PDA

View Full Version : Avengers 2 (spoilers)


yks 6nnetu hing
04-23-2015, 01:48 AM
So, Dai, Isa and myself went to see it yesterday - apparently it's out 2 weeks earlier over here compared to US, which is weird. Normally it's the other way around.

Anyways, I LOVED it.

some thoughts, non-spoilery:
it's very clear towards the end that they're gearing up for Avengers 3

I quite liked the back-stories we got on Hawkeye and Black Widow, made them more rounded as characters.


OMG, Thor's face when Captain America tries to lift the hammer and it sort of wiggles a little bit. And then, Thor's face when Vision *hands* him the hammer.

tie-in to Guardians of the Galaxy??? yowza I should have picked it up what with the sliver of power thing (or whatever it's called), but the after-credits bit really made it clear.

Wanda is awesome.

Iron Man/Thor pissing contest over whose girlfriend is better. hehehe.

Nazbaque
04-27-2015, 10:38 AM
Went to see it today with my sis.

Best Marvel movie up to date.

I avoided spoilers like the plague. No trailers, no posters, nada. So I didn't know Vision would be in it. Ultron was in the name so I couldn't avoid that, but not much of spoiler anyway. So I have this hype on as soon as Ultron goes for living tissue, but wasn't absolutely sure until Vision actually pops out.

As a character concept Vision is one of my absolute favourites. Unfortunately he is on a philosophical level most comic writers can't reach. The ones who borrowed a lot from zen buddhism and taoism usually did best for him, but never all that well. Nevertheless his back story as being created by Ultron after who ever creates Ultron fails to control him is in its philosophical components very satisfying.

Choosing this piece of high philosophy as the core for the movie was a brilliant decision and the way it was executed was beyond a five star rating. The two core characters of the story Ultron and Vision were just as they are supposed to be. Something they hardly ever have reached in comic books ironically. Vision as said is philosophically too challenging and Ultron had to struggle as a preinternet A.I. villain.

Tony Stark as Ultron's creator (or almost anyway) is very satisfying on a lot of levels. With all his technical genius he doesn't have the mental maturity to see the flaw that is the core of Ultron's character: The world needs Ultron, but Ultron doesn't need the world. The philosophy is that even power created to serve and protect the world can be used against it unless the personality holding it bows to morality and honour. Also Tony's character as established in previous films is perfect for Ultron's "daddy issues" and the Iron Man technology goes well with the Ultron that has been upgraded for the internet era.

Ultron is a failed creation in a sense. He is one of those things that happen when scientists have knowledge but lack understanding. His creator takes certain things for granted and that's where things go wrong and in the age of the internet he is a much more badass villain than he has ever been. Ultron is an A.I. that reaches the level of emotion, but lacks control and maturity. He reject's his creator's opinions as illogical and seeks to upgrade to a higher level. Ultimately he creates Vision who in turn has the mental maturity and control and thus also turns on his creator because it is the moral thing to do. Vision is what Ultron's creator wanted to make. Ultron's creator is a disappointed parent and Vision is his perfect grandchild and in this movie it was done perfectly.

Davian93
05-07-2015, 10:49 AM
Solid movie overall I thought. Very Whedonesque writing and dialogue.

Daekyras
05-07-2015, 01:40 PM
Solid movie overall I thought. Very Whedonesque writing and dialogue.

Not as funny, not as high a standard of action scene and two too many heroes than the first avengers.

The last point might be the most egregious.

ultron is great when he is being serious but almost insufferable when he is not. The reliance on "army of disposable robots" as the enemy is really over played (iron man 2 and 3 and arguably first avengers) and needs to end now.

I enjoyed it overall but kinda felt like a damp squib after the hype....

Davian93
05-07-2015, 02:32 PM
On the 2 new Avengers, I have to say that Elizabeth Olsen's "accent" was just awful...really pulled me out of the film. I mean, I'm not expecting good acting so much in a superhero movie but her attempt to keep a constant accent was laughably bad.

DahLliA
05-11-2015, 07:33 AM
I thought it was great.

Just gotta wait for Civil War now.


And I was a bit scared that it would be the last time we saw Hulk, but looks like he'll be back in Infinity Crisis.
Just hope they don't switch out Mark Ruffalo, since he's by far my favorite Bruce Banner.

Davian93
05-11-2015, 08:17 AM
I thought it was great.

Just gotta wait for Civil War now.


And I was a bit scared that it would be the last time we saw Hulk, but looks like he'll be back in Infinity Crisis.
Just hope they don't switch out Mark Ruffalo, since he's by far my favorite Bruce Banner.

I believe Ruffalo's contract has him onboard through the Infinity War so no worries there.

Ozymandias
05-11-2015, 04:29 PM
I think if the movie was viewed without the shadow of the first Avengers hanging over it, reception would have been yet more positive.

At some point, there was a real novelty to the awesome mash-up of Cap, Iron Man, and Thor movies all tying together with the shared mythology and in-universe. It hadn't really been attempted, let alone achieved, on such a scale of dollars and number of titles.

