Is the over reliance on humour a problem in the MCU

[BoredGuy]

yeah i didn't think RDJ was too quippy at all in CW, he was dead serious while still being Tony Stark

 

[gildedmuse]

I know it's off topic and such a cliche to bring out, but I can't help feeling as though a lot of the dislike of Ultron's character stems from either an expectation/reality split or else a simple misunderstanding of the movies themes and what Ultron's function in the story is precisely (the former of which is of course going to be unavoidable for some people but not actually a flaw in the movie itself while the latter is.... debatable, I suppose, as generally I find that muddled theme = weak storytelling though sometimes you get a movie like Iron Man 3 which I felt had a clear, well supported theme that seems to just get overlooked). Anyway, the real cliche I was getting at is that the antagonist of AoU is the Avengers themselves. You are your own worst enemy with a side of power/ability verses responsibility/right. Ultron's place in the story isn't to be some outside force. If he doesn't feels like much of a world ending threat it's probably because he wasn't designed to be; that is his plan, but not his purpose.

Like most Robot villains he reflects his creators. He's a manifestation of the Avengers own potential (tendency?) to self destruct. That is his whole tag line: tear them apart from the inside. Now if the movie presented that idea well, that's a whole other discussion. It's just strange to me that people would focus on this one possible aspect of a good villain. It's like watching a Batman movie and coming away with the impression Batman isn't a good hero because he lacks Superman's laser vision, then critiquing the film through that lens. Technically a person is right - Batman does not have Superman's powers - and that may very well effect their enjoyment of the movie, but at the same time it's a view that seems to miss a lot.

Ultron is really something of a Frankienstein's monster. Like in a way that was really obvious right from the beginning when he comes to life and learns of humanity without his creator present to even his speeches on discovering his own nature. It's a comparison acknowledged in the comics (the whole Jocasta storyline is basically the creature asking for his bride) and it's the interpretation Whedon choose to focus on. And any fan of Shelley's novel can tell you that the monster is an extension of the Dr Frankenstein. AoU's theme is basically a high school essay on the book.

So yeah, the threat is the Avengers with Ultron just that idea given physical form. Personally I do think this could have been better presented, but I don't see any problem with the character of Ultron or the amount of humour. I think both those elements would have worked perfectly if the theme had played stronger.

 

[Zarex]

I agree with this, and liked Whedon's conception and Spader's performance of Ultron an awful lot. I'm just disappointed that he botched the landing. IMO A:AOU could have gone into the tippety top tier of MCU films if the final confrontation in Sokovia was more compelling.

 

[DrCosmic]

I know it's off topic and such a cliche to bring out, but I can't help feeling as though a lot of the dislike of Ultron's character stems from either an expectation/reality split or else a simple misunderstanding of the movies themes and what Ultron's function in the story is precisely (the former of which is of course going to be unavoidable for some people but not actually a flaw in the movie itself while the latter is.... debatable, I suppose, as generally I find that muddled theme = weak storytelling though sometimes you get a movie like Iron Man 3 which I felt had a clear, well supported theme that seems to just get overlooked). Anyway, the real cliche I was getting at is that the antagonist of AoU is the Avengers themselves. You are your own worst enemy with a side of power/ability verses responsibility/right. Ultron's place in the story isn't to be some outside force. If he doesn't feels like much of a world ending threat it's probably because he wasn't designed to be; that is his plan, but not his purpose.

Like most Robot villains he reflects his creators. He's a manifestation of the Avengers own potential (tendency?) to self destruct. That is his whole tag line: tear them apart from the inside. Now if the movie presented that idea well, that's a whole other discussion. It's just strange to me that people would focus on this one possible aspect of a good villain. It's like watching a Batman movie and coming away with the impression Batman isn't a good hero because he lacks Superman's laser vision, then critiquing the film through that lens. Technically a person is right - Batman does not have Superman's powers - and that may very well effect their enjoyment of the movie, but at the same time it's a view that seems to miss a lot.

