brave is a perfectly good film in it's own right. Same reason for Age of Ultron, The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit. People disliked The Hobbit because it wasn't as good as Lord of the Rings. The main complaint against The Dark Knight Rises is "It's not as good as The Dark Knight". People disliked Age of Ultron because it wasn't better than the first film, Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy. Again, completely ignoring that all these films are perfectly good films in their own right. Filmmaking isn't easy. A good director, franchise, writer and actors won't equal a mind blowing film every time. They're real people. Just like us. Say you did a drawing. Everyone loved it and then pressure you to do another drawing that's better. There's no guarantee you will succeed, but you'll do the best you can. And most people will say "well you did your best, and it's still a good drawing just not as good as your last". However with films the reaction is more agressive, people get angry and say your work is terrible because it's not as good as your last. Joss Whedon had an incredibly stressful time making Age of Ultron. He has even called it one of the worst experiences of his entire career. It's for this reason he quit Marvel and won't return for Infinity War. He needs some time off. He may return in the future (I think Marvel will tempt him back with Inhumans), but for now he just needs to chill. And when watching Age of Ultron, you can tell Joss was trying his best to hold it together. And he did a damn good job releasing a good superhero film. Most stressful productions lead to a terrible film so the fact Age of Ultron was good is commendable. Joss is a person, he can't do amazing work 100% of the time, despite giving 110% on Age of Ultron. Same for Marvel. Every film can't be as good as/better than the previous ones. Because it's just impossible.[COLOR="Silver"]

No offence meant here and I might be completely wrong (even then I'm talking more in general about audience reactions), but it seems you're mainly disappointed that Age of Ultron didn't meet the high expectations you set for it. You got a good movie, not a mind blowing one. Which is honestly a problem a lot of people have with movies and something I think needs to be addressed. When a director or franchise has a great run of films, everyone expects every film to be of the same level of quality. The problem is, it's actually impossible for any franchise or director to do that all the time. Look at Pixar. People dislike Brave mainly because it's not as good as Toy Story 3, Up and Wall:E, completely ignoring that Brave is a perfectly good film in it's own right. Same reason for Age of Ultron, The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit. People disliked The Hobbit because it wasn't as good as Lord of the Rings. The main complaint against The Dark Knight Rises is "It's not as good as The Dark Knight". People disliked Age of Ultron because it wasn't better than the first film, Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy. Again, completely ignoring that all these films are perfectly good films in their own right. Filmmaking isn't easy. A good director, franchise, writer and actors won't equal a mind blowing film every time. They're real people. Just like us. Say you did a drawing. Everyone loved it and then pressure you to do another drawing that's better. There's no guarantee you will succeed, but you'll do the best you can. And most people will say "well you did your best, and it's still a good drawing just not as good as your last". However with films the reaction is more agressive, people get angry and say your work is terrible because it's not as good as your last. Joss Whedon had an incredibly stressful time making Age of Ultron. He has even called it one of the worst experiences of his entire career. It's for this reason he quit Marvel and won't return for Infinity War. He needs some time off. He may return in the future (I think Marvel will tempt him back with Inhumans), but for now he just needs to chill. And when watching Age of Ultron, you can tell Joss was trying his best to hold it together. And he did a damn good job releasing a good superhero film. Most stressful productions lead to a terrible film so the fact Age of Ultron was good is commendable. Joss is a person, he can't do amazing work 100% of the time, despite giving 110% on Age of Ultron. Same for Marvel. Every film can't be as good as/better than the previous ones. Because it's just impossible.[COLOR="Silver"]

:this:

Nothing can get close to the atrocity known as Iron Man 3. That movie...just why.

eh, better than Iron Man 2. :)

eh, better than Iron Man 2. :)

Aw, c'mon. Iron Man 2 wasn't that bad. I actually really quite enjoyed it and it's grown on me since (not to mention Debney's awesome score).