Avengers was a perfect movie utilizing an almost mind-numbingly huge commitment from a (traditionally) risk-averse studio which made it basically new in the annals of visual media. A television series, essentially, except with each episode given full blockbuster funding for CGI and casting and effects.

Avengers 2 is probably an equally good movie, but we're all accustomed to the magnitude of what Marvel Studios is attempting, so some of the wow factor is gone, I feel.

DahLliA
05-12-2015, 04:38 AM
I believe Ruffalo's contract has him onboard through the Infinity War so no worries there.

Cool.

Just think he does a really good job of being calm and careful, but his voice just has a hint of the Hulk in it.

Davian93
05-12-2015, 01:30 PM
I think if the movie was viewed without the shadow of the first Avengers hanging over it, reception would have been yet more positive.

At some point, there was a real novelty to the awesome mash-up of Cap, Iron Man, and Thor movies all tying together with the shared mythology and in-universe. It hadn't really been attempted, let alone achieved, on such a scale of dollars and number of titles.

Avengers was a perfect movie utilizing an almost mind-numbingly huge commitment from a (traditionally) risk-averse studio which made it basically new in the annals of visual media. A television series, essentially, except with each episode given full blockbuster funding for CGI and casting and effects.

Avengers 2 is probably an equally good movie, but we're all accustomed to the magnitude of what Marvel Studios is attempting, so some of the wow factor is gone, I feel.

Its not quite equally good...Avengers 1 had a slightly tighter plot and didn't try to shove as much in as this one. Its still a really good movie of course and it's doing quite well financially. Up to $875 million now after 10 days. It won't surpass the first one at the box office (1.518 Billion) but it will probably come pretty close. It'll be interesting to see how it does this weekend in the US now that it will see at least a little bit of competition with both the Mad Max reboot and Pitch Perfect 2 (for some reason expected to do really well) coming out.

It's definitely going to surpass $1 billion (probably by the end of next weekend) and it hasn't even been fully released overseas yet (China hasn't released it yet for example and that's a big market for them).

Daekyras
05-12-2015, 03:06 PM
Its not quite equally good...Avengers 1 had a slightly tighter plot and didn't try to shove as much in as this one. Its still a really good movie of course and it's doing quite well financially. Up to $875 million now after 10 days. It won't surpass the first one at the box office (1.518 Billion) but it will probably come pretty close. It'll be interesting to see how it does this weekend in the US now that it will see at least a little bit of competition with both the Mad Max reboot and Pitch Perfect 2 (for some reason expected to do really well) coming out.

It's definitely going to surpass $1 billion (probably by the end of next weekend) and it hasn't even been fully released overseas yet (China hasn't released it yet for example and that's a big market for them).

In a five star grading system:

Avengers 1: 4.5 stars.

iron man 3: 3 stars.

winter soldier : 4 stars.

avengers 2: 3.5 stars.

of course that's all my opinion but I feel it accurately reflects the entertainment value of each.

guardians: 4 stars. For the record...

ShadowbaneX
05-12-2015, 10:10 PM
Its not quite equally good...Avengers 1 had a slightly tighter plot and didn't try to shove as much in as this one. Its still a really good movie of course and it's doing quite well financially. Up to $875 million now after 10 days. It won't surpass the first one at the box office (1.518 Billion) but it will probably come pretty close. It'll be interesting to see how it does this weekend in the US now that it will see at least a little bit of competition with both the Mad Max reboot and Pitch Perfect 2 (for some reason expected to do really well) coming out.

Avengers 2 had a lot more going on...so much in fact that you miss a bunch of it. Like Tony going to find their mysterious hacker friend and Thor doing his little dream quest thing. Notice how those started then they just appeared later with the results?

Seems that the original cut for the movie was just over 3 hour and 20 minutes long. The theatrical release? 2 hours and 20 minutes. Seems someone made them cut an hour out of the movie to get it down to a more reasonable time.

If things seemed unfocused, it's likely because there was a third of the movie that ended up on the cutting room floor.

Nazbaque
05-13-2015, 03:48 AM
Avengers 2 had a lot more going on...so much in fact that you miss a bunch of it. Like Tony going to find their mysterious hacker friend and Thor doing his little dream quest thing. Notice how those started then they just appeared later with the results?

Seems that the original cut for the movie was just over 3 hour and 20 minutes long. The theatrical release? 2 hours and 20 minutes. Seems someone made them cut an hour out of the movie to get it down to a more reasonable time.

If things seemed unfocused, it's likely because there was a third of the movie that ended up on the cutting room floor.

Okay now I want to see that extra hour.

Daekyras
05-13-2015, 04:51 AM
Avengers 2 had a lot more going on...so much in fact that you miss a bunch of it. Like Tony going to find their mysterious hacker friend and Thor doing his little dream quest thing. Notice how those started then they just appeared later with the results?

