Age of Ultron SPOILERS INSIDE What you didn't like about Avengers: Age of Ultron - Flaws/Critiques

[Lorus]

Sorry, but this not true, the Twins leave him before this because SW can read Visions mind when Ultron is uploading his personality into the body and sees Ultron wanting to destroy the world.

Wanda sees an explosion in his thoughts. She questions Ultron about it and he tries to explain that he's facilitating greater change, there would be remnants of humanity still. The twins leave him because they don't agree with the cost. This destruction is still seen as a necessary evil by Ultron.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Wanda sees an explosion in his thoughts. She questions Ultron about it and he tries to explain that he's facilitating greater change, there would be remnants of humanity still. The twins leave him because they don't agree with the cost. This destruction is still seen as a necessary evil by Ultron.

It's not just an explosion though, it's a massive explosion that will clearly wipe out most, if not all of humanity, the explosion is that big it has to be shown from space.

 

[warhorse78]

The usual complaints about a Marvel movie for me, too formulaic, it all felt like I had seen it before. Too short, too much humour and not enough stakes, I never once felt the heroes were in danger. I know Pietro died but even that wasnt done very well. After 2014 I thought Marvel was upping their game but took a tiny step back instead with this movie. They really need to change things up.

And this may be a new one, but I thought there was TOO MUCH of the heroes saving people at the end, it felt like we were being beaten over the head with it by the end, they could have cut down on that and given us more fighting with Ultron IMO. Also, I felt the Iron Man/ Stark pandering went too far in this movie.

This is why I think maybe instead of killing off QS so as to get this stakes are high, it would have been more shocking if Cap really couldn't help that family in the car. In TDK, for me it wasn't so much that Rachel getting killed was shocking, but that Batman couldn't save her.

 

[warhorse78]

I think the main problem with the film was that unlike the first Avengers, which had 5 movies building towards it and teasing it, this one didn't have anything building towards it. As you said it was a bit of a weigh station. The first Avengers was the crescendo and it was awesome to see everything come to ahead. This one seemed more like "well just throw something together for Avengers 2 so we can see the team again before Infinity War"

I agree with this. When I watched Ironman 3 and Thor 2, I just felt like it offered nothing, or not much, in expanding the MCU. Both of those movies were terribly restrained and didn't seem to connect to the rest of the MCU at all. I just find it hard to swallow that the news is point blank showing Tony Stark's mansion getting attacked and presuming he is dead, and no sign from any of the other Avengers? Not even Steve? And, in the first Avengers, Loki seemed to be pretty knowledgable with Captain America from the start, and even had a bit of glee of impersonating him in Thor 2. I wished in Thor 2 it would have shown how he knew so much about Cap. I don't read the comic nor do I know anything about Norse myths, so, yes, I may need to to be painted out for me in the movies.

Cap 2 and GOTG however, seemed to greatly expand on the whole MCU. I just wished we did get some sort of reference from Cap or Widow that they were glad that Tony survived his attacks.

 

[I Am The Knight]

And the way that every so often this movie became AVENGERS: AGE OF CIVILIAN CLEAVAGE. You know what I'm talking about.

Oh yes

I don't have much complaints about this movie, really. The only things that bug me were the lack of development for the Bruce/Nat thing, Fury with his "secret weapon/Noah's arc" in the third act and the lack of character time for Pietro considering we are suppose to care that he dies. It lacked impact.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

This is why I think maybe instead of killing off QS so as to get this stakes are high, it would have been more shocking if Cap really couldn't help that family in the car. In TDK, for me it wasn't so much that Rachel getting killed was shocking, but that Batman couldn't save her.

Yep, I think it's good to see the heroes lose sometimes as that creates tension and shows that they are not gods, things can go wrong and they have to come back from that to become better heroes.

 

[warhorse78]

That scene lost all its credibility when the ending showed us Cap and Tony going their separate ways in good harmony. They'll have to re-establish it in Civil War.

I think I know how it's going to start. It's going to have something to do with Tony finding out that Shield/Hydra and possibly Cap's best friend Bucky, were responsible for killing his parents.