Ultron is really something of a Frankienstein's monster. Like in a way that was really obvious right from the beginning when he comes to life and learns of humanity without his creator present to even his speeches on discovering his own nature. It's a comparison acknowledged in the comics (the whole Jocasta storyline is basically the creature asking for his bride) and it's the interpretation Whedon choose to focus on. And any fan of Shelley's novel can tell you that the monster is an extension of the Dr Frankenstein. AoU's theme is basically a high school essay on the book.

So yeah, the threat is the Avengers with Ultron just that idea given physical form. Personally I do think this could have been better presented, but I don't see any problem with the character of Ultron or the amount of humour. I think both those elements would have worked perfectly if the theme had played stronger.

I see what you're getting at, but Batman isn't known to have Superman's powers in comics, and was not marketed as having Superman's powers, and so the expectation isn't projected in the way your analogy implies. In AoU, The Avengers aren't presented as a threat, but as people repeatedly blamed for things they haven't done. Ultron says they are anyway, but it never seems credible. Ultron's ultimate manifestation isn't a reflection of the Avengers, but a repeat of their first enemy. His connection to Tony is a punchline and his connection to anyone else is highly tenuous. The film then ends the second act showing us what a product of the Avengers looks like: Vision, who is the result of what they've done both narratively and meta-narratively. This cements clearly that Ultron is not the reflection of who the Avengers are, which is not something the movie ever put in doubt, and so the celebration of that victory is meaningless, unlike the celebration of their unification in Avengers 1. If this is a high school essay, it is one where the introduction contradicts the final radical conclusion, and the supporting paragraphs are scarcely related. D. Minus. Perhaps in trying to make the Avengers the villains they ran into their other notable problem in developing villains, but this too goes back to an over-reliance on humor. In order for the Avengers to be the antagonists, you have to show them being sad, and angry and doing things that aren't feel-good. If a villains goal is for a hero to be their worst enemy and that movie continues to rely on humor in order to make the character's gel, then the villain and movie will fail, epically, to deliver on that goal.

For a movie that actually succeeds in showing the Avengers as the antagonists for themselves, look no further than Civil War. Not only are the Avengers established as a credible threat under their own power, but Zemo functions much better as a Frankenstein's monster for the Avengers than Ultron did. He actually was created and empowered by the Avengers, under their own power, and not by an out of control Mind Stone.

EDIT: I agree with Zarex, a different final third could have actually made AoU 100% better, but honestly, the whole middle still doesn't support the Frankenstein storyline.

 

[kguillou]

I know it's off topic and such a cliche to bring out, but I can't help feeling as though a lot of the dislike of Ultron's character stems from either an expectation/reality split or else a simple misunderstanding of the movies themes and what Ultron's function in the story is precisely (the former of which is of course going to be unavoidable for some people but not actually a flaw in the movie itself while the latter is.... debatable, I suppose, as generally I find that muddled theme = weak storytelling though sometimes you get a movie like Iron Man 3 which I felt had a clear, well supported theme that seems to just get overlooked). Anyway, the real cliche I was getting at is that the antagonist of AoU is the Avengers themselves. You are your own worst enemy with a side of power/ability verses responsibility/right. Ultron's place in the story isn't to be some outside force. If he doesn't feels like much of a world ending threat it's probably because he wasn't designed to be; that is his plan, but not his purpose.

Like most Robot villains he reflects his creators. He's a manifestation of the Avengers own potential (tendency?) to self destruct. That is his whole tag line: tear them apart from the inside. Now if the movie presented that idea well, that's a whole other discussion. It's just strange to me that people would focus on this one possible aspect of a good villain. It's like watching a Batman movie and coming away with the impression Batman isn't a good hero because he lacks Superman's laser vision, then critiquing the film through that lens. Technically a person is right - Batman does not have Superman's powers - and that may very well effect their enjoyment of the movie, but at the same time it's a view that seems to miss a lot.