You've got to admit, there were some pretty good scenes:

http://orig00.deviantart.net/d82f/f/2012/159/e/2/smiling_tony__iron_man_gif__by_foxedpeople-d52p865.gif

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Tony-Stark-Sunglasses-Iron-Man-2.gif

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/geekspeak/files/legacy/4423969389_3235e95465_o.gif

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wQhe9UyoBZQ/VGxNO_cFLZI/AAAAAAAAL-Q/BuyC1i7Fi4s/s1600/2.gif

http://media2.giphy.com/media/rje8atJc3hnYQ/giphy.gif

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fyFBUYuOgv8/VKnq0hq7OcI/AAAAAAAAAKo/u9nI29bF5B0/w426-h278/15%2B-%2B1

http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lponk1QZ681qgms2yo1_500.gif

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11111/111112857/3003300-8406606191-iron-.gif

http://33.media.tumblr.com/46e442611a383f403eedd93e1627bf90/tumblr_mnu650BIwD1s9eauqo1_500.gif

http://uk.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2014128/rs_500x217-140228114228-Iron-Man-2-iron-man-3-31867939-500-217.gif

https://31.media.tumblr.com/d22c7a5ce236126fb88a0b2f461aa2c1/tumblr_mmxzz3cJCH1ru2f8mo1_500.gif

And of course this fantastic deleted scene...

http://imagesmtv-a.akamaihd.net/uri/mgid:file:http:shared:mtv.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/iron-man-2-1428067579.gif

I had, what I think, were reasonable expectations from Avengers: AoU. Let me explain my train of thought on this and other topics of the Marvel persuasion. I apologize in advance if this turns into a long post.

I've spent much of my adult life writing for radio and TV. That means reading. A lot of reading. Reading teaches you many attributes: patience, attention span and what qualities make writing good and of high quality. Good writing is rarely easy, in fact if it looks easy that generally means a lot of hard work went into the final product. (That doesn't mean it isn't fun to write and when your writing is firing on all cylinders it's one of the most rewarding experiences one can have.)

All too often books and movies in the SF or superhero genre got a pass on the quality of their narrative. How often when you've seen an SF or superhero movie that wasn't well written was accompanied by the all purpose excuse "it's a comic book movie." In other words we the audience are supposed to ignore the film's deficiencies because the lead characters wear long underwear. (And how often when a TV show or movie wanted to get across to its audience that a character in that film was Prince-Not-So-Bright he was shown to be reading a, you guessed it, comic book.) All too often comic book films played to that conceit.

Some films broke out of that mold. I'd say Donner's Superman: The Movie was the first. Anchored by Chris Reeve's spot on performance and an amazing first half it took the genre seriously. That is until the second half when the film lapsed into some regrettable stretches of campy humor. Burton took it further but even he couldn't bring himself to take the villains seriously and a superhero is only as good as his adversary. (Marvel has a villain problem, more on that later.) The first Blade was deadly serious and that is why, IMO, it's the best of the three.

Nolan was the one who got it right and rescued the Batman franchise. He got it right because there was no winking or smirking at the camera, saying in effect, all this isn't real and so it has no consequences. No, in Nolan's universe, actions did have consequences. Bruce became the Batman but that devotion of justice cost him and Gotham. As Gordon said at the end of Batman Begins about escalation: the bad guys use knives, the police bring out guns. Batman defeats al Ghul which sets the stage for Bane and Talia. The Batman's appearance creates the Joker. (The Joker said it himself, "you complete me.) The Joker kills Rachel, turns Harvey into Two Face and turns the police against Batman. In The Dark Knight the bad guys won. In The Dark Knight Rises the good guys win but it's almost a pyrrhic victory: Gotham lost almost as much as it gained.

In the MCU, so far, actions have had little consequence. Much of Manhattan got pulverized in the first Avengers yet not one civilian died. No lawsuits filed. No government inquiries. Only SHIELD & Daredevil dealt with the fallout and DD did a better job of it. (However, if the rumors are right that might finally change with Cap 3.)

Marvel has said it's films won't go dark. That's a mistake. When there are no consequences, there's no heft or weight to the narrative. As the late Leonard Nimoy said "in science fiction, no one dies." So don't worry folks, your hero may die in this film, but he'll be back in the next. However, death or the threat of death makes the stakes real. To DC's credit civilian casualties are front and center in the upcoming B v S. Superman goes in front of Congress, Lex uses the deaths as a cudgel on Superman, the destruction brings the Bat out of retirement and apparently brings about the creation of Doomsday as an anti Superman weapon.

All of this is my long winded preamble to address the multitude of weakness present in AoU many of which as the product of sloppy and bad writing. And writing is a task Whedon excels at or did until this film.