It's also possible that the world governments learn that Tony created Ultron, and in turn either want him dead, or con him into starting some sort of registration act.

 

[Khonshu]

I was really, really hoping that the Nat/Banner relationship was completely orchestrated by Nat to keep a control check on the Hulk. Perhaps this would be seen as too duplicitous for an Avengers hero, but I was positive that she was going to simply romance him so that she could establish some type of leash on the "other guy".

What I was really hoping for was a moment in the third act in which Banner learns that the whole relationship was false, and that the ensuing rage at being betrayed by someone who he considered to be his friend was the catalyst to:

A) Turn him back into the Hulk after the fallout from Johannesburg. Hulk goes crazy on the Ultronbots and on Ultron himself, but is almost even too much for the Avengers to tolerate, and

B) Have him leave the Avengers at the end of the film - not because he wants to protect them, but because he felt betrayed by them.

Though certainly a less heroic take than what we received, I think it is actually more in keeping with the Black Widow character, and would also set up a story line of redemption and forgiveness that could be used in Infinity War.

 

[Lorus]

It's not just an explosion though, it's a massive explosion that will clearly wipe out most, if not all of humanity, the explosion is that big it has to be shown from space.

It was a mushroom cloud, was it not? It suggests devastation, but that's the point, it needs to be devastating to force humanity to evolve. The dialogue, at least, makes it clear that at this point, Ultron is not set on wiping out all of mankind. That was my original point, that he doesn't decide on that until a bit later.

 

[Keehar]

Thought of a few more things that bothered me.

Hawkeye lying down next to a

Spoiler

dead, bullet-riddled Quicksilver

and being all "It's been a loooooong week". Completely classless given the circumstances. Bad Whedon.

Yep that was lame. Like he was making light of Quicksilver's death even though I didn't care he died.

 

[lukebrodyg]

Yep that was lame. Like he was making light of Quicksilver's death even though I didn't care he died.

Haha same. Not a fan of the character or actor.

I have a few complaints but the biggest is the Banner/Nat arc. It was so underdeveloped and forced. I could maybe see that it was a bit more natural and in character for a nerd like Banner but it felt very unnatural and out of character for Black Widow. To me, it was CLEARLY a device only meant to provide a reason to get Hulk out of the picture for Civil War. Cause let's face it: whoever has Hulk wins. (Unless you have an IM sucker punch).

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It was a mushroom cloud, was it not? It suggests devastation, but that's the point, it needs to be devastating to force humanity to evolve. The dialogue, at least, makes it clear that at this point, Ultron is not set on wiping out all of mankind. That was my original point, that he doesn't decide on that until a bit later.

It wasnt necessarily a mushroom cloud, it could have been a meteor hitting the planet, the cloud was huge, far bigger than a nukes would be IMO. It covered half the planet.

 

[Xeno-noesis]

The biggest thing I didn't like was changing the Marvel Studios fanfare music. Why did they do that? It was perfect before and gave me chills/goosebumps every time I saw it. The change was very jarring and deflating.

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[djkris]

I felt that, when Ultron severed Klaue's arm, the movie lost a lot of goodwill points, IMO. Up until that moment, I was trying to see where this film was going, but when it happened, it felt hollow and Ultron's reaction put me off. I was expecting a frightening, menacing A.I. trapped into a mechanical body, the whole "Uncanny Valley" package, but this Ultron was just an actor pretending to be a robot - no monotonous voice but very emotional / human reactions, which I never related to comic book Ultron.

 

[Batmannerism]

Okay, before I get stuck in first, in the interest of full disclosure and with apologies to Marvel fans I will freely admit that I'm a DC fan, so I'm biased. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Having said that I enjoy a good Marvel movie, I think that Iron Man is a hair's breadth away from being as good as the Dark Knight.

Anyway, I really enjoyed Age of Ultron. I thought it was spectacular (the Hulkbuster v Hulk fight was epic). I actually think it's a superior film to Avengers, because they take the time to do some actual character development. Despite anything negative I say about it, it is a really, really good movie and I would recommend anyone watching it.