Ultron is really something of a Frankienstein's monster. Like in a way that was really obvious right from the beginning when he comes to life and learns of humanity without his creator present to even his speeches on discovering his own nature. It's a comparison acknowledged in the comics (the whole Jocasta storyline is basically the creature asking for his bride) and it's the interpretation Whedon choose to focus on. And any fan of Shelley's novel can tell you that the monster is an extension of the Dr Frankenstein. AoU's theme is basically a high school essay on the book.

So yeah, the threat is the Avengers with Ultron just that idea given physical form. Personally I do think this could have been better presented, but I don't see any problem with the character of Ultron or the amount of humour. I think both those elements would have worked perfectly if the theme had played stronger.

I see what you're saying but I'm cool with that theme, but I don't think Whedon had a firm grasp on it. And, I think you could have easily drove that theme home without ultron being a quippy robot. In fact, I'll argue that you could've given Ultron a wry, dark sense of humor without him seeming like a robo-RDJ. The execution was just off, Ultron felt like a walking cartoon, especially the way he was animated when he spoke, there was no fear or intimidation. But, hey, the movie made 1.4 billion so clearly most people loved the funny robot.

 

[Frankeh]

I actually didn't really think so until I saw Doctor Strange. Now that movie had a bunch of punchlines that didn't land. The single-name popstar thing didn't work the first time, much less the second. But it seems most people didn't mind so I'm in the minority.

 

[2kt09]

So yeah, the threat is the Avengers with Ultron just that idea given physical form. Personally I do think this could have been better presented, but I don't see any problem with the character of Ultron or the amount of humour. I think both those elements would have worked perfectly if the theme had played was framed stronger.

Civil War does this better.
It's actually what I wanted more from AoU.
As far as retaining the puns with the character, Ultron's humor wasn't dry and sardonic enough.

 

[WayneStark]

Honestly, I don't find them relying on humor a lot.
It's natural and well-placed a good majority of the time, besides Guardians of the Galaxy. That's the only film where it feels forced to me.

It actually does add a bit of charm to the films. I never found it to be off-putting.

 

[Consona]

It's natural and well-placed a good majority of the time, besides Guardians of the Galaxy. That's the only film where it feels forced to me.

Dr Strange contains some really forced humour. The rest of MCU is kinda fine I think, I cannot recall any outrageous use of humour, right now...

The thing with Gunn's humour is... it's really hit or miss for me. Some things are really funny, some are just... totally off. Like the button joke in GotG 2 trailer, it's like kindergarten level of funny "don't push this button -> Groot wants to push the button 2 secs after" and then "nooo, try again..." and you just hope the point is not that he wants to push it again... of course it's the point.
Or the end of GotG with Rocket and Drax speaking to J. C. Reilly's Dey. It's weird since Gunn is a smart guy but some jokes are rather... not doing it for me, to put that politely. t: Maybe it's just different sense of humour, I except something more unpredictable or witty, like why Rocket asks whether stealing something is illegal when he's not stupid and he clearly has to know it's illegal since he's a bounty hunter and adventurer who dealt with law enforcers before, it's just nonsensical. I know his argument is "I want it more than the person who owns it" but c'mon, he knows stealing is illegal. And Drax knows killing someone is illegal, he's takes puns literally but he's not a idiot.

 

[DrCosmic]

Dr Strange contains some really forced humour. The rest of MCU is kinda fine I think, I cannot recall any outrageous use of humour, right now...