Here's what I expected:

Hydra to be the threat promised at the end of TWS. Instead, between that film and AoU Hydra was reduced to a pre-opening title sequence footnote. Strucker, the head of Hydra, made a patented Whedonesque joke, waved the white flag and later died off screen. Hydra, done and dusted. Neutralizing them in the space between the two films is a cheap trick not worthy of someone of Whedon's writing abilities plus it undermines the potential established in TWS. Also it negates the sacrifice of Zola which is a pretty big loss for Hydra. He was Hydra's brain trust and strategist. But the decision to dismiss Hydra falls in line with Marvel's "light touch approach" to story telling. Let's not get too serious because hey, it's just a comic book.

Ultron: what a weak villain. Cackles about evil and does nothing. Never gets his hands dirty or bloody. Compare him with a classic villain like Vader. How do we meet the Dark Lord, striding in, wearing the ultimate pimp suit, speaking with the voice of Doom, lifting some poor schmuck one handed off the ground and snapping his neck.

That's a villain. Even if Vader did nothing else that first impression would stick throughout the entire film. Why, because he committed murder, hands on, up close and personal and not through surrogates. Instead we get Ultron who decides to build Marvin the Martian's Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator and destroy the world in an "Earth-shattering kaboom." No one fears the Wil E. Coyote death machines.

And "light touch" gets ridiculous during the Hulk and Hulkbuster fight. These two go at it hammer and anvil in one of the most populated cities on the planet, Johannesburg, and the bystanders don't get so much as a hang nail. Now that really is fantasy.

If Marvel had been smart that battle could have been the spark for the Civil War plotline: dozens killed, hundreds hurt, millions of dollars in property damage, "dammit, these heroes are dangerous and they need to be regulated." And Stark, under the weight of guilt for the destruction he caused, would support the superhero registration act.

But that's not the only plot thread Marvel failed to follow. Ultron's hatred of Stark. He mentions it once and then nothing. Stark could have used that against Ultron because let's face it Tony is really good at pissing people off. Why even bring it up if it's not going to be used?

And then there's the weakest plot device of the entire film: introducing a new character just to kill him off. Yeah, I'm looking at you Quicksilver. His death is such a bush league, ham fisted, wrong headed, Writing 101 mistake. Marvel and Whedon should be ashamed of even using it. That's the kind of tactic that gets you an "F" in writing class. No one cares about Quicksilver, he's a cardboard character but that's in line with Marvel's "light touch" because after all cardboard's light, doesn't bleed and when he dies it means nothing and his death changes nothing. (Imagine instead if Black Widow had died or been gravely injured. Now that would have effected the audience. But Quicksilver's death is a big glass of "who cares?")

My expectations were of better writing, of Marvel taking a chance and upsetting the status quo instead of just re-arranging the deck chairs. There's a sameness to most of Marvel's films, a refusal to dig deep into the characters' psyche. Compare AoU to DoFP. There's no scene that compares to Charles and Eric argument onboard the jet when Eric confronts Charles, full of self pity, asking Xavier where was he when Trask (rearrange the letters and you get Stark, hmmm) was experimenting and killing all their former students? Charles is supposed to be the good man but good means nothing if you don't act. In some ways Eric is often the more heroic.

Marvel has yet to go as deep as Singer has with his movies.

So as I draw this rant to its close my expectations are that the writing in Marvel's films becomes more mature in its approach to superheroes. Yes, the light touch will probably earn the company more money in the short term but that's short sighted thinking. Pixar has shown that making films of consequence not only make money but stand the test of time. People form attachments to characters that are not real yet because those characters and their stories resonate with the audience, people respond to them on a deep level. (Tell me you didn't get the least bit choked up when Dorie professed how her friendship with Marlin improved her life, when the toys in Toy Story 3 were heading for the incinerator after Lotso's betrayal - another great villain -or when Boo looked at Sully and said "Kitty.")

Marvel should try for that level of emotional connection. A "light touch" shouldn't mean disposable or ephemeral. An entertaining film should extend pass the borders of the screen and into the minds and emotions of the audience.

Aw, c'mon. Iron Man 2 wasn't that bad. I actually really quite enjoyed it and it's grown on me since (not to mention Debney's awesome score).

