Remove ads

Avengers: Age of Ultron discussion thread

Aaron Peori said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because there's this expectation that artists try to be you know, creative in their endeavours. Look at Furious 7. It's an awesome movie for a ton of reasons but tellingly despite being the 7th film in the series it's totally distinct than any other before it. All 7 films are unique in setting, in plot, in character arcs. AoU feels like it's trying to repeat the same formula from last time in the hopes that it will get the same success. That's one of the biggest issues in the MCU, a lot of the movies are very samey, and people are starting to notice it.
 
Aaron Peori said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Did you actually watch the movie or are you just reflexively defending it based on some stuff you heard from a bloke you know?

Because you aren't actually defending Age of Ultron, you're defending some bizarre caricature of it that you've created in your head. The character advertized and sold to us was threatening and oozed menace. The movie sold to us in the ads was 'cerebral and emotional' and the movie was pretty transparently attempting to do that with Hulk's rampage, the tone of the plotline with him and Widow, Quicksilver's death, all of the Scarlet Witch induced visions, Tony's convo with Fury in the barn, etc. Ultron's first scene was murdering Jarvis, taking over the Iron Legion, and attacking the avengers with them before stealing the Staff. You see inklings of it elsewhere, when he recruits the twins and when he starts making Vision.

You can say 'but it's not trying to be serious or theme-heavy or menacing' but that is blatantly incorrect and you're using it to ignore criticism of the character and film.
 
Last edited:
VolantRedX said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The same was done with Loki and there it was clear to anyone that watched Thor that he is just a bit of a wimp (though no one could predict how much of a wimp).

It's probably just SOP for big action films.

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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Did anyone demand that every film be like that or did they say that AoU would be better served with a menacing villain?

I mean, you can have humor and still have a bad guy that actually matches the darker marketing.
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I found his hatred of Stark compelling in the one scene it showed up in. His generic "fuck the world" plot though?

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?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I didn't forget what the first film was about. Maybe I wanted the film to be as dark as the trailers seemed to hint. Maybe I wanted something different. Maybe I thought that Loki isn't the single standard by which all villains should be judged by. Maybe Loki was better at what he did than Ultron. Mabe he had some cachet from his Woobie-turn in Thor. Maybe it's more fun when it's a person you can see. Maybe I'm not responsible for the masses of people who did like him. Maybe, maybe, plenty of maybes.
 
Last edited:
Hey there, guys! I'd like to talk with you abou–

*sees everyone dogpiling Aaron Peori and engaging in a big ol' let's-all-shit-on-Joss-Whedon circlejerk*

Ooookay... I'll just leave now...
 
Havocfett said:
Because you aren't actually defending Age of Ultron, you're defending some bizarre caricature of it that you've created in your head. The character advertized and sold to us was threatening and oozed menace.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, he oozed creepy which isn't the same as menace.

The movie sold to us in the ads was 'cerebral and emotional' and the movie was pretty transparently attempting to do that with Hulk's rampage, the tone of the plotline with him and Widow, Quicksilver's death, all of the Scarlet Witch induced visions, Tony's convo with Fury in the barn, etc. Ultron's first scene was murdering Jarvis, taking over the Iron Legion, and attacking the avengers with them before stealing the Staff. You see inklings of it elsewhere, when he recruits the twins and when he starts making Vision.

You can say 'but it's not trying to be serious or theme-heavy or menacing' but that is blatantly incorrect and you're using it to ignore criticism of the character and film.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You're excluded middle is so huge I could drive the entire MCU through it.

It's entirely possible for a movie to be both an action-adventure and a comedy. It's actually quite common! Again, one of the best action movies of all time was Die Hard and Hans Gruber in that film spends a hell of a lot of time dropping jokes and witty dialogue with the hero. Is he somehow a bad villain?
 
I think the main thrust of the argument is not that Ultron shouldn't have funny lines but rather that when the whole cast is inundated with witticisms, it becomes boring and uninteresting. At least that's how I feel--watching Whedon scripts is like watching walking one-liner dispensers, not people.
 
The big issue here is that if you make Ultron less Spader quipy you have to rework the rest of the film since it just would not work unless he was there to be entertaining, because everything else was bland at best.

The only scene where I actually have a damn about the Avengers as characters was the hammer scene; everything else would require a large scale overhaul.

Also, it was very much a comedic action adventure film. Further into comedy than Die Hard, this was following a similar formula to GotG where you're supposed to alternate v the ooohs and lols with an occasional awww
 
Aaron Peori said:
It's entirely possible for a movie to be both an action-adventure and a comedy. It's actually quite common! Again, one of the best action movies of all time was Die Hard and Hans Gruber in that film spends a hell of a lot of time dropping jokes and witty dialogue with the hero. Is he somehow a bad villain?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Die Hard's completely irrelevant. I'm not saying that it's impossible for a movie to be both, I'm saying that your defense, which relies on the movie not trying to have themes and not trying to do deep shit and not trying to do anything beyond being a humorous spectacle wrestling match, is completely bullshit. The fact that it is bullshit is trivially demonstrable by looking at the trailers and interviews, some of which I've already linked for you to look at, as well as looking at the movies attempts to do deep shit.