The thing with Gunn's humour is... it's really hit or miss for me. Some things are really funny, some are just... totally off. Like the button joke in GotG 2 trailer, it's like kindergarten level of funny "don't push this button -> Groot wants to push the button 2 secs after" and then "nooo, try again..." and you just hope the point is not that he wants to push it again... of course it's the point.
Or the end of GotG with Rocket and Drax speaking to J. C. Reilly's Dey. It's weird since Gunn is a smart guy but some jokes are rather... not doing it for me, to put that politely. t: Maybe it's just different sense of humour, I except something more unpredictable or witty, like why Rocket asks whether stealing something is illegal when he's not stupid and he clearly has to know it's illegal since he's a bounty hunter and adventurer who dealt with law enforcers before, it's just nonsensical. I know his argument is "I want it more than the person who owns it" but c'mon, he knows stealing is illegal. And Drax knows killing someone is illegal, he's takes puns literally but he's not a idiot.

I think that was the joke, that Rocket knows what he's doing is wrong and is mocking Dey, because we know he likes screwing with people, but Drax really thinks his actions are justified, and missed Rocket's screwing with the law enforcement, and that realization that this guy isn't ribbing him seems to show up on Dey's face. I thought the same thing as you when I saw it, but hearing you complain about it helps illuminate what they were going for, for whatever that's worth.

The button humor from the trailer is incredibly juvenille, and honestly even Drax's laughing and pointing felt flat to me. That said... GotG doesn't over-rely on it's humor, imho, and it's a great film even when the jokes are hit and miss, which, imho, is pretty awesome.

 

[Consona]

I think that was the joke, that Rocket knows what he's doing is wrong and is mocking Dey, because we know he likes screwing with people, but Drax really thinks his actions are justified, and missed Rocket's screwing with the law enforcement, and that realization that this guy isn't ribbing him seems to show up on Dey's face. I thought the same thing as you when I saw it, but hearing you complain about it helps illuminate what they were going for, for whatever that's worth.

The button humor from the trailer is incredibly juvenille, and honestly even Drax's laughing and pointing felt flat to me. That said... GotG doesn't over-rely on it's humor, imho, and it's a great film even when the jokes are hit and miss, which, imho, is pretty awesome.

Agreed. And I think your interpretation of the conversation with Dey can work. t:

I thought the same thing as you when I saw it, but hearing you complain about it helps illuminate what they were going for, for whatever that's worth.

This is great example of why I like internet forums.

Very good medium for reflection of one's thoughts except when discussion starts to turn into "objectively speaking, your are wrong" crap.

 

[WayneStark]

Dr Strange contains some really forced humour. The rest of MCU is kinda fine I think, I cannot recall any outrageous use of humour, right now...

The thing with Gunn's humour is... it's really hit or miss for me. Some things are really funny, some are just... totally off. Like the button joke in GotG 2 trailer, it's like kindergarten level of funny "don't push this button -> Groot wants to push the button 2 secs after" and then "nooo, try again..." and you just hope the point is not that he wants to push it again... of course it's the point.
Or the end of GotG with Rocket and Drax speaking to J. C. Reilly's Dey. It's weird since Gunn is a smart guy but some jokes are rather... not doing it for me, to put that politely. t: Maybe it's just different sense of humour, I except something more unpredictable or witty, like why Rocket asks whether stealing something is illegal when he's not stupid and he clearly has to know it's illegal since he's a bounty hunter and adventurer who dealt with law enforcers before, it's just nonsensical. I know his argument is "I want it more than the person who owns it" but c'mon, he knows stealing is illegal. And Drax knows killing someone is illegal, he's takes puns literally but he's not a idiot.

I still have yet to see Doctor Strange. I regret not seeing it in theaters, but I'll watch it when it's out on Blu-ray.

I thought the scene with Rocket & Baby Groot was handled well. That didn't feel forced at all. Drax pointing and laughing felt forced and awkward. I would say the humor in GotG is hit and miss. For example, the dance-off with Ronan, I'm still trying to figure out if that was clever, lame, humorous, forced, etc. Whatever the case, it just felt so awkward.