In fact, for the first hour and a bit, I was thinking that Age of Ultron might actually do what the Dark Knight did and become more than just a great comic book movie, but a great movie in its own right. When they got to Hawkeye's farm, I was really thinking that this was going to be Marvel's Dark Knight.

But.....sadly from there it didn't rise any further, and kind of settled back down to the level of enjoyable but otherwise ordinary comic book film.

So here are my criticisms. Again, other than these I really liked it, and some of the following are nit-picks, while a couple of points are kind of
substantial -and of course, all are just my opinion.


1) The villain: Entertaining, but I was surprised at how restrained Spader was. I mean Ultron had some great moments, but overall I thought he could have played it a bit crazier - I'm not saying that Ultron should be a techno-Joker, but knowing the talent of Spader I believe that Ultron could have been much more menacing and also engaging.

Remember the Hugo Weaving scene in the Matrix where he tells Morpheus,
" I HATE this place." in that scene he captures everything about a supposedly emotionless hyper-rational robot that's going insane. He's damn scary in that scene - to me that's the kind of vibe Spader needed.

For that I blame the writers.

2) A nit-pick, but I found all the techno-jargon in the Bruce/Tony bromance scenes kind of distracting and unnecessary.

3) The Vision was a bit too deus ex machina. As in he reduced the level of threat that the Avengers were under to the point where it didn't seem like they could possibly lose. Really good writers create scenarios in films where the audience momentarily forgets that the good guys usually win and are very much " How will they get out of that ? "

While Bettany did a good job as the character, I think more could have been done around his story, possibly fleshing out his origin a little more, to avoid the feeling that he was something they chucked in the 3rd act to justify the conclusion.

4) A couple of the action sequences felt....and I hesitate to say this, a little bit of Michael Bay, with too much going on for the audience to really enjoy them. Fortunately this wasn't a problem in the finale or in the Hulkbuster sequence (which I think was the standout action sequence in the film).


- let down

5) Quicksilver's death. I know Whedon likes to kill off characters to scare the audience, and in Serenity he did that brilliantly. However, here we kind of feel like QS's death was pretty unnecessary (as he could have probably just moved Hawkeye and the kid out of the way, and the bullets would have gone right through him anyway). I actually liked the QS character overall - they made him different enough from DOFP's version to make him interesting in his own right. Anyway, we don't really feel shock or surprise or much sorrow at his passing, because it wasn't set up properly, I mean, we hardly knew the guy.

6) The final action set piece: We've seen the Avengers crushing hordes of generic enemies before, in the first film. Probably didn't need to see it again. As a result we don't get the same feeling of threat - as the Avengers just swat them away like bugs. I actually thought the Chitauri were better villains than the ultron bots, and that's saying a lot as they were pretty bland. Something different was needed here, and the writers failed to deliver, which kind of surprised me.

7) The ending. After all that Tony, Thor and Bruce are taking a break, but for everyone else its business as usual. Too Disney for my taste. You don't get a sense that the characters have been tested to new limits and have grown. Tony has still got the same issues he had before, did no one point out to him that his obsession nearly wiped out the human race ?

Yeah, sorry to go to the Dark Knight again, but at the end of that movie the hero has won but also lost. It's emotional, and you feel a certain catharsis. Even at the end of Guardians of the Galaxy, where they fly off into the sunny sky, you feel like the characters have really been on a journey. In this film it starts that way, but after the farm sequence it loses its way. I guess I found the whole 3rd act a bit of a let down, after the first 2/3 of the film were so promising.
I just felt like it was an opportunity that went begging here. Whedon could have made a real statment here, really laid down something ground-breaking ....and didn't. Okay, at least they didn't have shwarma.

Okay, so after all that it was still a good movie, and fun to watch - I think the critics are generally wrong and it deserves at least an 85% on RT.

