Remove ads

Avengers: Age of Ultron discussion thread

Aaron Peori said:
What you see as a problem I see as a virtue. You're allowed to not like it, but I am allowed to like it. So I kindly suggest you go rewatch Dark Knight Rises for your menacing quota and let me watch my spectacle pro-wrestling match.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's funny that you'd use that comparison.

Age of Ultron was about as interesting as a spectacle pro-wrestling match.

I mean, do you really think that's a valid rebuttal? "Go watch something actually decent and let me enjoy this dumb spectacle movie"?

By that standard, I may as well tell you to just go watch Bayformers and let me watch my theme-heavy superhero movie.
 
Tempera said:
Age of Ultron was about as interesting as a spectacle pro-wrestling match.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hey now, Pro Wrestling is very entertaining. It's also not a great comparison since pro wresting shows are stories about a sporting league so the biggest stakes are who's currently champion of their division (sort of) and Ultron was a life and death struggle against a world threatening robot monster.
 
Tempera said:
It's funny that you'd use that comparison.

Age of Ultron was about as interesting as a spectacle pro-wrestling match.

I mean, do you really think that's a valid rebuttal? "Go watch something actually decent and let me enjoy this dumb spectacle movie"?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Are you claiming objective truths in taste of entertainment? I just want to be clear before we continue this debate.
 
Nope; I'm just rejecting the notion that criticism should be stifled because some people found the object of criticism personally entertaining.
 
Tempera said:
Nope; I'm just rejecting the notion that criticism should be stifled because some people found the object of criticism personally entertaining.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Do you have a criticism of the movie that is not 'I personally did not find it entertaining' or 'I do not like what they were going for'?

Because it seems to me that criticizing Ultron for not being Bane is you criticizing based entirely on your personal preference.
 
Yes; he was a weak villain that failed to build any investment in his character beyond being humorous mcwhedoncharacter #27.
 
Cyrus 21 said:
So, you would prefer Murderous Soulless AI #17 instead?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's, like, fucken middle room, you know? I know everyone likes to exaggerate positions for funzies, but nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to choose between the Terminator and a Whedon character. It's possible to have a character who's compelling without completely lacking a personality.
Aaron Peori said:
A weak villain? That's an assertion. Please prove your assertion. Remember, no reference to your personal preference of what a villain should be.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nah. I'm not the one asserting that people should shut up here because I prefer a character a given way.

(Well, technically I am, I suppose, but only insofar as I'm using it as a rhetorical device to rebut your own position. I don't actually expect anyone to shut up with their criticism or arguments or anything.)
 
Tempera said:
Nah. I'm not the one asserting that people should shut up here because I prefer a character a given way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You're asserting that for the movie to be good it has to have the kind of villain you prefer. Please support your argument.

Also, I never explicitly told anyone to shut up. In fact, I said, explicitly, you are allowed to not like it. I'm kind of annoyed that you keep asserting that my tastes are inferior, is all.
 
Aaron Peori said:
You're asserting that for the movie to be good it has to have the kind of villain you prefer. Please support your argument.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I said no. I am not interested in being caught in this endless loop, and I am not interested in being used as a rhetorical device.
Aaron Peori said:
Also, I never explicitly told anyone to shut up. In fact, I said, explicitly, you are allowed to not like it. I'm kind of annoyed that you keep asserting that my tastes are inferior, is all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You very specifically said "I kindly suggest you go rewatch Dark Knight Rises for your menacing quota and let me watch my spectacle pro-wrestling match". That is the definition of "shut up and go watch something else".
 
Tempera said:
I said no. I am not interested in being caught in this endless loop, and I am not interested in being used as a rhetorical device.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Then I'll invite you to stop making statements of fact you are unwilling to defend.

You very specifically said "I kindly suggest you go rewatch Dark Knight Rises for your menacing quota and let me watch my spectacle pro-wrestling match". That is the definition of "shut up and go watch something else".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, its me saying that there have been dozens of films whose villains fit your criteria. Why am I not allowed to have two that fit mine?

