My Age of Ultron take.
I don't understand why people keep criticising AoU as the worst Avengers movie. Yes, it's not the best.. but it's not so bad too.. I often rewatch it.. as I was rewatching it today, I realised how Clint's character is developed beautifully in this film.. This film did justice to his character. other movies told his story like, "Clint?! yeah.. the side character with the arrows!". not even series Hawkeye could do that. his family, his work, responsibilities, bond with Natasha and even other Avengers is beautifully written. Not only HIS bond/connection, but other Avengers partying together, chilling and even doing the talk shop as Tony phrases it, happened to be built very well on the first Avengers movie. Dialogues and conversations are meaningful.. Like, when Fury meets Tony in Clint's garage. or the conversation between Natasha and Bruce at Clint's house really gives you an idea about characters internal struggle or emotions in short time. Pacing is almost perfect, because even after showing so much, the movie had ample amount of time for the last BIG fight.
Movie has its flaws.. but it's good parts outnumber them.
Whedon is a really good director. in some places he even did a better job than Russows (are you listening Hulk fans?).
that's all.
Movie has its flaws.. but it's good parts outnumber them.
Whedon is a really good director. in some places he even did a better job than Russows (are you listening Hulk fans?).
that's all.
Commentaires
Which Avengers movie is it better than?
The writing in Avengers is way better. The jokes are more natural whereas in AoU the comedy feels forced. Avengers puts all of the characters on an arc, while it can be argued that no one really learns anything over the course of AoU aside from maybe Wanda. Tony creating Ultron then turning around and creating Vision with the same logic and still not informing the team is the biggest “look I haven’t leaned anything from my last mistake” signal ever. And the action, while cool, is devoid of any emotional stakes for the characters, making it less fulfilling than Avengers.
You might like AoU more, but the writing, directing, and general tone of it is nowhere near as good as Avengers.
Ultron, comparatively, has a very clear escalating madness which stems from something we understand: his function is to end conflict. He's philosophical, he's caring, more than a little tragic, and we understand that he's also essentially a child who becomes cynical and angry over his "parents" rejecting him. For most of the story, he's doing what he thinks is good, and it's only right at the end where he becomes so enraged and arrogant that he goes "well then fuck you too"
Ultron also has the Avengers more involved than before. In the first one, stuff just kinda happens at them, and the big bombastic battle is sick, but again it was happening *at* them. They aren't actually tied into the events of Avengers, they're just there when it happens. So having them inadvertently create the threat of Ultron is just more compelling
Where I agree the film missteps is in not really knowing what happens in the immediately preceding films. After all the trauma Tony works through in Iron Man 3, to have him repeatedly making the same exact mistakes is comical. I don't think Whedon really understands Tony in either film and just has him be a snarky asshole like Whedon loves to write anyway. I also think it's very lazy to jam in a Belle et le Bête romance which has zero supporting lead-in, but again that's a Whedonism and I'm glad he's gone because the franchise got a lot more mature once he was out
I don’t believe this is true at all. Thor could have been pulled into the fight in any number of ways given the fact that they had already established his connection to the realm. Loki is there as a major part of his story arc (which, if you’ve seen Loki, you understand) and because he’s the perfect villain to unite the team against. He’s smart and cunning enough to know he needs to break them before he launches his attack, and he knows earth well enough to be the kind of foot soldier Thanos would want on this mission. But from a basic story view, Loki makes sense because he’s a villain you don’t have to introduce or explain and he doesn’t need an origin story. There’s too much work that needs to be done with the heroes in that movie to spend time successfully introducing a new villain.
>Loki isn't really important to the story in a fundamental way and could have been an original charactera
I don’t believe the first part is true either, though it’s another opinion you’re allowed to hold. The second part is meaningless though. Whatever you think “could have been” is a meaningless critique in the face of just talking about what was. Anything could have been something different, that just doesn’t matter and isn’t reasonable criticism of any story.
>Ultron, comparatively, has a very clear escalating madness
Again, this is not true. There’s no “escalation” to Ultron. He comes online, and in seconds is ready to destroy the entire world. He doesn’t go through a process of slowly losing his mind, he doesn’t start out good and go bad, or go on any kind of journey at all. He is who he is in his final form from the very beginning.
