Marvel Cinematic Universe

[GeorgeC]

Good! Just as long as I wasn't hearing things!

Guys...what's with the "we get to see it first" crap!? The darn movie was MADE OVER HERE! I saw many names in there that I knew (and Rand knows one of 'em too!). As a result, we had the world premiere here last week in London!

As we know, the real reason is probably to do with marketing and piracy and the fact that international returns will likely surpass the domestic US take but, honestly, enough with the griping!

I did tell you ahead of time that I WASN'T griping about it but I have a feeling you weren't aiming those comments at me, anyway...

Everything else you said, to quote The Joker (saying this to Batman): "I hate it when you make sense!"


The whole 'worn film' business is one of the few things that IS better about digital video than 35mm film. It'll never wear out just like 5-inch disc will NOT be destroyed by repeated playing on a DVD/Blu ray player. Can't say that about any kind of tape that has to roll over tape heads!

I dunno... sometimes digital video/hi-def film looks TOO much like home video. It's hard to put into words.

[Vernadyn]

I just hope the Avengers Quicksilver actually has a reason for being there, as he's clearly not going to be as entertaining as the X-Men version (who was fun, but glaringly detached from the narrative spine).

Actually, Ben, some of your thoughts on Age of Ultron reflect my feelings about X-Men: Days of Future Past. I like Whedon more than Singer, which would make a disappointment hurt more…. Well, no way to know for certain until I see it myself.

[Ben]

I think you're on the money with Quicksilver's role in Ultron. Especially by the end, Scarlet Witch has more of a place in the new Avengers.

[Vernadyn]

Saw it, and I was satisfied with Quicksilver's role in the story. Lots more to mull over, but I agree that it felt a little rushed--apparently, Whedon ended up cutting a lot out. It certainly felt a lot shorter than 2.5 hours. Yes, it's not as good as the first (or a couple other Marvel Studios films), but I have to say I did enjoy it more than Days of Future Past.

[Randall]

I'll have to take my boy to see this in the theatre (next weekend for his birthday), but I'll look forward to the director's cut on the Blu-ray (which Amazon leaked an announcement of in Europe already).

BTW, Blu-ray pre-orders are now up for Amazon USA, including a 3D version. I ordered the Zavvi (UK) 3D Steelbook version a couple of weeks ago.

[Ben]

As always...waiting on the full Phase Two box...

[Dan]

I enjoyed AoU. Yeah, it was going to be very difficult to match the level of the first film. Certain areas I do agree felt a bit rushed, but I felt it was a fun movie overall.

Spader was great as Ultron. It went beyond my initial ideas of the character from the comics and into something really grand and epic in a way. I smiled every time he broke out singing "I've Got No Strings" in his cold, sinister manner.

[ShyViolet]

Interesting:

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/aveng ... 201487125/

[Ben]

Like he says, it's an easy target. But he's right.

[EricJ]

They mention the Burton Batmans, which spent their money--an unheard-of mind-blowing $40M budget!!--on cavernous big sets, and it still feels like a more "real" universe than the entire destruction of NYC in the first Avengers.
(Which only left a bad taste in my mouth for reminding me of the entire CGI destruction of Chicago in Transformers 3...Ick.)

[Ben]

Chicago doesn't get enough destruction. (Jake and Elwood, and John Hughes, doesn't count!)

[EricJ]

As for Ultron, finally saw it, now that the crowds have died down, and, err.....yeah, you're right, it's a downer, but at least they didn't drop most of the balls. Was worried about "He's fast and she's weird" for a while, but once they finally got Wanda on the team, they got back to her core powers. And yes, Ultron and Vision were spot on.
(Although looks like Whedon didn't want to go all the way: In the scene where Vision comes to a mid-air stop because he doesn't want to crash through the big glass window...uh, guys, aren't we forgetting a rather glaring bit of comic canon??)

But, like most sequels that want to up their ante, the director wants to up it with Epic Saga and loaded the whole thing down with lead weights. (And Whedon, in the name of humanity, we beg of you, do not give us the full three-hour Director's Cut that restores Thor's whole deleted subplot with Dr. Selvig--That's exactly what I'm talking about.)
The few times the movie hits its Marvel Universe stride is when they try plugging the future films--Yes, the

Black Panther

tease with Andy Serkis and references to Wakanda and Vibranium.
Otherwise, as I said before, we haven't really missed all those Wacky Whedon-ism Wisecracks from Downey's Bunch, since the Disney X-D cartoons were ramming them down our throats in the meantime, so they could get a bit insufferable at times, and it felt like a relief when we were getting the Serious Stuff.
And I know they couldn't play the classic Hawkeye/Widow romance, because they had to give him a wife and kids this time, but a Widow/Hulk romance?...EWWW!!

[Vernadyn]

It seems like Whedon was a little beaten down by the Marvel studio system, which is a shame. I haven't liked absolutely everything he's done (e.g., Alien Resurrection and Titan AE) but I do love a lot of it. I don't think Age of Ultron is a contender for the best superhero movie of all time, but I'd still place it pretty high.

Other sites have discussed how Kevin Feige's grip on the MCU can be a blessing and a curse--on the one hand, it allows for consistency and a sense of quality control. One need only look at the "Amazing" Spider-Man films and many of the Fox Marvel films to see how easily things can go awry. On the other hand, it's led to the departure of Edgar Wright and Patty Jenkins as well as chafing from Whedon and Jon Favreau. This contrasts with DC's "director-driven" approach. Which could be cool if their major director weren't Zack Snyder. Of course, "director-driven" could just be another way of saying they don't really have a game plan.

[EricJ]

This contrasts with DC's "director-driven" approach. Which could be cool if their major director weren't Zack Snyder. Of course, "director-driven" could just be another way of saying they don't really have a game plan.

Or another way of saying that Warner will hitch their wagon to the cult value of Nolan and Snyder's stars, even after they turn to meteors and crash to earth, taking their comics with them.

Marvel keeps its loyalty on the story and the tone/theme of the original comic, even if that means different directors shooting different films at the same time, and diversity lets them keep some variety on the same theme--
Captain America 1 & 2 were different films from each other, and Guardians was pretty darn different from both of them, but all three felt true to their individual comics. It's only saying "The Avengers HAVE to be Whedon!" or "Iron Man HAS to be Favreau!" that's dragged their sequels down a bit.

[Ben]

Well Iron Man Three wasn't Favreau, which saved it, and I think Captain America: Civil War - aka Avengers 2.5 - will let us see how the team can appear when not under the Wheedon hand. Much as I love his stuff, I think it's healthy for these films not to get tied up with one creative head. Yes, have Feige there for continuity, but bring in fresh takes each time, or else we will get the same movie over and over.

The best Marvel films have been where new directors come in and don't go down the obvious routes...something I'm a *little* worried about now that Civil War and Avengers 3A/3B will all share the same directors.