You've got to admit, there were some pretty good scenes:

http://orig00.deviantart.net/d82f/f/2012/159/e/2/smiling_tony__iron_man_gif__by_foxedpeople-d52p865.gif

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Tony-Stark-Sunglasses-Iron-Man-2.gif

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/geekspeak/files/legacy/4423969389_3235e95465_o.gif

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wQhe9UyoBZQ/VGxNO_cFLZI/AAAAAAAAL-Q/BuyC1i7Fi4s/s1600/2.gif

http://media2.giphy.com/media/rje8atJc3hnYQ/giphy.gif

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fyFBUYuOgv8/VKnq0hq7OcI/AAAAAAAAAKo/u9nI29bF5B0/w426-h278/15%2B-%2B1

http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lponk1QZ681qgms2yo1_500.gif

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11111/111112857/3003300-8406606191-iron-.gif

http://33.media.tumblr.com/46e442611a383f403eedd93e1627bf90/tumblr_mnu650BIwD1s9eauqo1_500.gif

http://uk.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2014128/rs_500x217-140228114228-Iron-Man-2-iron-man-3-31867939-500-217.gif

https://31.media.tumblr.com/d22c7a5ce236126fb88a0b2f461aa2c1/tumblr_mmxzz3cJCH1ru2f8mo1_500.gif

And of course this fantastic deleted scene...

http://imagesmtv-a.akamaihd.net/uri/mgid:file:http:shared:mtv.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/iron-man-2-1428067579.gif

I agree actually. IM2 wasn't THAT bad. I still enjoyed it at parts. It had a lot of flaws though.

I agree actually. IM2 wasn't THAT bad. I still enjoyed it at parts. It had a lot of flaws though.

Yeah, but the awesomeness balances that stuff out for me. Just the fact that it's another movie with RDJ, Paltrow, Johansson, and a whole bunch of Iron Man suits makes it great entertainment. A good popcorn movie. :p

Some of the scenes with Stark and Pepper really stand out. They are really great together - the dialogue and the way they bounce off one another is second to none.

Again, not gonna quote a GIANT post, but I agree with you Killgrave. You hit on most (not all) of my issues with AOU. The best scenes in the film were the quiet, human scenes. Thor saying "but Jane is better", or the farmhouse with Hawkeye, or the scene in the forest with Vision talking to Ultron about humanity. Those scenes stick in my mind, the rest is just a mangled blur. A fun blur, but just a blur. Nolan's trilogy I can almost replay in my mind.

I won't quote you as that'll take up too much space. I'm a university student and my course is film studies. I've looked at what makes a film work and the things a film needs to get right to succeed: Writing, directing, pacing, acting, cinematography, design. Age of Ultron succeeded on all of those bar pacing (which wasn't Whedon's fault, more Marvel demanding cuts). Marvel is comminuted to making popcorn films. And that's perfect. The Marvel universe has always been lighter than DC. Marvel is making Comic Book Movies, with more emphasis on the Comic Book aspect. Marvel is trying to make it's films easy to watch and accessible for new viewers. The only film that suffers any form of continuity lockout for new viewers is Thor: The Dark World as that film focuses a lot on the aftermath of both The Avengers and the first Thor. DC is making deeper movies, Marvel is providing much needed contrast and making lighter movies. And yes, that means not lingering on the consequences of these huge battles (Civil War will do however). Besides, the comics themselves rarely focus on consequences. Onto your weaknesses.

HYDRA was never promised to be the big threat in Age of Ultron. That was never promised or hinted. They were presented as a big threat in the universe, which compromises many movies, seven (apparently soon to be eight) TV Shows and various comic books. HYDRA didn't play a huge role in Age of Ultron... but they've been a huge part of Agents of SHIELD and Ant Man. You're acting like Marvel has completely forgotten about HYDRA when they clearly haven't. And Strucker ISN'T THE LEADER OF HYDRA. This is an important fact. Strucker is leader of a FACTION of HYDRA. Agents of SHIELD established there's several factions in HYDRA ("Cut off one head, two more shall take it's place" indeed). Strucker was leader of one of these factions. Another faction was lead by Daniel Whitehall (who was the main antagonist of the first half of Agents of SHIELD Season 2) and established that HYDRA was much larger than we thought. HYDRA went underground after Strucker's death and the assassination of several of HYDRA's leaders by SHIELD. HYDRA however is still out there and is slowly gaining strength. Grant Ward is currently rebuilding HYDRA with the intention of making it better and destroying SHIELD once and for all. In Ant Man, Cross intends to sell the Yellowjacket suit to HYDRA in order to make a fortune and become the most powerful man in the world. HYDRA subsequently comes into possession of Cross's version of the Pym Particles which, if they can replicate, can make them a huge threat. HYDRA has not been neutralised. "Cut off one head, two more shall take it's place." Remember? Agents of SHIELD Season 3 and the planned Mockingbird spin-off will continue the SHIELD vs HYDRA conflict and HYDRA will have a presence in future movies, specifically Civil War due to the presence of Crossbones and Baron Zemo. Just because Strucker's Branch of HYDRA was quickly dealt with (only because Joss needed to move the plot along and introduce Ultron), the organisation as a whole is not gone. Seriously, Agents of SHIELD and Ant Man have proven that HYDRA is still out there.