It's people like you who are saying that I should not have films that I enjoy, since all of them must cater to your personal preferences.
 
Cunuroi said:
Making criticisms about characters a matter of "you're taking my fun away from me!" seems...like a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Tempera is saying the movie is bad for not succeeding at doing something it was not attempting and suggesting that attempting to do something other than what he wants is objectively bad. It strikes me as stupid to criticize a comedy for not being a drama.
 
Aaron Peori said:
Tempera is saying the movie is bad for not succeeding at doing something it was not attempting and suggesting that attempting to do something other than what he wants is objectively bad. It strikes me as stupid to criticize a comedy for not being a drama.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I disagree.

I don't really care for discussions on "objectivity", which to me come up when someone needs a bludgeon. I'll just say that we are under no requirement to take a movie on its own terms.

A movie can choose to have a tone that people find inappropriate even if the film truly commits to it. Also; AoU is a humorous action adventure,not just a straight comedy. And it's one that combines a bunch of elements from other films, some decidedly serious. Calling it a comedy seems simplistic.
 
I will state that I'm not demanding AoU be rewritten to suit what I think would work best. That said criticizing something doesn't mean you are demanding everything be changed for your benefit. I've seen that attitude a lot in the fanworks side of this site. Saying something is bad and you wish it was different doesn't equal demanding everything be altered to fit what you wish. It's just pointing out the flaws in something.
 
VolantRedX said:
I will state that I'm not demanding AoU be rewritten to suit what I think would work best. That said criticizing something doesn't mean you are demanding everything be changed for your benefit. I've seen that attitude a lot in the fanworks side of this site. Saying something is bad and you wish it was different doesn't equal demanding everything be altered to fit what you wish. It's just pointing out the flaws in something.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Pretty much. I'm not demanding that AoU be changed. What I'm saying is that Joss Whedon's weaknesses as a writer are on full display in this film and that's really unfortunate because I think it really makes the film a substantially less enjoyable than it could have been.
 
Aaron Peori said:
Tempera is saying the movie is bad for not succeeding at doing something it was not attempting and suggesting that attempting to do something other than what he wants is objectively bad. It strikes me as stupid to criticize a comedy for not being a drama.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

First: Tempera's female.

Second: AoU isn't a comedy. It's action-adventure.

Third: Your bullshit insistence that you can't criticize Ultron for being a Standard Whedon Character because 'it's a comedy' or 'but I liked it' is, as I mentioned before, bullshit.

Fourth: Pretending that Whedon at his most Whedon-y isn't a weakness of this film is completely absurd. Many of the jokes fall flat because Whedon can't resist the urge to throw in quips everywhere and Ultron is definitely hurt by Whedon using his standard archetypes when characterizing him. Edit: This is completely ignoring the effect this has on the film's go at action-adventure.
 
Last edited:
What's interesting is that I almost feel that someone in the production felt the Ultron character was a bad idea, because if you watch the trailer a lot of effort is made to avoid showing the humor side of the character. Ultron in the trailer is all low tones and threats. No jokes at all.
 
Aaron Peori said:
It strikes me as stupid to criticize a comedy for not being a drama.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I assume you aren't actually calling the Avengers a comedy and mean that as an example.

People have said it over and over again. The problem isn't the humor. It's the endless mono humor. Every Joke is a Joss Whedon joke with nothing to break it up. On top of that we scored some repeats from the first avengers. The Hulk rage out and final battle especially felt retreaded on a much larger scale.

You know what would have been better in the Hulk fight? Instead of getting brainwashed. If he'd seen Romanov beaten into the ground and just snapped.
 
Last edited:
Why did they bring Banner with them to Africa? They make a point to keep him in the ship and he proves to be a massive liability. Why have him show up?
 
VolantRedX said:
Why did they bring Banner with them to Africa? They make a point to keep him in the ship and he proves to be a massive liability. Why have him show up?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Same reason they took him on the raid at the beginning. They weren't sure if they would need the Hulk. But if they did they were going to NEED the hulk.

