|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:By "children's movie" he is referring to the level of quality, not the level of maturity. Maybe there are actually movies literally made by children that looks better than Avengers.
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
The MSJ posted:Maybe there are actually movies literally made by children that looks better than Avengers. Like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUb8bGQrIWw
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Fury Road is a better movie in every way than Avengers 2. Comparing the two, Avengers 2 has way more shots that say "Look! I'm an exciting action movie" whereas Fury Road simply delivers the action. Fury Road also has far more character development despite a much higher action-to-talking ratio.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS5P_LAqiVg Kung Fury really delivered on the action. Watching it, I was really hoping Ultron could have been a little more flipping-the-bird happy when killing people, like the robot in this movie. Terrible dialog between characters but great action.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
So I just read an old interview with Lou Ferrigno about how he recorded some voice work for the Hulk in this movie, but the Hulk acts like a trained circus bear in every scene he's in, never talking once. How did they manage to gently caress that up so bad?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:So I just read an old interview with Lou Ferrigno about how he recorded some voice work for the Hulk in this movie, but the Hulk acts like a trained circus bear in every scene he's in, never talking once. How did they manage to gently caress that up so bad? Why does Hulk have to "prove" to you that he can talk? He got a couple of words in both previous MCU films he appeared in, so it's not like it's a big reveal any more. It's implied that a Code Green is a infrequent, but no unheard of, occurrence, so it isn't even like this is the first time Hulk's been let off the chain since the Battle of New York. It's just a day at the office for Hulk, no need for one-liners.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Why does Hulk have to "prove" to you that he can talk?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Why does Hulk have to "prove" to you that he can talk? He got a couple of words in both previous MCU films he appeared in, so it's not like it's a big reveal any more. It's implied that a Code Green is a infrequent, but no unheard of, occurrence, so it isn't even like this is the first time Hulk's been let off the chain since the Battle of New York. It's just a day at the office for Hulk, no need for one-liners. Because when people talk to me I don't just shake my head like a drunken circus bear and grunt at them when I comprehend language. I'm not saying he should be giving a master's thesis on smashology, just a "No problem", "Hulk smash puny Stark!". But hell, it's not like forceful grunts of dubious grammatical quality are a huge character trait or anything. I don't know, maybe they sent Hulk for SEAL training in between movies so now he only communicates in giant hand signals. "Hulk professional!", "Hulk not need use words when people directly address Hulk", "Hulk fully understand Spider-lady's assertion about stealth mode. Worry that lack of previous vocalization may damage gravitas of Hulk silent response, but director hack who not take notes from Hulk"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 09:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Why does Hulk have to "prove" to you that he can talk? He got a couple of words in both previous MCU films he appeared in, so it's not like it's a big reveal any more. It's implied that a Code Green is a infrequent, but no unheard of, occurrence, so it isn't even like this is the first time Hulk's been let off the chain since the Battle of New York. It's just a day at the office for Hulk, no need for one-liners. Did...did you just take my post without quoting it?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
I thought I recognised that post! Here I was thinking I suffered from forums deja vu.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:But hell, it's not like forceful grunts of dubious grammatical quality are a huge character trait or anything. I don't know, maybe they sent Hulk for SEAL training in between movies so now he only communicates in giant hand signals. "Hulk professional!", "Hulk not need use words when people directly address Hulk", "Hulk fully understand Spider-lady's assertion about stealth mode. Worry that lack of previous vocalization may damage gravitas of Hulk silent response, but director hack who not take notes from Hulk" Hulk wouldn't open his eyes.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:Hulk wouldn't open his eyes. Why not?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Why not? He just didn't. http://snipeseyes.ytmnd.com/
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
I think I like this other official version better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUGaHYbNjv4