Ultron was not a weak villain. "Cackles about evil and does nothing. Never gets his hands dirty or bloody." Yeah not true. Ultron slices off Kalue's arm JUST because Klaue compared him to Tony. Ultron attempts to kill Helen just because she annoyed him. Ultron was threatening because he was ultimately confused. He was an AI built to protect the world and, due to warped thinking, genuinely believes the world will be safer with no Avengers and no humanity. Yes he's no Darth Vader, but then again, neither are most villains. A villain doesn't have to kill someone every time they're on screen to be an effective villain. The whole point of Ultron was that he had the right idea, saving the world, but was going about it completely the wrong way. This is why Vision was reluctant to kill Ultron. He's not pure evil. He's ultimately misguided. Even though Ultron is evil, he's not pure evil. He's misguided. He craves attachment to people. This is why he seeks out Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. They're like him. Outcasts who have a grudge against Tony Stark. Ultron is resentful of the Avengers and, in his mind, actually thinks the world would be better without them. He even calls them out on how underprepared they are for future threats. "I think you're confusing peace with quiet." They're being content with the "quiet" is actually putting the world in even more danger in Ultron's mind. It's only when he thinks the Avengers have taken everything from him that he decides to take everything from them and wipe out humanity. Sure, he was always going to wipe out humanity but in his mind he was going to give them a chance to improve. A lot of Ultron's character is revealed through his dialogue, not his actions. "You take away my world, I'll take away yours." THAT is good writing. A character shouldn't have to do something to let us know they're evil. Look at Hannibal Lecter. We know he's pure evil from just his first conversation with Clarice. That's it. He doesn't kill anyone until towards the end of the movie, but we know he's evil before that. If your villain has to kill someone just so everyone knows they're evil, then that's bad writing. We should get a villain is evil from who they are and what they say, not what they do. Ultron certainly wasn't the best MCU villain, but he certainly wasn't the worst. Killian was just evil for evil's sake and a terrible character overall.

Marvel makes popcorn movies. Light entertainment. Sure it's nice to have deeper superhero movies every now and again but if they were all like that audiences would get bored of them VERY quickly. These movies are escapism. People watch these movies to see huge fights and tons of action without dwelling on the details like civilian casualties. DC is making darker, deeper movies focusing on the consequences of superheroics while Marvel is making lighter, family friendly and more fun movies. DC is making movies about superheroes in the real world, Marvel is making them about superheroes in a comic book world. It's an important distinction and Marvel's lighter tone also helps audiences accept some of the wilder characters and ideas.

As for introducing a character just to kill them off... it's something movies have done since forever. TONS of movies, novels and TV shows introduce a character just with the intention of killing them off towards the end. Hello Obi-Wan. Hi Gandalf. What's up Elektra? How's it hanging Ned Stark? It's not bad writing at all. If it is, well then Tolkien must be a terrible writer. And George RR Martin. And I really don't get your obsession of killing off Black Widow. Her death would have added NOTHING to AOU whereas Quicksilver's did. It furthered Wanda's character and cemented her decision to join the Avengers. Introducing two new characters and then killing one of them off to help develop one of them is a clever writing tool. And Quicksilver's death was brilliantly done. When the young boy stares at Quicksilver's corpse, when Hawkeye weakly extends a hand to him, it humanises these heroes. They aren't gods. They're people. They can be killed. Not just the ones who are "normal" people like Hawkeye and Widow, but the ones with super powers. The ones that everyone believes are unkillable because of their powers. It does something that many super hero films fail to do. It makes the heroes human. It reminds us they're mortal. And it reinforces the "Anyone can die" mentality of the MCU. ANYONE can die. NO ONE is safe. It prepares us for Infinity War when they'll all start dropping like flies when facing Thanos.