>he's also essentially a child who becomes cynical and angry over his "parents" rejecting him
This is another untruth. No one rejected him. He tried to murder Jarvis and the Avengers the second he woke up. There wasn’t time for anyone to reject him because they didn’t even know he existed before he tries to kill them. I’m starting to doubt you’ve ever actually watched the movie.
> I don't think Whedon really understands Tony in either film and just has him be a snarky asshole like Whedon loves to write anyway.
This is just wild. “Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist” was a fucking banger of a line precisely *because* it showed how well Whedon understood Tony in the first film. Tony’s entire process in the first film is about learning how to be a useful piece of a machine that’s being operated by someone else (Cap). The moment when Tony, who has been in charge of just about everything and everyone in his sphere for most of his life, says “Call it Cap” and dedicates himself to following Steve’s orders, and this after he was ready to come to blows with him earlier, is the most perfect “Look at him grow and learn” moment of the film. Claiming Whedon doesn’t understand Tony in either film is just nonsense.
I don’t mean to be that guy, I genuinely believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and experiences with art. And I never want to stop someone from liking something they like. I like all of the Avengers films too, and I’m not really interested in outrightly shitting on any of them. I think Ultron is the most compelling part of AoU, and Spader’s performance is amazing. But your interpretation of these films is not accurate to what was presented on the screen, and your analysis of the reasons why certain choices were made feel lacking to me.
I've never understood the dislike of AoU.
Age of Ultron for all its problems, mainly Ultron itself being underutilized and the hasty first sequence, and Thor's shenanigans, manages to tell very structured character stories. It developed really well Tony's arch. It sets the ground stones for his endgame. He stops playing around and gets focused on finding a solution for the space threat.
It puts him on his road of collision with Steve's development as the "no concession" moral character. Steve doesn't develop as much but again, moves forward.
Natasha has a lesser arch but again, it's very well presented her fears and her bond to Clint and Bruce.
Bruce is excellent in the film. I think it's the best Hulk movie.
And last but as you said, Clint's become the soul of the film. He is the joke in the beginning. That the team rallies around the need to save him because he is the most fragile one.
But he has the family. He has the heart. He cares for them as people. It's even shot in a way that we expect him to have the ultimate sacrifice.
Wanda is interesting. Knowing her full arch till Multiverse of Madness makes it even more grounded. The way she is connected to Pietro.
She feels his death and loses it all.
Vision is cool. A good way to introduce him.
And Pietro is forgettable. Awful dialogue for him
I think it's a smaller Avengers movie, really well done. The plot points make sense even if too comicbooky. From Wanda's decision to let Stark get the scepter to destroy himself in his paranoia, to the plot devices that fit well together (the cradle, virbanium, etc).
A little more high risk intrigue in the handling of Ultron menace, and more (or less) clarity in Thor's part ould have made it incredibly good.
It's actually really easy to understand, which one are you saying AoU (AoL isn't a thing) is better than? 4th or 'worst' doesn't mean bad, which is probably why you're confused - people don't say it's shit, they just say the other 3 are even better films.
I understand the why of it in the lore being that he’s supposed to be a warped version of Starks dream, but I always thought him being cold, unfeeling, logical would’ve been so much scarier and more illustrative of the character in the books.
For Ultron, eveeything always should’ve been a math problem
“Oh peace in our time? Humans are the source of conflict. Done.
The source of conflict could’ve been the inability to communicate/connect with a creation that has none of the trappings of what it means to be human.
Instead I feel we got James Spaders best impression of Stark being evil. Like I said I can understand the narrative reasoning. I just don’t agree with it.
The rest of your comment is nonsense, grounded in a complete lack of understanding in anything you're trying to talk about.
Whedon had something very different in mind and it shows, but Marvel wanted to push the infinity stones so bad they shoehorned it in the script, particularly during Thor's sudden epiphany.
Ultron's motivations were incomplete because of this. The contradictory goals and vague agenda post-meteor point to a Whedon writer's block due to outside interference from Marvel.
It also explains why Thor just did an abrupt infodump about the stones and didn't bring it up like ever again.
So in this case, blame the studio, not Whedon. This is also the reason why Whedon quit MCU shortly after. Must've been big mad and honestly, who can blame him?
Kinda answered your own question here.
Which Avengers movie is worse than AoU?
This is literally the most basic, simple question to your premise.
no hard feelings brother. 👍🏽 Just be a little polite and considerate the next time with someone if you can.
So yes, compared to those 3, AoU is the worst avengers movie.
it's a good movie.
It’s completely subjective off course