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Finally saw this. Have plenty of thoughts, but only a few that (to my knowledge) haven't already been expressed by more eloquent and insightful posters in this thread already: 1) The evacuation scenes have this weird "for their own good" undercurrent running through them, in that the first time the Iron Legion shows up as these bland, polite avatars of benign global capitalism, they get defied and mocked by a Sokovian populace that just doesn't care about these requests. The sad part is that Stark and friends seem to identify "benign" as the problem, rather than "global capitalism", so when it's time to clear the people out of the city again, there's an emphasis on doing so "in a language these people can understand". Quicksilver shows up and fires an assault rifle into the air in a public building while shouting at everyone to move, in some direct terrorist imagery, but it's even worse in the case of Scarlet Witch, since she straight up mind controls these folks into silently abandoning their homes. "Silently" is key here, since the Sokovians were so defined by their speech - their brash, defiant speech - in the opening scenes, but now everybody's just getting displaced from their homes without saying a word. Obviously they would've been much worse off if they stayed, but it's this film's equivalent of the "nobody forced you to paint yourself into a nuclear corner" issue with the first one. Here, nobody forced them to paint themselves into a corner where they're writing newly-redeemed heroes as terrorizing and coercing these citizens in a way that really honestly has their best interests at heart. 2) People have already pointed out the weird, arbitrary nature of the scene where Stark and Thor create Vision, but what's weirdest about it to me is how Stark does essentially the exact same thing the same thing - messing around with AI, Jarvis, and the Mind Stone, hiding it from the rest of the team, all with the encouragement of Scarlet Witch - except that his intentions are purer this time. The process gets taken out of his hands both times, but it results in an unintentional success here rather than a failure, because the first time around Stark was motivated by fear and this time he's not. With Stark representing capitalism/privatization/disruption to the extent he does, the implication here is that capitalism is a completely rad system to have around, and requires no oversight, so long as the capitalists are "acting in good faith". The troubling part is that their acts done in good faith, as Captain America notes, look exactly the same as their acts done in bad faith. It's just that with the former, a god will swoop in at some point and declare the whole enterprise Worthy, at which point we can all breathe easy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
What Thor expresses is that Stark was right all along. So there's an unspoken agreement that Ultron - and all prior Iron Man villains - are a necessary byproduct of Stark's endeavors. Ultron is the chrysalis - the snake-skin to be shed and discarded. He's not a bug; he's a feature. A part of the system. Stark's character arc, to the extent that he has one, is to embrace this amorality. By declaring that "we're mad scientists, monsters. You gotta own it", Stark blithely equates himself with (such figures as) Dr. Serizawa from the original Godzilla. But the difference is obvious: Serizawa is forced to commit suicide, because those in power are too corrupt to be trusted with what he's uncovered. His self-sacrifice is a ritual to maintain order and balance, but haunts everyone - stains everyone. (And, of course, it's only temporary.) Stark is, by contrast, entirely procultural. He may not trust the government much, but why worry about them at all? He's already running an independent private security 'foundation' that - inexplicably - operates internationally without any oversight or legal repercussions. The Avengers are all unlawful combatants. So, the pageantry of rescuing the civilians serves a very specific purpose: to makeca grand display of cleaning up the waste that Stark himself creates. Stark, consequently, can fancy himself (and his corporation) as 'green', and 'responsible', and whatever other buzzwords. But make no mistake: he vows to keep creating Ultrons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
It's like the Avengers movies raise issues and then ignore them so a Captain America sequel can deal with their logical conclusion later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:It's like the Avengers movies raise issues and then ignore them so a Captain America sequel can deal with their logical conclusion later. Civil War is about Captain America trying to send Tony to jail for crimes against humanity and terrorism. it's a Too Big To Fail analogy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What Thor expresses is that Stark was right all along. So there's an unspoken agreement that Ultron - and all prior Iron Man villains - are a necessary byproduct of Stark's endeavors. Ultron is the chrysalis - the snake-skin to be shed and discarded. He's not a bug; he's a feature. A part of the system. I'd wager that if asked, Thor would say: "Tony Stark is an idiot, but he's right about Vision - almost in spite of himself." quote:Ultron - and all prior Iron Man villains - are a necessary byproduct of Stark's endeavors Correct, but this is not a concept unique to Tony Stark.