Seems that the original cut for the movie was just over 3 hour and 20 minutes long. The theatrical release? 2 hours and 20 minutes. Seems someone made them cut an hour out of the movie to get it down to a more reasonable time.

If things seemed unfocused, it's likely because there was a third of the movie that ended up on the cutting room floor.

I call that "Heaven's Gate" syndrome. That film was cut so badly it became kinda unwatchable. Recently I had the chance to watch the directors cut in cinema and the restored version has an hour and a half of cut content and may be the best film ever committed to celluloid.

ShadowbaneX
05-13-2015, 06:40 AM
You're not the only one.

Davian93
05-13-2015, 07:16 AM
Avengers 2 had a lot more going on...so much in fact that you miss a bunch of it. Like Tony going to find their mysterious hacker friend and Thor doing his little dream quest thing. Notice how those started then they just appeared later with the results?

Seems that the original cut for the movie was just over 3 hour and 20 minutes long. The theatrical release? 2 hours and 20 minutes. Seems someone made them cut an hour out of the movie to get it down to a more reasonable time.

If things seemed unfocused, it's likely because there was a third of the movie that ended up on the cutting room floor.

Yeah, I remember reading that too. Hopefully they do a director's cut (I know Marvel isn't big about that sort of thing but in this case its probably warranted. I believe Whedon is releasing a directors cut of the first Avengers too so its not unheard of).


The worst "cutting room floor" scenario for a movie in recent memory has to be Kingdom of Heaven. Poor Ridley Scott got bent over by the studio there...sad as his original cut was far, far superior to the tripe that ended up in theaters. Thank god they allowed him to release it eventually.

Daekyras
05-13-2015, 07:44 AM
The worst "cutting room floor" scenario for a movie in recent memory has to be Kingdom of Heaven. Poor Ridley Scott got bent over by the studio there...sad as his original cut was far, far superior to the tripe that ended up in theaters. Thank god they allowed him to release it eventually.

I have not seen the directors cut. What changes? It was already quite long and seemed to feature several jarring jump cuts.

Davian93
05-13-2015, 07:50 AM
I have not seen the directors cut. What changes? It was already quite long and seemed to feature several jarring jump cuts.

Its a completely different movie. Its more of a historical film rather than a slash and cut action adventure. All the jarring jumps are eliminated thanks to the hour plus that are added back in. Ed Norton's storyline is fleshed out (and he clearly got screwed from a Best Supporting Actor nod due to the initial cut). The queen's motivations are clarified and you get a lot more of that storyline.

Its a much, much, much better film all around. I highly recommend watching it. The studio did a huge disservice cutting it down like they did. The 3.5 hr version is phenomenal. Probably one of the Top 10 movies of 2000-2010 actually.

Daekyras
05-13-2015, 09:12 AM
Its a completely different movie. Its more of a historical film rather than a slash and cut action adventure. All the jarring jumps are eliminated thanks to the hour plus that are added back in. Ed Norton's storyline is fleshed out (and he clearly got screwed from a Best Supporting Actor nod due to the initial cut). The queen's motivations are clarified and you get a lot more of that storyline.

Its a much, much, much better film all around. I highly recommend watching it. The studio did a huge disservice cutting it down like they did. The 3.5 hr version is phenomenal. Probably one of the Top 10 movies of 2000-2010 actually.

I will check it out tonight maybe. it's on sky demand.

Res_Ipsa
05-16-2015, 01:40 AM
Not bad, better than one.

In my opinion, the best Marvel film to date is Guardians for sheer enjoyment and perfect tone shifting, but Winter Soldier is my idea of what a comic book movie should be. Given that comics were/are instrumental in pushing social dialogue, the overt references to the Drone Wars in Winter Soldier are a refreshing take on on a super hero movie and hopefully will continue and avoid the buddy flicks in the future.

Davian93
05-16-2015, 01:11 PM
Not bad, better than one.

In my opinion, the best Marvel film to date is Guardians for sheer enjoyment and perfect tone shifting, but Winter Soldier is my idea of what a comic book movie should be. Given that comics were/are instrumental in pushing social dialogue, the overt references to the Drone Wars in Winter Soldier are a refreshing take on on a super hero movie and hopefully will continue and avoid the buddy flicks in the future.

Winter Soldier was a great political thriller that just happened to have superheroes in it.

Redford's casting was inspired for WS.

I agree on Guardians though...great great movie.

Daekyras
05-16-2015, 01:26 PM
Winter Soldier was a great political thriller that just happened to have superheroes in it.

Redford's casting was inspired for WS.

I agree on Guardians though...great great movie.

Guardians was great but i didn't like the collector storyline. His portrayal just annoys me for some reason. Del toro is a great actor but that is annoying.

ShadowbaneX
05-17-2015, 12:34 PM
Do you know the back story to the Collector? There's a reason for what he does.

Daekyras
05-17-2015, 04:53 PM
Do you know the back story to the Collector? There's a reason for what he does.

My problem is not with the collector. It's with his portrayal in the film.