 

[First Avenger]

Something must be wrong with me. I can understand this criticism regarding The Dark World,but I don't feel it's a problem in any other of their movies. Imo movies like Iron Man Three, Guardians of the Galaxy, Age of Ultron all reflect their film-makers' styles and sensibilities in the constraints of adapting another medium and established characters.

 

[kguillou]

Here's MY thing, fine, you're going to make a humorous movie, ok, go for it, just dont mislead me in your trailers and marketing into it being more serious than it is. I can tell you that I probably wouldn't have been so upset with Ironman 3 if I knew what I was walking into. Not talking about the Mandarin twist, just purely the tone. If the trailers didnt have such a Dark Knight/christopher nolan vibe with dark dramatic Hans Zimmer music playing then i wouldnt walk in expecting a dark, serious film. Look at the trailers for the first two Ironman movies, they accurately capture and advertize the tone of those films: fun, rockstar movies. You know what your paying your 12 bucks for. I walked into GoTG knowing this was an action comedy and came out enjoying it.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Here's MY thing, fine, you're going to make a humorous movie, ok, go for it, just dont mislead me in your trailers and marketing into it being more serious than it is. I can tell you that I probably wouldn't have been so upset with Ironman 3 if I knew what I was walking into. Not talking about the Mandarin twist, just purely the tone. If the trailers didnt have such a Dark Knight/christopher nolan vibe with dark dramatic Hans Zimmer music playing then i wouldnt walk in expecting a dark, serious film. Look at the trailers for the first two Ironman movies, they accurately capture and advertize the tone of those films: fun, rockstar movies. You know what your paying your 12 bucks for. I walked into GoTG knowing this was an action comedy and came out enjoying it.

AOU was really guilty of this as well, I still maintain the movie the trailers promised would have been much better than the frustratingly uneven movie we got. And that goes for the title character as well.

In general though, some of their movies have had far too much humour at inappropriate times. As we have discussed through the last few pages.

 

[Consona]

I still have yet to see Doctor Strange. I regret not seeing it in theaters, but I'll watch it when it's out on Blu-ray.

Yea, this was a mistake since the film relies on action and visuals, the screenplay is one of the weakest in MCU.

I would say the humor in GotG is hit and miss. For example, the dance-off with Ronan, I'm still trying to figure out if that was clever, lame, humorous, forced, etc. Whatever the case, it just felt so awkward.

Hehe, I think it was all of those, clever, lame, humorous, forced, all at the same time. t: That's why it worked for me. It kinda matched with the tone of the movie.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Honestly, I don't find them relying on humor a lot.
It's natural and well-placed a good majority of the time, besides Guardians of the Galaxy. That's the only film where it feels forced to me.

It actually does add a bit of charm to the films. I never found it to be off-putting.

The worst offender is Ant-Man, and even that wasn't too egregious. Marvel Studios tried to cover for the fact that Scott Lang's journey to heroism in that film was flimsy, so they made him a lovable loser who made the audience laugh. It's times like that and the dance off in GotG that MS has played with the boundaries of humor saturation. They've never sprinted over that line, and I hope they never do.

I recently watched Ghost Rider again, and that should serve as a caveat to Marvel Studios about forcing humor on characters that aren't humorous and don't inhabit humorous backdrops. They've got a couple of those coming in the likes of Hela and Thanos, and they would be well-served to remember the mistakes that other studios have made with properties from the comics.

Something must be wrong with me. I can understand this criticism regarding The Dark World,but I don't feel it's a problem in any other of their movies. Imo movies like Iron Man Three, Guardians of the Galaxy, Age of Ultron all reflect their film-makers' styles and sensibilities in the constraints of adapting another medium and established characters.

Marvel has made a couple of boneheaded moves (Mandarin, Zemo, Stark being Ultron's creator), but they've never produced something that was saccharin fluff. That's the true risk of humor with many of these characters, and the studio has avoided that so far. Even when they've stumbled, they've recovered beautifully to make each film have heart. Even their lower-tier outings are enjoyable.

