Avengers: Age of Ultron (spoilers)

[Kaodi]

One thing that kind of annoyed me a bit came from the audience where I was rather than the movie per se.
[sblock=Spoilers]
When the scene turns to the Vision handing Mjolnir to Thor, a bunch of people laughed because, I suppose, it might have seemed like a joke in light of everyone taking a shot at picking it up earlier in the film. But I kind of thought it should have been one of the more serious moments in the film: they are here with a stranger of unknown awesome power and they have to make a decision whether they can trust him with their lives and everyone else's on Earth. And that moment where he handed Thor the hammer was not a joke. It meant that the Vision is worthy.
[/sblock]

 

[Morrus]

One thing that kind of annoyed me a bit came from the audience where I was rather than the movie per se.
[sblock=Spoilers]
When the scene turns to the Vision handing Mjolnir to Thor, a bunch of people laughed because, I suppose, it might have seemed like a joke in light of everyone taking a shot at picking it up earlier in the film. But I kind of thought it should have been one of the more serious moments in the film: they are here with a stranger of unknown awesome power and they have to make a decision whether they can trust him with their lives and everyone else's on Earth. And that moment where he handed Thor the hammer was not a joke. It meant that the Vision is worthy.
[/sblock]

There were a lot of situations where people laughed out loud at what were pretty weak jokes. I'm starting to wonder if these things have some hypnotism going on.

 

[Umbran]

None of us liked it all that much.

To each their own, obviously, but the group I went with liked it a great deal. Not a perfect movie, but better than many.

It felt like quite a mess, with the standard Marvel big battle ending;

So, what else would you expect, or are you looking for, from the ending of a comic-book superhero movie? Or from any action-genre movie, really? They should sit down with Ultron, and talk out his daddy issues over a cup of coffee?

It had great bits, for sure (Hulkbuster armour - though why doesn't he use that all the time, and, hey, Hulk can be knocked out with a punch now?)

Why doesn't he use it all the time? Maneuverability, if nothing else. That thing steered like a cow. Remember him in the fight in Avengers 1, when he outdid the Chitauri flyers because the enemy couldn't bank for crap? Well, the Hulkbuster armor sure isn't going to manage that kind of nonsense.

Of the series, Cap 2 is by far the best movie, followed by Avengers 1, then Iron Man 1.

Here's something interesting - these movies are, in many ways, not in the same genre, and it shows in their styles, and in who likes which movie.

So, Morrus, are you a spy-movie fan? You like the recent Bond films, for example?

I am broad in my movie tastes. I've liked both Captain America movies, all the Iron Man and Avenger films. Some of them have some flaws, but all enjoyable. The Thor movies were a bit of a slog, but had their good bits, too.

My wife is more strictly a comic book superheroes fan, and found both the Captain America films (as well as the first Thor, she didn't bother seeing the second) to be boring boring boring, and Cap 2 to also be needlessly violent.

Some of you will laugh at that, but you shouldn't - the style, form, and targets of violence in Cap 2 are notably different from the Avengers films. That's because Cap 2 is almost more spy-thriller than it is superhero. My wife is not a spy-thriller fan. Quantum of Solace was a *bad* movie, from her perspective. The violence is in Cap 2 is with *lots* of guns. There are few guns in Avengers. There's energy bolts and stuff, but few bullets. And to most folks bullets (and the vehicular violence) are more "real". In essence, the violence in Cap 2 is more realistic than that in Avengers films, such that it may have more impact on some viewers.

Edit: Wait! The term I want isn't "realistic". It is "visceral". The violence in Cap 2 is more visceral than in the Avengers films.

 

[Morrus]

So, what else would you expect, or are you looking for, from the ending of a comic-book superhero movie? Or from any action-genre movie, really? They should sit down with Ultron, and talk out his daddy issues over a cup of coffee?

I'm not sure what prompted the sarcasm, but there are other ways to end action films beyond the ragtag team defence against a mass overwhelming faceless aerial bombardment that Avengers, Avengers 2, Winter Soldier, Iron Man 3, and Guardians of the Galaxy all used.

I quite enjoyed it in Avengers 1. But am now finding it too formulaic. I'd like to see them shake it up a bit more.

So, Morrus, are you a spy-movie fan? You like the recent Bond films, for example?

I like some spy movies and not others. I like some action movies, and some comedies, and some superhero films, and some gangster films, and some heavy dramas. My movie tastes are pretty broad. I don't think you'll find your answer there.

 

[Crothian]

I thought it was great. Not quite up to Avengers 1 but easily one of the better movies I've seen all year. I will be seeing it again Wednesday.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not sure what prompted the sarcasm

Not sarcasm, attempted humor. Apparently, not a very successful one, is all

....but there are other ways to end action films beyond the ragtag team defence against a mass overwhelming faceless aerial bombardment that Avengers, Avengers 2, Winter Soldier, Iron Man 3, and Guardians of the Galaxy all used.

First off, I think here you mean Iron Man 2 (the movie which actually first uses the trope). It is followed by the Avengers. Then, in Iron Man 3, they *reverse* the trope, as the faceless aerial bombardment is coming from the hero in the form of Iron Man suits.

Anyhow, rhetorical questions, followed by overall conclusion:

Do you deny that an action film should be expected to have a major action sequence at or near the end?

So, now, you are doing an adaptation. In general, in all the aforementioned pieces, major characters have the ability to fly, or have spaceships. You have a choice - try to artificially constrain the scene so that flight is not an option, or use flight and the vertical dimension. As an author, which do you do?