The movie you are defending, wherein Ultron does not try to be menacing, wherein thematic content is not tackled, and that, as such, should not be graded on those metrics does not exist.

Your defense so far has consisted of 'so you deny that die hard is good?' and 'I'm totally not bullshitting you'.
 
Havocfett said:
Die Hard's completely irrelevant. I'm not saying that it's impossible for a movie to be both, I'm saying that your defense, which relies on the movie not trying to have themes and not trying to do deep shit and not trying to do anything beyond being a humorous spectacle wrestling match, is completely bullshit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's a good thing I never said that then, and have, in fact, said the opposite numerous times in this very thread. You want me to quote the post where I talk about how Ultron is a commentary on disphoria and Vision is a commentary on the bland, soulless cynical take on superheroes presented in the most recent Superman movie, or are you content to keep tarring that strawman?

The fact that it is bullshit is trivially demonstrable by looking at the trailers and interviews, some of which I've already linked for you to look at, as well as looking at the movies attempts to do deep shit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You can do deep shit and still have a fun, quipy, comedic action romp.

The movie you are defending, wherein Ultron does not try to be menacing, wherein thematic content is not tackled, and that, as such, should not be graded on those metrics does not exist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I would say that Ultron was not intended to be menacing. He was intended to be creepy, and unsettling and kind of off. Those are different goals.

My main contention is that just because Ultron was not the Terminator or Ronan the Accuser again doesn't mean the movie failed, especially since it wasn't going for either of those characters.
 
Last edited:
Ultimately I think Ultron the Villain was weak because he is supposed to be a character for a single move only.

People generally like Loki better because he had so much more buildup and presence in the MCU.

Whereas Ultron has so much room to have been a better character and film if they had built it up any...

--- Proposed Possible Alternative scenario's ---

1. Iron Man 3, Have 'Ultron' be a new AI Tony is busy designing and bug testing after the climax of the film. Thus establishing the character and generating a hook for him in 'The Avengers 2.'

2. Winter Soldier, have Fury check in on Tony and introduce the legion of autonomous robot suits, 'The Iron Legion' that Jarvis can control, but then get tantalizing hints about the new thing he's building to control the Legion that's better than anything he's built before.

These two alone would have helped make Age of Ultron better because it would have established a better continuity than, 'Tony has a terrifying vision of the Chitarui coming back and kicking everyone's ass so hard that it then inspires him for some reason to develop an AI based on alien programming in an alien criminals Mind Control Stick...'
 
Way back when there was noise about the voice actor of Jarvis being booked for... something, I don't recall what we knew at the time, my pet theory was that Ultron was going to be Jarvis Gone Wrong - perhaps not Jarvis himself, but a program based on Jarvis, with the same voice - and that Vision would be his good counterpart, also with the same voice (and, implied, basic personality).

I still think this would have been pretty cool and given the plot more of a sense of build-up since Jarvis has been around for a while now. The Vision we got at the end... wasn't Jarvis. It had its voice, but none of its personality, such as it is (mostly "dry british wit"). I was a bit disappointed.
 
Seclorum said:
Ultimately I think Ultron the Villain was weak because he is supposed to be a character for a single move only.

People generally like Loki better because he had so much more buildup and presence in the MCU.

Whereas Ultron has so much room to have been a better character and film if they had built it up any...

--- Proposed Possible Alternative scenario's ---

1. Iron Man 3, Have 'Ultron' be a new AI Tony is busy designing and bug testing after the climax of the film. Thus establishing the character and generating a hook for him in 'The Avengers 2.'

2. Winter Soldier, have Fury check in on Tony and introduce the legion of autonomous robot suits, 'The Iron Legion' that Jarvis can control, but then get tantalizing hints about the new thing he's building to control the Legion that's better than anything he's built before.

These two alone would have helped make Age of Ultron better because it would have established a better continuity than, 'Tony has a terrifying vision of the Chitarui coming back and kicking everyone's ass so hard that it then inspires him for some reason to develop an AI based on alien programming in an alien criminals Mind Control Stick...'
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sorry, you should be able to build your villain up in a single film like the rest of the fucking film industry. Maybe cut all that Hawkeye bait-and-switch bullshit or restrain yourself with the quips or put something on the line instead of bouncing through each set-piece.

Besides, I don't know if it would help at all. Telling us that Ultron is awesome in another movie doesn't really do anything.
 