I mean, I'm a DC fan right, and Superman Returns has 76%, whereas Age of Ultron has 75%, now that's bull-**** ! Superman returns is the most boring superhero movie ever, whereas Age of Ultron is highly entertaining. So much for any claim that critical consensus means anything at all !

cheers.

 

[InJustice]

I came back from watching the Avengers, I've got to say, I was really hyped to watch it but I felt very disappointed, which you rarely ever hear me say considering I love comic book movies. The main issue with me is that it's way too short, and we're not given enough time to develop much of the movie's plotline. Another issue I had is that some of the plot is retreaded from the first Avengers movie. I kept thinking about how much better the first Avengers did in the same thing that Age of Ultron dealt with, which only made me want to watch the first one more.

What I liked: Scarlett Witch manipulating Tony's fears, since that gave me a compelling reason to understand why Tony would consider the Ultron project.
What I didn't like: A lot of things were glossed over as Tony tries to build the AI. Why not get a short scene of Tony exploring reasons why the Ultron project was kept dormant over the years (hint hint: one could've mentioned Hank Pym as the forefather and the fact that there wasn't advanced enough technology to build a machine of this scale).

What I liked: The first action sequence of the film right after the title.
What I didn't like: It was a complete waste of time to have Baron von Stucker and Hydra in the movie, given how minimal they ended up being. I had no reason to care about why he's such a problem, and quite frankly, I feel like he was a plot device designed only to bring about the Maximoff Twins.

What I liked: The Hulkbuster vs. Hulk fight. Contrary to what some hardcore fans were saying, the point wasn't that there was supposed to be a winner/loser, the point is that Tony is trying to contain the Hulk. Marvel didn't try to market this as a boxing match kind of ordeal like the posters you see for Batman vs. Superman. Did everyone all of a sudden forget Tony saying "come on Banner, you can snap out of it"? That's not fighting to win, that's caring about your teammate.
What I didn't like: Was this really necessary after we already had a Loki-manipulated Hulk try to take down the Avengers and the Helicarrier in the first movie? I feel like this was forced to give Banner some character development, when there could have been better ways to develop his character.

What I liked: The destruction in South Africa due to the Hulk vs. Hulkbuster fight had consequences where the Avengers had to lay low from the public eye until Ultron's final plan.
What I didn't like: There wasn't enough time to explore the public consciousness. In fact, I felt like that plotline was shrugged off for other developments. There could've been a Civil War tie in considering the public may want superhero registration and accountability.
What I also didn't like: Speaking of Civil War, why did Stark and Rogers end up in good terms? I feel like a global event like Ultron should have triggered a conflict between Steve Rogers and Tony Stark, a classic conflict of someone who wants to do good by the book vs. someone who wants to make things easier, though not necessarily taking into consideration the safety of others. That would make it easy for the Russos to continue and build on that conflict.
What I also didn't like #2: Speaking of making things easier, am I the only one who felt like Age of Ultron and Phase 2 felt irrelevant? Compared to Avengers and Phase 1, we had a ton of build up to each superhero and that topped the Avengers off. Whereas Phase 2 felt very sloppy, and there was no unifying structure to lead to Avengers 2. In retrospect, I feel like it would've been nice if we had snippets of Tony building the Ultron AI and body throughout Phase 2 (instead of it coming from Loki's Scepter).

What I really didn't like: Ultron. I feel like he was a wasted opportunity. He could have been FAR more menacing, and I say that because I was massively disappointed when I expected the menacing Ultron from the trailers, only to get a "joke-ish" character with no real sense of threat to him. I also feel like tying him into Thanos, instead of the more compelling Oedipus issue hurt his character. I also was sort of disappointed with the third act because Ultron (in the comics) is powerful enough to take on the team and would justify having a 7-on-1 battle royale, instead of another boring and retreaded army vs. Avengers battle scene.