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:It's like the Avengers movies raise issues and then ignore them so a Captain America sequel can deal with their logical conclusion later. Except the Captain America movies still don't deal with them 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:Except the Captain America movies still don't deal with them Avengers revealed SHIELD to be an Orwellian nightmare. Winter Soldier revealed that this was because SHIELD is secretly HYDRA. Just off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Avengers revealed SHIELD to be an Orwellian nightmare. Winter Soldier revealed that this was because SHIELD is secretly HYDRA. Just off the top of my head. The issue is that Shield was an Orwellian nightmare and Nick Fury knew about it. Winter Soldier retcons it so he's as innocent as Cap is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The issue is that Shield was an Orwellian nightmare and Nick Fury knew about it. Winter Soldier retcons it so he's as innocent as Cap is. He's clearly not? Being mistaken is not the same as being innocent, and I didn't get the feeling the movie wanted to sell Fury as innocent. Cap was outright against most of what SHIELD did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Avengers revealed SHIELD to be an Orwellian nightmare. Winter Soldier revealed that this was because SHIELD is secretly HYDRA. Just off the top of my head. That 'reveal' is a distraction away from the Orwellian nightmare part, which has actually gone completely unaddressed in all three films. It's as it is with Stark, when he declares that he's going to keep causing disasters. This is a movie where all the characters experience a moment of doubt, and then decide not to change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
That exact behaviour happened when Iron Man 2 came out. The expanded universe-isation of the film made it very openly lovely, and viewers now look on that particular film as some kind of outstandingly bad part of the universe, when it's not really much worse - people just got used to it. Divorcing these systemic problems onto 'bad' characters, who can then be blamed, is both the story and the actual process of the series' viewers. There's something funny in that. Iron Man 2 has problems but they're the problems that lie at the heart of this whole endeavour, and otherwise is a sometimes-decent Iron Man film along with the others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
I like this morally compromised protagonist and am interested to see how he'll gently caress everything up again next time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This is a movie where all the characters experience a moment of doubt, and then decide not to change. Steve chastises Maria for casting aspersions on the twins' morals, before facing off against the twins even as other members of the team start to accept them. Vision tells everyone about how Ultron is scared, and unique, and probably not the best to kill, before executing an Ultron who's been rendered harmless. Yeah, checks out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
I enjoyed the movie overall more than a lot of stuff I've seen lately, even though I wouldn't say it was great. I think it's mostly a solid action film up until the final third or so. At that point it sort of feels more like things becoming a lot more exposition than discovery. I think a lot of the weakness in the film does sort of stem maybe from having so many characters and getting a bit lost with Thor/Vision developments. Thor, specifically. I heard talk of how his arc in the film was cut down a bit and I can sort of see that. But it really feels like it almost is a detour that feels very out of place in how it is handled. Seems like they could have bypassed Selvig entirely. One thing that sort of struck me by the final credits scene in the film is Thanos and how little we really saw of the Hydra operation from the start of the film and how secretive and advanced they were. Is there an insinuation that Strucker's arm of Hydra had replaced Loki as doing Thanos' will on Earth, because that is how it almost feels to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:That 'reveal' is a distraction away from the Orwellian nightmare part, which has actually gone completely unaddressed in all three films. How has it gone completely unaddressed? Project Insight is the logical conclusion to what Shield was shown to be all about in Avengers, ultimate surveillance that ultimately leads to preemptive strikes. At the end of Winter Soldier Fury is still not 100% convinced that this is a bad thing, he just kind of defers to Cap's judgment. If this were The Dark Knight, Fury would have totally kept the Bat-Sonar because it's In The Right Hands now while Cap rejects it completely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:How has it gone completely unaddressed? Project Insight is the logical conclusion to what Shield was shown to be all about in Avengers, ultimate surveillance that ultimately leads to preemptive strikes. At the end of Winter Soldier Fury is still not 100% convinced that this is a bad thing, he just kind of defers to Cap's judgment. If this were The Dark Knight, Fury would have totally kept the Bat-Sonar because it's In The Right Hands now while Cap rejects it completely. Fury says to Cap near the end something about restarting Shield, to which Cap objects because it'll just lead to the same thing. At the end of AoU, Fury is seen helping start a new version of Shield.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:Fury says to Cap near the end something about restarting Shield, to which Cap objects because it'll just lead to the same thing. At the end of AoU, Fury is seen helping start a new version of Shield. Was he? All I saw was the "spoiler]new Avengers facility. Which under Cap's leadership is presumably going to be as explicitly unlike SHIELD as possible (As it, he'll keep the "SHIELD as it should be" thing going and ditch the "controlled by Hydra, spying on the world, kill people who may commit a crime in the future" stuff.[/spoiler]