You have two hours, and an ensemble cast. You need to spend a bit of time on each hero. How many villains can you develop, such that they are not essentially "faceless"?

It seems to me the formula is falling directly out of the constraints of the initial setup - if you are doing an Avengers movie, where half the characters have aerial travel as a major power, you are going to go up, or the viewers are going to look at you funny, or gripe about your arbitrary reason for keeping them grounded, or gripe about how stupid they were for not just flying. And, in order to keep characters with these power sets occupied, you need a whole lot of bad guys. You might as well embrace it.

But am now finding it too formulaic.

As if the comics weren't formulaic to begin with?

I'd like to see them shake it up a bit more.

Let us look for a moment at the movies.

The trope appears in: Iron Man 2, The Avengers, Captain America 2, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers 2
The Trope does not appear in: Iron Man, Iron Man 3, Captain America, Thor, Thor 2 (debatable, but I don't think it really meets the criteria), The Incredible Hulk (if you call that part of the MCU)

So, how much more shaking up do you want? I'm pretty sure they aren't using the trope much in Agents of Shield or Daredevil and Friends...

 

[Morrus]

Do you deny that an action film should be expected to have a major action sequence at or near the end?

Is my taste in superhero flicks on trial here? It feels like it is.

So, now, you are doing an adaptation. In general, in all the aforementioned pieces, major characters have the ability to fly, or have spaceships. You have a choice - try to artificially constrain the scene so that flight is not an option, or use flight and the vertical dimension. As an author, which do you do?

I write a different story which doesn't involve spaceships.

I get that it's hard. I get that they might *not* be able to come up with something else. I'm not saying they're bad people or anything. I'm not even saying that everyone on the planet except me doesn't want more if it. That in no way precludes me from becomes bored with what they're currently coming up with.

The trope appears in: Iron Man 2, The Avengers, Captain America 2, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers 2
The Trope does not appear in: Iron Man, Iron Man 3, Captain America, Thor, Thor 2 (debatable, but I don't think it really meets the criteria), The Incredible Hulk (if you call that part of the MCU)

So, how much more shaking up do you want? I'm pretty sure they aren't using the trope much in Agents of Shield or Daredevil and Friends...

Reversing it for IM3 still counts, and Thor 2 still does in my personal threshold of interest-ometer. One can argue dismilarities, but if they all feel similar to me, they all feel similar to me. Untimatey, you're just arguing against how someone feels about a movie. Hey, maybe I'm the only one (I kinda feel like I am, other than the few folks I saw the film with).

That said, Daredevil is excellent. They shook it up a bit, and its the best superhero thing I've seen on screen in a long while! AoS I find awful, but for other reasons entirely.

 

[Dog Moon]

There were a lot of situations where people laughed out loud at what were pretty weak jokes. I'm starting to wonder if these things have some hypnotism going on.

Sometimes I swear this is true. I catch myself laughing more because I know it's something that the movie wants me to laugh at rather than because it's actually funny. Then I stop and go "Why did I laugh at that?"

Especially when I know EXACTLY what the person is about to say because there are lines that are just sooooo predictable and of course they say it and for some reason I can't explain I still freaking laugh.

 

[Jhaelen]

My wife is not a spy-thriller fan. Quantum of Solace was a *bad* movie, from her perspective.

Well, 'Quantum of Solace' was a _terrible_ movie from my perspective, too, and I am a spy-thriller fan (not really a 'Bond' fan, though, until Daniel Craig started playing that part). I liked both 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall', but QoS was just bad. To me it felt like it was a video game adaptation including excessive 'action sequences' that felt pasted on and contributed nothing to the story.

Did your wife also dislike 'Casino Royale' and/or 'Skyfall' (assuming she's wached them)?

 

[Umbran]

Is my taste in superhero flicks on trial here? It feels like it is.

Nope. I'm more discussing critique and expectations, as we will see in a moment.

I write a different story which doesn't involve spaceships.

That's great, if you're free to do so. But this is an adaptation with elements established by previous authors. The Guardians of the Galaxy by definition kind of have to move around the Galaxy, and the way they do that is in ships. So, the ships kinda have to be there.

That in no way precludes me from becomes bored with what they're currently coming up with.

If you go to the market, and buy a package of ice cream that is clearly labelled "chocolate", and you take a spoonful and think, "Gee, I'm bored of chocolate," do you critique the ice cream for not being strawberry, or do you think that maybe you should have gotten different ice cream? That's the question I'm considering here. The thing is what it is, a pretty good adaptation of the original source material. Should we expect it to be other than that? Do we critique it on the basis of what it is trying to be, or what it is, regardless of the expectations set by the genre and adaptation?

Reversing it for IM3 still counts, and Thor 2 still does in my personal threshold of interest-ometer.

Well, I admit that Thor 2 was not terribly exciting, whether or not we worry about that trope. I watched it on a bored late night when my wife was away, to kill time, otherwise I would not have bothered.

Part of the thing with IM3 is that reversing it is *meaningful*. It is the *villain* who bombards, faceless from above. And suddenly, it becomes (to me) a bit of foreshadowing that is far more interesting than at first glance. I'm sorry if you aren't interested in the meta-text.

One can argue dismilarities, but if they all feel similar to me, they all feel similar to me. Untimatey, you're just arguing against how someone feels about a movie.

I'm not actually arguing against how you feel. You feel how you feel, and that's fine. I'm considering where the line of valid critique of the work itself comes up.