What I liked: The Maximoff twins.
What I didn't like: Quicksilver's death. Come on Whedon, you don't have to kill just for the sake of killing. His death did not impact me in any profound way, and I found myself actually facepalming. Had it been an actual Avengers member, I would be shocked in a positive way. This smelt like a "death because battles should have consequences" instead of a real death inciting emotional impact.
What I also didn't like: Natasha/Bruce. I felt like this was from nowhere since it wasn't really hinted in the old movies . I would've appreciated this dynamic since I feel there's a lot of potential...if it only had enough time to be developed in the first place. Additionally, the Twitter ****storm is nothing short of being ****ing stupidness.
What I actually liked: Black Widow's character arc was built around redemption and the potential to reconnect with people. She realized she didn't need to value herself as a trained assassin killer, her value is with saving people and using her skills for good. I see her as someone who wasn't really much of a people person, and is now able to connect to other people thanks to the Avengers initiative. It's undoing the damage that the past had done for her. Additionally, the sterilization isn't because it works to develop Banner, nor is it trying to negate her feminine identity. Because it doesn't. In fact, it's irrelevant to Banner (who STILL fears for her life even in Hulk mode), and it doesn't make Black Widow any less of a badass woman. In fact, despite all the badassery of the male Avengers, I found myself associating myself most with Black Widow. I only wish there was a hint for Banner/Widow, because I could actually see this being a really good couple.

 

[Batmannerism]

I came back from watching the Avengers, I've got to say, I was really hyped to watch it but I felt very disappointed, which you rarely ever hear me say considering I love comic book movies. The main issue with me is that it's way too short, and we're not given enough time to develop much of the movie's plotline. Another issue I had is that some of the plot is retreaded from the first Avengers movie. I kept thinking about how much better the first Avengers did in the same thing that Age of Ultron dealt with, which only made me want to watch the first one more.

What I liked: Scarlett Witch manipulating Tony's fears, since that gave me a compelling reason to understand why Tony would consider the Ultron project.
What I didn't like: A lot of things were glossed over as Tony tries to build the AI. Why not get a short scene of Tony exploring reasons why the Ultron project was kept dormant over the years (hint hint: one could've mentioned Hank Pym as the forefather and the fact that there wasn't advanced enough technology to build a machine of this scale).

What I liked: The first action sequence of the film right after the title.
What I didn't like: It was a complete waste of time to have Baron von Stucker and Hydra in the movie, given how minimal they ended up being. I had no reason to care about why he's such a problem, and quite frankly, I feel like he was a plot device designed only to bring about the Maximoff Twins.

What I liked: The Hulkbuster vs. Hulk fight. Contrary to what some hardcore fans were saying, the point wasn't that there was supposed to be a winner/loser, the point is that Tony is trying to contain the Hulk. Marvel didn't try to market this as a boxing match kind of ordeal like the posters you see for Batman vs. Superman. Did everyone all of a sudden forget Tony saying "come on Banner, you can snap out of it"? That's not fighting to win, that's caring about your teammate.
What I didn't like: Was this really necessary after we already had a Loki-manipulated Hulk try to take down the Avengers and the Helicarrier in the first movie? I feel like this was forced to give Banner some character development, when there could have been better ways to develop his character.

What I liked: The destruction in South Africa due to the Hulk vs. Hulkbuster fight had consequences where the Avengers had to lay low from the public eye until Ultron's final plan.
What I didn't like: There wasn't enough time to explore the public consciousness. In fact, I felt like that plotline was shrugged off for other developments. There could've been a Civil War tie in considering the public may want superhero registration and accountability.
What I also didn't like: Speaking of Civil War, why did Stark and Rogers end up in good terms? I feel like a global event like Ultron should have triggered a conflict between Steve Rogers and Tony Stark, a classic conflict of someone who wants to do good by the book vs. someone who wants to make things easier, though not necessarily taking into consideration the safety of others. That would make it easy for the Russos to continue and build on that conflict.
What I also didn't like #2: Speaking of making things easier, am I the only one who felt like Age of Ultron and Phase 2 felt irrelevant? Compared to Avengers and Phase 1, we had a ton of build up to each superhero and that topped the Avengers off. Whereas Phase 2 felt very sloppy, and there was no unifying structure to lead to Avengers 2. In retrospect, I feel like it would've been nice if we had snippets of Tony building the Ultron AI and body throughout Phase 2 (instead of it coming from Loki's Scepter).