You'd think Tony would at least have equipped the Quin Jet to fly a holding pattern far enough out to keep Banner safe.

I know Jarvis was also the copilot but that doesn't preclude an independent autopilot.
 
Last edited:
Havocfett said:
First: Tempera's female.

Second: AoU isn't a comedy. It's action-adventure.

Third: Your bullshit insistence that you can't criticize Ultron for being a Standard Whedon Character because 'it's a comedy' or 'but I liked it' is, as I mentioned before, bullshit.

Fourth: Pretending that Whedon at his most Whedon-y isn't a weakness of this film is completely absurd. Many of the jokes fall flat because Whedon can't resist the urge to throw in quips everywhere and Ultron is definitely hurt by Whedon using his standard archetypes when characterizing him. Edit: This is completely ignoring the effect this has on the film's go at action-adventure.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As a guy who watched the movie (just last night in fact) and generally like the film, I really have to agree here. Like Ultron was so menacing in the trailers, but throughout the movie half the time I was wondering if this was even the same creation we saw in those trailers. Honestly the Avengers movies are my main exposure to Whedon, but apparently constant quips are quite could get a little annoying (I'll admit there were a few that knocked it out of the park, but I think a lot could have been cut out), especially for Ultron.

When he was good, he was REALLY good, but when he was bad. . .

Well like he was physically threatening and his idea of tearing the Avengers apart from the inside was a pretty neat idea, then it kinda fell apart. I guess Scarlet Witch was the key to that part of his plan, then it just devolved into another destroy the earth and humanity type thing that I've seen in like a hundred other movies. But at other times he came off as for lack of a better word a complete dork, hell Loki even after getting flattened by Hulk had more dignity than him at times.

That's my main problem with the movie. I guess stuff like this is a Whedon thing, but I have to note again that the Avengers movies are my only real exposure to the guys stuff, so I can't really blame him entirely I guess.

I liked Age of Ultron, but from that first trailer we got way back last year, I was expecting a bit more ya know?
 
Havocfett said:
Second: AoU isn't a comedy. It's action-adventure.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Pure comedy? No. But the movie is in a fine tradition of not-exactly-serious action movies going all the way back to gems like Die Hard and Big Trouble in Little China. Not every action film is Saving Private Ryan and demanding that they all be is ridiculous to the point of annoying.

Third: Your bullshit insistence that you can't criticize Ultron for being a Standard Whedon Character because 'it's a comedy' or 'but I liked it' is, as I mentioned before, bullshit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Problem is that, again, you are condemning Ultron for not being a character the writer was not trying for. You want to say he wasn't funny go ahead and criticize on that. But saying he "failed to be menacing" when the artists behind the work clearly weren't going for menacing is silly.

Fourth: Pretending that Whedon at his most Whedon-y isn't a weakness of this film is completely absurd. Many of the jokes fall flat because Whedon can't resist the urge to throw in quips everywhere and Ultron is definitely hurt by Whedon using his standard archetypes when characterizing him. Edit: This is completely ignoring the effect this has on the film's go at action-adventure.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is the closest you have come to actual criticism of the character in the thread. I tend to disagree. There were a few flat lines but for the most part I was always happy when Ultron was on screen, his dialogue was witty and entertaining and his character had understandable and compelling motives.

Honestly, I think people expecting different forgot exactly what the first movie was about. Like I pointed out upthread, Loki was never a menacing villain in Avengers. He was a witty, quipy funny villain and people loved him. Why would they expect them to change the winning formula?
 
Aaron Peori said:
Tempera is saying the movie is bad for not succeeding at doing something it was not attempting and suggesting that attempting to do something other than what he wants is objectively bad. It strikes me as stupid to criticize a comedy for not being a drama.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't see how "Well Atlanta Nights was trying to be awful, so you can't say it's bad!" is an especially useful or coherent argument.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top