 

[Oscorp]

What boneheaded move did they make with Zemo?

Regarding Ant-Man, I give that film a pass because of how genuinely funny and charming Paul Rudd is. I honestly wouldn't like that film to have less comedy. Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, Age of Ultron and Civil War would benefit from toning down the comedy a lot in my opinion.

 

[Loki882]

Here's MY thing, fine, you're going to make a humorous movie, ok, go for it, just dont mislead me in your trailers and marketing into it being more serious than it is. I can tell you that I probably wouldn't have been so upset with Ironman 3 if I knew what I was walking into. Not talking about the Mandarin twist, just purely the tone. If the trailers didnt have such a Dark Knight/christopher nolan vibe with dark dramatic Hans Zimmer music playing then i wouldnt walk in expecting a dark, serious film. Look at the trailers for the first two Ironman movies, they accurately capture and advertize the tone of those films: fun, rockstar movies. You know what your paying your 12 bucks for. I walked into GoTG knowing this was an action comedy and came out enjoying it.

Agreed. The IM 3 marketing made it seem like this dark, grand epic film where Tony faces his greatest enemy and really gets put through the ringer. And what we got was, not really that imo.

Same with Thor: TDW. They promised a much more serious and grand sweeping "epic" film than what it actually was.

By contrast, films like TWS, IM, IM 2, GOTG, CW, etc all had marketing that more or less matched the tone that the film(s) actually had. So it worked out well.

 

[kguillou]

I think plain and simple, for movies like IM3, AoU, and TDW, Marvel was trying to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to advertize that the stakes and tension were higher in these movies, and ultimately its the movies themselves that failed to live up to that.

 

[marcvader]

The DW is the only MCU film where the humor just totally annoyed me but for the rest of them I find it passable and in some appropriate.

 

[BoredGuy]

I'm on the same page as a lotta people here

IM3: I thought it was strange how humorous it was when I saw it in theaters, because, yes, they sold it as a darker film. But rewatching it now I find the humor to be perfectly appropriate for Stark and the situation he's in

TDW: Definitely the worst case in terms of humor, unfunny jokes that are poorly timed and don't seem to match the tone that would be appropriate for a film like that

And then there were some jokes that fell flat in Ant-Man, Strange, and Guardians, but all in all those movies were charming and the humor worked more often than not. The rest of Marvel's movies I think use a perfect amount of humor to just slightly lighten the tension and make the universe not so damn bleak. Avengers, TWS, AoU and CW all had the mixture just right, imo (regardless of how you may feel about AoU's plot or pacing)

 

[Loki882]

See a lot of the jokes in IM 3 didn't land for me, and I didn't find them to be appropriate a lot of the time.

 

[First Avenger]

I'm on the same page as a lotta people here

IM3: I thought it was strange how humorous it was when I saw it in theaters, because, yes, they sold it as a darker film. But rewatching it now I find the humor to be perfectly appropriate for Stark and the situation he's in

TDW: Definitely the worst case in terms of humor, unfunny jokes that are poorly timed and don't seem to match the tone that would be appropriate for a film like that

And then there were some jokes that fell flat in Ant-Man, Strange, and Guardians, but all in all those movies were charming and the humor worked more often than not. The rest of Marvel's movies I think use a perfect amount of humor to just slightly lighten the tension and make the universe not so damn bleak. Avengers, TWS, AoU and CW all had the mixture just right, imo (regardless of how you may feel about AoU's plot or pacing)

Agree 100% with you.

 

[eon001]

I might have agreed with OP if I didn't have to sit through the bland misery of BvS. Now I actually APPRECIATE the levity even more.

And I'm sure this has already been covered in the replies, but not all Marvel movies are faux comedies. Winter Soldier was pretty well grounded. The first Iron man has some grim moments too.

And if you want grim and grounded, Marvel have there Netflix shows for you to watch.