What I really didn't like: Ultron. I feel like he was a wasted opportunity. He could have been FAR more menacing, and I say that because I was massively disappointed when I expected the menacing Ultron from the trailers, only to get a "joke-ish" character with no real sense of threat to him. I also feel like tying him into Thanos, instead of the more compelling Oedipus issue hurt his character. I also was sort of disappointed with the third act because Ultron (in the comics) is powerful enough to take on the team and would justify having a 7-on-1 battle royale, instead of another boring and retreaded army vs. Avengers battle scene.

What I liked: The Maximoff twins.
What I didn't like: Quicksilver's death. Come on Whedon, you don't have to kill just for the sake of killing. His death did not impact me in any profound way, and I found myself actually facepalming. Had it been an actual Avengers member, I would be shocked in a positive way. This smelt like a "death because battles should have consequences" instead of a real death inciting emotional impact.
What I also didn't like: Natasha/Bruce. I felt like this was from nowhere since it wasn't really hinted in the old movies . I would've appreciated this dynamic since I feel there's a lot of potential...if it only had enough time to be developed in the first place. Additionally, the Twitter ****storm is nothing short of being ****ing stupidness.
What I actually liked: Black Widow's character arc was built around redemption and the potential to reconnect with people. She realized she didn't need to value herself as a trained assassin killer, her value is with saving people and using her skills for good. I see her as someone who wasn't really much of a people person, and is now able to connect to other people thanks to the Avengers initiative. It's undoing the damage that the past had done for her. Additionally, the sterilization isn't because it works to develop Banner, nor is it trying to negate her feminine identity. Because it doesn't. In fact, it's irrelevant to Banner (who STILL fears for her life even in Hulk mode), and it doesn't make Black Widow any less of a badass woman. In fact, despite all the badassery of the male Avengers, I found myself associating myself most with Black Widow. I only wish there was a hint for Banner/Widow, because I could actually see this being a really good couple.

Dude, looks like you had some very similar criticisms to the ones I made.

I totally agree that the Black Widow background reveals were one of the better parts of the film - in fact even Cap (who I find pretty boring most of the time) was a little more interesting, even giving relationship advice.

Again, I agree that it was weird how Tony and Steve parted friends -really missed a chance to sow the seeds for Civil war there. In Avengers there was plenty of tension between them (counterbalanced by Tony's secret admiration for Cap) but in this one nobody seemed to notice that Stark pretty much nearly caused human extinction, via his obsessive tinkering.

I also agree with you that the Avengers (as in all of them) vs Ultron prime at once would have been epic - I think that the Hulkbuster sequence, and the Smallville Battle in MOS show that you can still have an epic scale battle between a small number of combatants. Now that would have been great. Perhaps the "army of ultron" could have been the mid-point action set piece with a no -holds barred war against an unstoppable Ultron prime as the final confrontation.

Something like, when deprived of the Vision as a new body, Ultron uploads to a Vibranium-laced body -effectively making him as tough as Cap's shield. No matter how hard they hit him he just shrugs it off, and finally they figure out that nothing will penetrate his outer casing - so the vision uses his density control power to phase through Ultron (damaging himself in the process) and cause enough internal damage to slow Ultron down or open up a weak spot on which all the others to concentrate all their power on one weak spot and take him down...or maybe have one of the normal-human Avengers, like Hawkeye manage to put an arrow into a tiny weakspot, after all the super-powered avengers have been taken down (you know kind of like blowing up the death star).

Yeah, I know it's a bit cliched, but I think it would have been a more satisfying finish. Thoughts anyone ?

Anyway, I still rate Age of Ultron highly (this is NOT Iron Man 2), and I think you Marvel fanboys are still getting good service from Marvel studios.