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:Fury says to Cap near the end something about restarting Shield, to which Cap objects because it'll just lead to the same thing. At the end of AoU, Fury is seen helping start a new version of Shield. Even if that reading of events in AoU were accurate, which I don't think it is, that means AoU ignored Avengers and Winter Soldier. The argument was though whether Winter Soldier ignored Avengers, as a part of the larger discourse that "every MCU movie ignores every other MCU movie" that people love so much around here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:That exact behaviour happened when Iron Man 2 came out. The expanded universe-isation of the film made it very openly lovely, and viewers now look on that particular film as some kind of outstandingly bad part of the universe, when it's not really much worse - people just got used to it. Let's be clear: Iron Man 2 wasn't disappointing so much because it was actively bad, but more because it was a banal action movie starring familiar characters and introducing clichéd new ones. The first Iron Man flick was fun because it was new and surprisingly engaging for a comic book film. Instead of building on the first film's good will and groundwork, the sequel just coasted and plugged in some tropes. Iron Man 3 was actively bad and insulting to the viewer, except for Ben Kingsley's parts. Big difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
I thought more people liked Iron Man 3? I liked bits of it at least, especially the way it's starting to wear 'the corporate bad guy is a reflection of Stark and the ethnic badguy is really always just a distraction/tool of the former' by having the mandarin literally be an actor and the corporate guy be building the sort of weapons Stark would have wanted to build if he hadn't decided to be a nice mass murderer. This paves the way for in Iron Man 7 where Stark eventually becomes a decent character and does anything interesting at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Even if that reading of events in AoU were accurate, which I don't think it is, that means AoU ignored Avengers and Winter Soldier. The argument was though whether Winter Soldier ignored Avengers, as a part of the larger discourse that "every MCU movie ignores every other MCU movie" that people love so much around here. The question raised in Avengers is "why did SHIELD have Hydra weapons?" The answer given in Winter Soldier was "because they're literally Hydra" and not the one implied in Avengers which was "SHIELD (personified by Nick Fury) doesn't have moral boundaries and will do anything to win".
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Red posted:Let's be clear: Iron Man 2 wasn't disappointing so much because it was actively bad, but more because it was a banal action movie starring familiar characters and introducing clichéd new ones. The first Iron Man flick was fun because it was new and surprisingly engaging for a comic book film. Instead of building on the first film's good will and groundwork, the sequel just coasted and plugged in some tropes. The setup for the rest of the MCU looked bad at the time but it's pretty much par for the course nowadays, given how much unecessary stuff Guardians of the Galaxy and Age of Ultron crammed in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:The setup for the rest of the MCU looked bad at the time but it's pretty much par for the course nowadays, given how much unecessary stuff Guardians of the Galaxy and Age of Ultron crammed in. Um, like what? If anything it's the property Thanos and the Infinity Stones actually belong in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Red posted:Correct, but this is not a concept unique to Tony Stark. The thing is, those characters do end up reflecting the heroes. Like how Joker is the mirror of Batman. Or how Lex Luthor is the anti-Superman. In the Marvel movies, Stark's enemies are just basically him. They're extensions of his behaviour. They're not bad because they do bad things, they're bad because the bad things are directed towards the 'good guy'. Stane and Hammer are basically the same guy as Stark, but they need to steal things because they're not the 'good guys'. Killian is almost Stane redux. Vanko is the closest thing to a hero. He assaults an overprivileged rich murderer twat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Um, like what? If anything it's the property Thanos and the Infinity Stones actually belong in. Thanos's actual impact to the story is basically giving the main bad guy a "gently caress you dad" moment. It would've been trivial (and indeed, made more sense) for Ronan to be working for his people's government in secret and then do the same thing that he did with Thanos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Thanos's actual impact to the story is basically giving the main bad guy a "gently caress you dad" moment. It would've been trivial (and indeed, made more sense) for Ronan to be working for his people's government in secret and then do the same thing that he did with Thanos. Thanos is also the reason Gamora is even in the story at all. I mean you could rewrite her so she's not a cyborg assassin created by Thanos who hates him and wants to undermine his schemes and make up with Thanos's other cyborg assassin adopted daughter, or write Gamora out of the team, but that seems stupider than just having the cameo role Thanos actually played in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 17:18
|
|