Age of Ultron Ruffahulk Ruffasmash

[Spitfire]

I have no idea how they'll be able to avoid a Chitauri ending. My main prediction is that they'll shut down Ultron and the rest of the bots go down with him. I just can't see any other alternative. Unless they're just going to fight there way through every drone there which just seems like it'd take FOREVER.

The ending could be very similiar to the first movie or we could see something original. I also want an explanation for why Ultron uses an army as there are quicker and more efficient ways of destroying cities?

I hope they explain why the Avengers are needed as well. If the robots can be destroyed using explosive arrows and handguns why can't the army take them down? In the first movie the Avengers were needed due to the Leviathans and the time taken for the army to mobilize (I remember one of the cops saying one hour). Hope we get an explanation here as well.

 

[yllum]

Hello guys!! I just watched tih again and do like edward norton portrayal of Bruce banner alot.

in fact I like it more than mark'version..I may be the minority here.

may I know who's version is closer to its comics ?

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

I hope Hulk speaks in this film.

 

[TheVision]

yllum: I thought Ed was decent but Mark brought more depth to Banner, and didnt just play the sad, lonely nerd role.

 

[ernesth100]

The ending could be very similiar to the first movie or we could see something original. I also want an explanation for why Ultron uses an army as there are quicker and more efficient ways of destroying cities?

I hope they explain why the Avengers are needed as well. If the robots can be destroyed using explosive arrows and handguns why can't the army take them down? In the first movie the Avengers were needed due to the Leviathans and the time taken for the army to mobilize (I remember one of the cops saying one hour). Hope we get an explanation here as well.

I don't understand why everyone wants everything to be explain in depth and have complicated stories behind it. The movie isn't going to be more than an hour and a couple minutes long. So why does everyone expect the to pack an long explanation in there for everything.

 

[TheVision]

AOU is going to be almost 3 hours long (2 hrs 40 + minutes). An hour and a few minutes? Whered you get that?

 

[ernesth100]

Where in the worlds did you hear that?

 

[Spitfire]

I don't understand why everyone wants everything to be explain in depth and have complicated stories behind it. The movie isn't going to be more than an hour and a couple minutes long. So why does everyone expect the to pack an long explanation in there for everything.

Considering that the importance of the teams involvement in the first movie was covered in a few well constructed sentences (the conversation between the two cops) I wouldn't say complicated stories are required at all.

But if the robots are going to be shown being destroyed by normal weapons then a similar explanation (nothing fancy) will be required.

 

[ernesth100]

So, anyone else get the feeling the scene with Banner and Natasha is a dream sequence by Scarlet Witch?

 

[TheVision]

Imagine going to see AOU and it was only an hour and 3 minutes? Id be so POd

 

[terry78]

But it'd be funny.

 

[ernesth100]

Imagine going to see AOU and it was only an hour and 3 minutes? Id be so POd

Yeah, thinking about it such a short runtime for such a big event would be rather ridiculous.

 

[warcam]

Yeah, thinking about it such a short runtime for such a big event would be rather ridiculous.

Not if it had been released 10 years ago by Fox. t:

 

[Spitfire]

Imagine going to see AOU and it was only an hour and 3 minutes? Id be so POd

I think my head would spin as they rushed through the story at high speed!

Cinemas running times seem to vary by 19 minutes in the UK (most state 231 - 250 minutes). I do wonder if maybe scenes have been changed dramatically (or even cut) if the movie is 231 minutes? Maybe an entire story arc could have been removed?

Just hope no Hulk scenes have been cut!

 

[warcam]

231 minutes???
That's more than 'The Ten Commandments'.

 

[ernesth100]

That's nice to know. Anyone think we'll get individual character TV Spot's. Hopefully Hulk has one.

 

[Coffee]

yllum: I thought Ed was decent but Mark brought more depth to Banner, and didnt just play the sad, lonely nerd role.

I liked them both, but I think Mark also had the benefit of being in the stronger movie, & had an ensemble to play off of. The character was written differently.

I do like the visual look of Nortons Hulk vs the Avengers version.

 

[ernesth100]

Personally I look at Marks Banner as a more matured and aged version of Norton's Banner. Snce technically Mark is playing the same character from the 2008 version.

 

[queendarkness12]

I though Norton's Banner fell flat with me on someway, but when Mark Ruffalo came on and did a great job, that's when it clicked with me.

To me, I felt like Ruffalo's Banner had more depth and was more likeable, and you could feel sympathetic towards him.

Plus....the fangirls seem to love him enough to get this Science Bros. started and it's still going.

 

[Coffee]

Personally I look at Marks Banner as a more matured and aged version of Norton's Banner. Snce technically Mark is playing the same character from the 2008 version.

That's true. Norton would have technically had the same dialogue as Ruffalo. And while performances & nuances would vary, I'd still think even with Norton in the role, you'd get the similar "banner" that everyone likes.

 

[Coffee]

I though Norton's Banner fell flat with me on someway, but when Mark Ruffalo came on and did a great job, that's when it clicked with me.

To me, I felt like Ruffalo's Banner had more depth and was more likeable, and you could feel sympathetic towards him.

Plus....the fangirls seem to love him enough to get this Science Bros. started and it's still going.

Although some of this is due to Ruffalo's personality, I think alot of it could be to how the character was written.

I don't necessarily think Norton isn't capable of doing what Ruffalo did, but the version of Banner he played wasn't the same. Ruffalos Banner was a better character.

I guess I just wish the was more of a connection to 08's hulk. The only connection is is the brief clip in Stark's penthouse & the reference to Harlem.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Hello guys!! I just watched tih again and do like edward norton portrayal of Bruce banner alot.

in fact I like it more than mark'version..I may be the minority here.

may I know who's version is closer to its comics ?

I've said something similar before, but to me it feels like Eric Bana probably played the version closest to the comics, all pent-up trauma from childhood abuse. Edward Norton was very much an ode to the Bill Bixby David Banner from the old TV show. Mark Ruffalo seemed more interested in channelling his own personality into a fresh take on the character.

 

[Lilbaz]

Think that Ruffalo just comes across as more likeable. Norton is a very good actor but there is something about him that makes you want to stab him in the face.

 

[queendarkness12]

There's two questions I want to ask.

- Will Betty Ross be referenced in the future or will there be a recast?

- Will Civil War be a great platform to bring back General Ross into the fold?

 

[TheVision]

Doesnt matter anyway Norton isnt Banner anymore.