 

[Keehar]

What I really didn't like: Ultron. I feel like he was a wasted opportunity. He could have been FAR more menacing, and I say that because I was massively disappointed when I expected the menacing Ultron from the trailers, only to get a "joke-ish" character with no real sense of threat to him. I also feel like tying him into Thanos, instead of the more compelling Oedipus issue hurt his character. I also was sort of disappointed with the third act because Ultron (in the comics) is powerful enough to take on the team and would justify having a 7-on-1 battle royale, instead of another boring and retreaded army vs. Avengers battle scene.

Oh yes. I see more folks saying this now. Ultron has fallen under the MCU villain curse of being meh.

 

[Batmannerism]

Oh yes. I see more folks saying this now. Ultron has fallen under the MCU villain curse of being meh.

Well, I wouldn't say he was "meh" but with the talent of James Spader they had the chance to make a villain to rival Ledger's Joker. The writing just didn't give Spader enough scope to really let go and give us a truly interesting (or at least completely detestable ) villain.

Good villains have to have a bit of charm, or be a really credible threat.

While the performance of Ultron was superior to Shannon's Zod, as a character Zod made a lot more sense - he wasn't that complicated but he was crazy, menacing and we could understand him - which means we could relate to him. All in all it made Zod a slightly better villain.

Hiddleston's Loki is charming and we understand his motivations - jealousy, inadequacy, megalomania we get him. He's the best villain Marvel studios has produced by far.

McKellen (and Fassbener) as Magneto, has similar motivations to Zod - very easy to understand, and is peformed brilliantly. He's probably the best superhero movie villain ever.

Ledger's Joker was a total monster, but had a bit of charm and the performance was mesmerizing. He's a totally legit threat in the Dark Knight, because he's so unpredictable and is such a lateral thinker that he's always a step or two ahead.

Hell, even Ronan the Accuser, a much simpler character was a better villain, because we felt like he was a serious threat to Quill his crew, a virtually unstoppable threat.

These are examples of great superhero movie villains. Ultron really had the chance to join that list, but I feel like the writers really didn't rise to the occasion.

cheers.

 

[Silliminite]

My biggest complaint with AoU is that it didn't have any room to breathe. The story wasn't allowed to develop organically, which is why the movie doesn't end up having an impact on you by the end. Everything happens at breakneck pace without sufficient time for the events of the film and their consequences to properly sink in. I'm disappointed, because the story and villain lent itself to so much more.

 

[marvellover]

Well, I wouldn't say he was "meh" but with the talent of James Spader they had the chance to make a villain to rival Ledger's Joker. The writing just didn't give Spader enough scope to really let go and give us a truly interesting (or at least completely detestable ) villain.

Good villains have to have a bit of charm, or be a really credible threat.

While the performance of Ultron was superior to Shannon's Zod, as a character Zod made a lot more sense - he wasn't that complicated but he was crazy, menacing and we could understand him - which means we could relate to him. All in all it made Zod a slightly better villain.

Hiddleston's Loki is charming and we understand his motivations - jealousy, inadequacy, megalomania we get him. He's the best villain Marvel studios has produced by far.

McKellen (and Fassbener) as Magneto, has similar motivations to Zod - very easy to understand, and is peformed brilliantly. He's probably the best superhero movie villain ever.

Ledger's Joker was a total monster, but had a bit of charm and the performance was mesmerizing. He's a totally legit threat in the Dark Knight, because he's so unpredictable and is such a lateral thinker that he's always a step or two ahead.

Hell, even Ronan the Accuser, a much simpler character was a better villain, because we felt like he was a serious threat to Quill his crew, a virtually unstoppable threat.

These are examples of great superhero movie villains. Ultron really had the chance to join that list, but I feel like the writers really didn't rise to the occasion.

cheers.

Well said

Ultron could have been one of the best CBM villains with the voice work of Spader,as well as having great set of unique power and cool appearance

The horrible writing brought him down

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well, I wouldn't say he was "meh" but with the talent of James Spader they had the chance to make a villain to rival Ledger's Joker. The writing just didn't give Spader enough scope to really let go and give us a truly interesting (or at least completely detestable ) villain.