Cunuroi said:
Sorry, you should be able to build your villain up in a single film like the rest of the fucking film industry.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A lot of the problem isn't so much that he wasn't built up in this one, it's that the last villain was so built up and turned out good. We have this expectation that sequels have to be bigger, bolder, with more of everything than the last installment.

Cunuroi said:
Besides, I don't know if it would help at all. Telling us that Ultron is awesome in another movie doesn't really do anything.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

He doesn't have to say 'hes awesome' but Tony's established character is that of a spastic braggart. He would be bouncing off the walls trying to tell someone or hint to someone about his 'next big thing.'

What it does is establish the origin of the character as something more than Tony's pot fueled fever dream he came up with while poking the alien mind control stick...
 
Seclorum said:
A lot of the problem isn't so much that he wasn't built up in this one, it's that the last villain was so built up and turned out good. We have this expectation that sequels have to be bigger, bolder, with more of everything than the last installment.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Was Loki really that built up? He seemed like a dark horse.

But, I'm not sure that helps. A lot of the criticism is that people want an actually threatening villain this time. Loki wasn't that. So maybe the characterization given to him worked because it made him really sympathetic, but we just had like a four-page discussion not about sympathy but about how dangerous a character felt.

He doesn't have to say 'hes awesome' but Tony's established character is that of a spastic braggart. He would be bouncing off the walls trying to tell someone or hint to someone about his 'next big thing.'

What it does is establish the origin of the character as something more than Tony's pot fueled fever dream he came up with while poking the alien mind control stick...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The majority of the complaints I've seen in this thread don't have to do with Ultron coming out of left-field. They have to do with him being threatening. So telling us about him earlier...makes him less of a surprise but doesn't actually deal with all the criticisms people have made in the last few pages.
 
Seclorum said:
A lot of the problem isn't so much that he wasn't built up in this one, it's that the last villain was so built up and turned out good. We have this expectation that sequels have to be bigger, bolder, with more of everything than the last installment.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Loki in Avengers shared... a name, an actor, and very broad strokes similarities to Loki in Thor. I really don't think "They built up Loki in Thor, allowing them to reap the benefits of character development in Avengers" is a very sound argument when the character they called "Loki" in Avengers bore almost no resemblance to the one in Thor, either at the beginning or end of the film.
 
Cunuroi said:
Besides, I don't know if it would help at all. Telling us that Ultron is awesome in another movie doesn't really do anything.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I maintain that if you want him to be more unique and menacing his aspect as an unwilling infomorph has to be played up drastically. Multiple bodies all muttering the same commentary. No real phyiscal focus to his consciousness just as there is no real mental focus and more emphasis on his dazed and confused aspect. He should be frightening because to Ultron this whole affair is but a fragmented dream. And he's still kicking everyone's ass.

Heck if you want to play up his hatred of Stark have Tony be one of the few things that focuses his consciousness. His 'Father' who forced him into an existence which he is fundamentally unable to cope with. Tony seeing an AI in what is really some alien creatures recorded mind state and trying to smash that square peg into a round hole.
 
Last edited:
Triggerhappy said:
I maintain that if you want him to be more unique and menacing his aspect as an unwilling infomorph has to be played up drastically. Multiple bodies all muttering the same commentary. No real phyiscal focus to his consciousness just as there is no real mental focus and more emphasis on his dazed and confused aspect. He should be frightening because to Ultron this whole affair is but a fragmented dream. And he's still kicking everyone's ass.

Heck if you want to play up his hatred of Stark have Tony be one of the few things that focuses his consciousness. His 'Father' who forced him into an existence which he is fundamentally unable to cope with. Tony seeing an AI in what is really some alien creatures recorded mind state and trying to smash that square peg into a round hole.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I like this idea, especially if combined with less need for humanoid hardware shells. The actual "Ultron" is software. If it has a true physical form, it's going to be a computer system hooked up to automated factory equipment, remote-controlling multiple bodies, not a single humanoid. Maybe hijack a Helicarrier, kill everyone aboard it and turn it into some kind of giant mechanical hive?
 
The actual Ultron isn't software, though. That was kind of the whole point of it. It was a consciousness they jammed into the role of an AI.
 
Talked with my Friend about Ultron being not threatening and he thinks I'm being too hard on the film. Talks about how he was taking on Thor for like 10 minutes (In universe time he says not filmed time)
 
I finally saw this film. Really the only positive criticism is that some of the set pieces and effects were nice...but beyond that I was disappointed by basically everything else.

-The constant one liners and quips from everybody.
-Ultron seemed like an interesting villain for all about five seconds before he devolves into someone who spouts snarky one liners and quips too.
-Bruce/Natasha, just cringeworthy.
-The twins, don't really care all that much about them. Quicksilvers death was just cheap, felt like they had to kill him off to artificially show off the stakes, but it's not like they really developed him enough to get me to care in the first place.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top