Age of Ultron Avengers 2: Rotten Tomato Watch (No Spoilers l Spoiler Free Zone) - Part 1

[Lightning Strykez!]

Greetings...

I've arisen from my death-like Hype slumber for a few moments to say this:

The only thing that would have brought this film from the greatness of its predecessor is if Joss Whedon tried to top Marvel's The Avengers. Period. That's a recipe for disaster. History has shown that whenever a director aims to out-do his previous work instead of focusing on making his current project the best it can be, said project suffers. This happens often with sequels where the directorial team and/or story writers start to believe their own hype. That said however....

...I think this film is sitting just fine in terms of critics. It's currently at 78% and while it's a distance from the 93% rating the first film received, it's hardly "bombing" by any stretch of the imagination. It seems that the going consensus amongst the critics is that there's too much focus on action and that the film excels at its best when the Avengers are just being themselves and NOT fighting. Perhaps Whedon and Co. thought the fans wanted more explosions and team up fights from the first film and if that's the case, moviegoers will be satiated. And it may actually top ANYTHING Transformers have done in terms of Box Office Sales.

So either way...it's a win-win.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You're right about that, I say inane stuff all the time t:

I don't think it's fair though. I'll give you TDW (that was just a low point for Marvel), but otherwise it's not really realistic to expect movies to consistently be critical hits. IM1 and TA are two of the best CBMs ever...is it really reasonable to expect their sequels to match or surpass their success? Or more importantly, is it fair to condemn a movie because it couldn't live up to the massive success of its predecessor (which also brings heightens expectations)?

I don't think it's reasonable to imply that Marvel in particular doesn't make good sequels, because looking around, you'll see that it's actually very rare for an exceptional CBM to have an equally impressive sequel. X2 was followed by X3. Spider-Man 2 was followed by Spider-Man 3. The Dark Knight was followed by TDKR, which while a great critical and financial success is divisive, to say the least. Point is, it's not easy to follow up a super-success. Don't see why you're singling out the MCU for a trend that is everywhere. This goes beyond CBMs too. Look at Return of the Jedi following Empire Strikes Back, or Pirates of the Caribbean 2 following the first.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around what you are saying.

I'm reading that it's somehow wrong for me to exclusively talk about Marvel Studios sequels in a thread about a Marvel Studios sequel? For some reason I can't talk about one particular thing in this instance I have to discuss every sequel ever even if I don't want to and that would take away from what I am trying to discuss? So no targeted conservations for some reason.

The reason your post baffles me is because I am actually on topic while plenty of people bring up other films for no reason. You might not like what I am wondering but asking me to go off topic is more than a little ridiculous. Sorry but I'm not going to talk about every single sequel in here.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

If AoU is weak sauce, I now fear for Daredevil season 2, especially with a new showrunner. Heck, I'll fear for anything not directed by the Russos.

 

[craigdbfan]

Some are saying that the movie feels awkwardly cut and that important stuff was left on the editing table. To those who have seen it, did it feel that way for you?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Some are saying that the movie feels awkwardly cut and that important stuff was left on the editing table. To those who have seen it, did it feel that way for you?

If they really cut out over an hour, this would make sense.

 

[Parker Wayne]

If AoU is weak sauce, I now fear for Daredevil season 2, especially with a new showrunner. Heck, I'll fear for anything not directed by the Russos.

That's a little silly, don't you think? Just because Avengers 2 isn't the world beater some people expected, doesn't mean that Daredevil won't be good. Guardians of the Galaxy was great and that wasn't the Russos either.

 

[BlackFox]

Some are saying that the movie feels awkwardly cut and that important stuff was left on the editing table. To those who have seen it, did it feel that way for you?

Yes there is one particular scene where they are book ended by two quick fades to black like you get on tv shows where the obvious advert break has been removed. It was very jarring and obvious.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's a little silly, don't you think? Just because Avengers 2 isn't the world beater some people expected, doesn't mean that Daredevil won't be good. Guardians of the Galaxy was great and that wasn't the Russos either.

I love GotG, but it wasn't a sequel. If AoU is weak, that means 4 out of 5 of their sequels have been a problem. Only the Russos pulled it off.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yes there is one particular scene where they are book ended by two quick fades to black like you get on tv shows where the obvious advert break has been removed. It was very jarring and obvious.

Holy crap, really?

 

[craigdbfan]

Thinking about it now, there are a bunch of scenes I noticed in the first Avenger film that also seem pretty blatantly cut off.

None of the other Marvel films aside from TDW suffer from this. Might just be the way Whedon films making it hard for even the editor to make smooth transitions.

 

[First Avenger]

Yes there is one particular scene where they are book ended by two quick fades to black like you get on tv shows where the obvious advert break has been removed. It was very jarring and obvious.

Can 't remember that. What scene is it?

 

[BlackFox]

Holy crap, really?

Well it certainly stuck out to me how oddly cut the scene was. It was just the once time the editing looked that bad but it was pretty obvious.