Good villains have to have a bit of charm, or be a really credible threat.

While the performance of Ultron was superior to Shannon's Zod, as a character Zod made a lot more sense - he wasn't that complicated but he was crazy, menacing and we could understand him - which means we could relate to him. All in all it made Zod a slightly better villain.

Hiddleston's Loki is charming and we understand his motivations - jealousy, inadequacy, megalomania we get him. He's the best villain Marvel studios has produced by far.

McKellen (and Fassbener) as Magneto, has similar motivations to Zod - very easy to understand, and is peformed brilliantly. He's probably the best superhero movie villain ever.

Ledger's Joker was a total monster, but had a bit of charm and the performance was mesmerizing. He's a totally legit threat in the Dark Knight, because he's so unpredictable and is such a lateral thinker that he's always a step or two ahead.

Hell, even Ronan the Accuser, a much simpler character was a better villain, because we felt like he was a serious threat to Quill his crew, a virtually unstoppable threat.

These are examples of great superhero movie villains. Ultron really had the chance to join that list, but I feel like the writers really didn't rise to the occasion.

cheers.

Agree with all of this, Ultron could have really been something special, but wasn't established as a threat at all. Even Cap could fight him to a standstill, were as in the first movie, Loki wiped the floor with him.

 

[InJustice]

Dude, looks like you had some very similar criticisms to the ones I made.

I totally agree that the Black Widow background reveals were one of the better parts of the film - in fact even Cap (who I find pretty boring most of the time) was a little more interesting, even giving relationship advice.

Again, I agree that it was weird how Tony and Steve parted friends -really missed a chance to sow the seeds for Civil war there. In Avengers there was plenty of tension between them (counterbalanced by Tony's secret admiration for Cap) but in this one nobody seemed to notice that Stark pretty much nearly caused human extinction, via his obsessive tinkering.

I also agree with you that the Avengers (as in all of them) vs Ultron prime at once would have been epic - I think that the Hulkbuster sequence, and the Smallville Battle in MOS show that you can still have an epic scale battle between a small number of combatants. Now that would have been great. Perhaps the "army of ultron" could have been the mid-point action set piece with a no -holds barred war against an unstoppable Ultron prime as the final confrontation.

Something like, when deprived of the Vision as a new body, Ultron uploads to a Vibranium-laced body -effectively making him as tough as Cap's shield. No matter how hard they hit him he just shrugs it off, and finally they figure out that nothing will penetrate his outer casing - so the vision uses his density control power to phase through Ultron (damaging himself in the process) and cause enough internal damage to slow Ultron down or open up a weak spot on which all the others to concentrate all their power on one weak spot and take him down...or maybe have one of the normal-human Avengers, like Hawkeye manage to put an arrow into a tiny weakspot, after all the super-powered avengers have been taken down (you know kind of like blowing up the death star).

Yeah, I know it's a bit cliched, but I think it would have been a more satisfying finish. Thoughts anyone ?

Anyway, I still rate Age of Ultron highly (this is NOT Iron Man 2), and I think you Marvel fanboys are still getting good service from Marvel studios.

I agree with everything you said. Funny enough, I was thinking about the Smallville battle during the film and I was thinking how we haven't really had a true villain vs. hero fight scene in the Avengers. Most of the epic conflicts were directed towards their own team members.

I like the Vibranium-laced Ultron idea a lot better. You can have individual fight scenes between him and Vision to weaken him, and then bring in the team for the ultimate "final boss" showdown.

 

[CaptainWagner]

This is why I think maybe instead of killing off QS so as to get this stakes are high, it would have been more shocking if Cap really couldn't help that family in the car. In TDK, for me it wasn't so much that Rachel getting killed was shocking, but that Batman couldn't save her.

That's exactly how I felt. Pietro dying didn't have the impact Whedon wanted because viewers had just met him. Instead of being sad he died, the general consensus seems to be frustration and crossing of fingers that he comes back.

It's ironic that the deaths of random civilians would have had more impact on the characters and audience than an actual, significant character.