As for audiences forming attachments to these characters, well guess what? They have. Just because you haven't doesn't ring true for everyone. People care about these characters. Someone I know, who normally doesn't care about movies like this, said to me "If they kill off Steve, I don't know what I'll do."

Marvel films do have an emotional connection. Scott Lang for example is someone you root for. You want him to succeed and care about him. Same for all the other heroes. These movies aren't "disposable". They're great movies and are actually touching the hearts and minds of audiences worldwide.

And my final statement: All superhero movies can't be mature. If you want this genre to last more than the next 5 years, we need the variety. Leave the dark stuff to DC. Let Marvel be where we go for escapsim and fun. I can say without any doubt, Marvel's movies will stand the test of time like their characters.

I'm a university student and my course is film studies.

Film Production student right here. At least, I will be in September. Can't wait! :D

So...anyone seen "Captain Marvel" lately?

No, nobobdy likes Brie Larson.

No, nobobdy likes Brie Larson.

I was open the idea, but seeing how the movie was executed they could have done it better.
Her personality didn't connect with me because I felt there wasn't much to connect to, except during the scenes with Fury and her best friend.

Also, I felt that there wasn't really any climax at the end for all build-up during the whole movie, which kinda made me feel that they leaned too much on her gender to make her shine instead of her character. In Wonder Woman they at least made her more human in that she made mistakes; Captain Marvel was just surfing through the movie without any character building or visibly going through an emotional journey.

They made her a great all-star in one movie, and somehow it didn't really feel..."deserved".

The reason she was so stiff was because Yon-Rogg trained her to not react to emotions, but since she rebelled against that very rule(i.e. being more human)in the end, they could have made her...emotional! Like, make her cry when she connected with her best friend, looked at the old photographs or just have a silent moment with Fury, anything! I would have liked to have seen a real human reacting, as she gained her memories back, to the fact that she was kidnapped to a another planet, told lies of how she ended up there and trained her to be an emotional robot.

Also, that "I'm just a girl" song that was played during the spacecraft fight scene kinda ruined my experience abit and I was like "I get it! She's a girl that can kick ass, just like the boys, you don't have to rub it in."

I like to immerse myself when I'm watching a movie, but that scene made me self-aware of what I was watching/hearing, kinda like when Shuri screamed "What are thoooose?" in Black Panther.

So...anyone seen "Captain Marvel" lately?

Just today, Mauler on YouTube uploaded his review of the film and he takes his time thoroughly destroying it.

It's glorious to hear and much more entertaining than the movie itself was.

Just today, Mauler on YouTube uploaded his review of the film and he takes his time thoroughly destroying it.

It's glorious to hear and much more entertaining than the movie itself was.

Yeah, "Meh" was exactly how I felt after watching the movie.
Normally I don't seek out reviews unless I didn't like the movie, because there are reviewers out there that can describe my feelings much better as to why I didn't connect with the characters, and this review accurately worded my feelings.

Here is the Mauler movie review for anyone interested:
"Captain Marvel: An Unbridled Meh"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Keooxe5x6Ts

Also, Brie Larson(sorry, Plank!) comes off as passive-aggressive which is highlighted especially during this interview:
"Avengers: Endgame: Chris Hemsworth, Brie Larson and Don Cheadle (FULL INTERVIEW)"
https://youtu.be/81WIkfUAc_o?t=130

(Don't worry, no spoilers where I've tagged it at 02:10min. Do check out the clip in full context, in fact not so much spoilers here)

I mean, it doesn't matter what opinions you have, but it does matters how you say them.
She could have hit back in a joking manner at Chris, but she comes off as off-putting with how she is on her political journey and implementing that into the MCU and in this interview where I feel she is taking almost anything as a personal attack - so exhausting!

I don't know what The Powers That Be thought when they hired Brie Larson, but I would've preferred the following actresses: Mia Wasikowska, Katheryn Winnick, Emily Blunt or even Starbuck herself, Katee Sackhoff.

Last and most importantly, it boils down to the directors and writers(all 5 of them) and how they wasted their chance of taking their time to build up a character, make her relatable, to me at least and write a good story.

Edit: Hey Integrazees!
Just watched a review by a woman from CinemaBlend that brings up similar views of mine, here:
"Why Captain Marvel is Disappointing"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMEyu8HlEPM