 

[craigdbfan]

Can 't remember that. What scene is it?

Don't answer this question BlackFox. This is a spoiler free zone. No spoilers even with the spoiler tag.

 

[BlackFox]

Can 't remember that. What scene is it?

Best not to know then it may not be even noticed when you watch it. It may not be obvious to all.

 

[First Avenger]

Don't answer this question BlackFox. This is a spoiler free zone. No spoilers even with the spoiler tag.

Whoops,sorry.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Thinking about it now, there are a bunch of scenes I noticed in the first Avenger film that also seem pretty blatantly cut off.

None of the other Marvel films aside from TDW suffer from this. Might just be the way Whedon films making it hard for even the editor to make smooth transitions.

With TFA I felt like they removed a huge chunk from a very specific place, not a lot of smaller cuts throughout. I agree that was TDW's problem. Massively.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

With TFA I felt like they removed a huge chunk from a very specific place, not a lot of smaller cuts throughout. I agree that was TDW's problem. Massively.

Which part do you think was cut from TFA? I'm not exactly remembering anything too jarring but it's been about 6 months since my last viewing.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Which part do you think was cut from TFA? I'm not exactly remembering anything too jarring but it's been about 6 months since my last viewing.

The entire film from Steve's return from the rescue to the train mission is incredible truncated. Could have easily had a good 20 mins to flesh out Steve's relationship with Bucky and his impact on the war. The legend of Captain America is talked about more then actually being seen. Instead they went with the montage, and not even a good one imo. Which is disappointing because I think the rest of the movie is pretty brilliant.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

Some are saying that the movie feels awkwardly cut and that important stuff was left on the editing table. To those who have seen it, did it feel that way for you?

Yeah it kinda felt like that, the movie was super fast paced and there rarely feels like there is build up to stuff happening. For example the opening scene jumps immediatly to the action, it feels like when you get to the theater 2 minutes late and you're somwhat confused about what's going on. I've only seen it once so maybe this isn't as much of a problem the second time but I think 5-10 minutes of footage would have done wonders for the pacing.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah it kinda felt like that, the movie was super fast paced and there rarely feels like there is build up to stuff happening. For example the opening scene jumps immediatly to the action, it feels like when you get to the theater 2 minutes late and you're somwhat confused about what's going on. I've only seen it once so maybe this isn't as much of a problem the second time but I think 5-10 minutes of footage would have done wonders for the pacing.

That sounds like a typical Bond PTS. Where you are dropped into a mission in progress.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

The entire film from Steve's return from the rescue to the train mission. Could have easily been a good 20 mins to flesh out Steve's relationship with Bucky and his impact on the war. Instead they went with the montage, and not even a good one imo. Which is disappointing because I think the rest of the movie is pretty brilliant.

I've never felt that but I've heard some complain that they did a montage in the middle when they could have built up the CA's relationships with Bucky and the rest of the Howling Commandos to make them actually feel like a team. But from what I remember of the director's commentary, Johnston did that because he wanted to make it feel like a bit of a newsreel people at home would be getting and to keep CA's history a bit baggy so they didn't pigeonhole themselves into a defined timeline of events. The middle part of the film is definitely one area (along with better use of the Red Skull) people say could have improved so that the film could easily have rivaled IM1 for best solo in Phase 1.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

That sounds like a typical Bond PTS. Where you are dropped into a mission in progress.

Funny you mention the Bond thing because that's how RDJ and Fallon were saying how the opening feels in AoU.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Funny you mention the Bond thing because that's how RDJ and Fallon were saying how the opening feels in AoU.

Makes sense and honestly how I always hoped they do it. So I am quite excited to see how they handled it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I've never felt that but I've heard some complain that they did a montage in the middle when they could have built up the CA's relationships with Bucky and the rest of the Howling Commandos to make them actually feel like a team. But from what I remember of the director's commentary, Johnston did that because he wanted to make it feel like a bit of a newsreel people at home would be getting and to keep CA's history a bit baggy so they didn't pigeonhole themselves into a defined timeline of events. The middle part of the film is definitely one area (along with better use of the Red Skull) people say could have improved so that the film could easily have rivaled IM1 for best solo in Phase 1.

I understand the stylistic choice. But it screams time saver. When the movie major turning point hinges on Bucky's fall, it doesn't really matter because we don't know him. Also, they make a deal out of Cap recruiting the Commandos, and then did nothing with them. They could have easily had the montage, but extended the sequences, while also book ending it with larger scenes. TWS handled the Cap/Bucky relationship far better imo. Showed a lot more depth in a few short mins. Which was necessary, because TFA sure didn't.

 

[TeeKay]

Some are saying that the movie feels awkwardly cut and that important stuff was left on the editing table. To those who have seen it, did it feel that way for you?

Well there was a lot of fast paced editing and the s some things did get cut out but I do t wanna get into spoilers right now.