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

[Pink Ranger]

Too many cheesy one-liners from Cap in this one. It doesn't suit him.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

My main complaint is the overall story, which ends up feeling like it's not about very much, despite it spending so much time on character stuff. Despite Ultron himself being an interesting villain, it doesn't mean anything to the story or the characters. Tony specifically needed more of a compelling character story considering the drama surrounding Ultron's existence.

I also think it's thematically repetitive from the first movie, and just as underdeveloped.
-Disagreements about meddling with technology. (Tesseract / Sceptre)
-The need for protection against alien forces. (Phase 2 / Ultron)
-Power (the Hulk) as a liability or an asset.
-Needs of the many vs the few (Nuke / blowing up the island)

Ultimately the story just amounts to 'working together is awesome', which sort of makes the road to get there feel unnecessarily bloated.

 

[marvellover]

Agreed. I actually had this problem with the first film too. If these aliens are so weak that they can be taken down by a guy with a bow and arrow and a woman with a beretta, why do we even need the Avengers. Just unleash the Hulk on those Leviathans and be done with it. And why is the military not getting involved? Why is the first option to nuke the city?

And in AoU, how come Ultron's repulsor blast only barely hurts Cap? How can he go toe to toe with a mini Transformer? Sigh. Don't get me wrong, I loved seeing Cap fighting Ultron, but I am not sure how strong Cap is supposed to be anymore.

It is not about Cap being too strong
It is Ultron the main one being too weak

Guys keep saying he had great plan but he just flat out failed in everything he wanted to do

 

[Iceman]

Ultron was way too weak throughout.

 

[Mr_336]

"Brutasha"
Barton Family; I didn't feel anything other than wishing Whedon's brother and his sister in law hadn't used Mockingbird for AOS, I'd not mind having her and Clint together.

Spoiler

Killing Pietro. There's 0 need to do that. But we know he'll be back and I'm willing to put money on it that he returns in either Dr. Strange if Wanda is included or IW Pt. 1 tops

Too much quips.

No Sam for the final fight. I'd been sweet if he were there too like Rhodey

 

[Mr_336]

The Banner/ Natasha Romance: So much of this hatred is based on biases towards the source material. The MCU journey of various characters is going to deviate from the source material overtime. Longing for a Betty Banner that represented arguably the worst acting performance in entire film series is silly. This was a natural extension of their initial connection...there were problems with it, but I'll dovetail on these in my complaints.

Give over! Yes I rather Betty than Nat but I wouldn't object to an immediate recast as long as she's there so let's not act like everyone really wants Liv Tyler back or Jennifer Connelly

 

[rashad]

Ultron was way too weak throughout.

Yeah I hated that.

 

[RedRose]

It's not as black and white as you people think. You two completely missed the point about people complaining about the humour in the first place. It's not that they don't want to laugh during a superhero movie. In fact, it's a matter of balance, there is a time to be serious AND there is a time to be humorous. I liked Age of Ultron's dialogue a lot more than anything I've seen in Phase 2, but I'd be lying if I said the humour was perfect. Humour is partly the reason why Ultron isn't as threatening as it seems, and there have been scenes where comedy took priority over storytelling when it shouldn't have.

Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of the smug MCU fans telling people to essentially **** off and go watch something else when there are legitimate criticisms for Marvel's movies.

Agreed. And I would also argue that every single character in this, from the Avengers to the enemies to the extras had the same exact types of quips. Where is the individual personality? The other marvel movies balanced this out much better (the second worst being the first Avengers film, so I guess that's Whedon for you, but this one was too over the top)

 

[Gu3ree]

I don't think Ultron was entirely weak but needed to be much more stronger and firm in his motives and belief. He wasn't threatening enough. Example Ra's Al Ghul in Arrow or Batman Begins, he's a bad guy who strongly believes he's doing the right thing and he's a psychotic. Ultron is a robot, but he is highly intelligent, ideally, you'd think his ingenius plan would be unbeatable.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It's not as black and white as you people think. You two completely missed the point about people complaining about the humour in the first place. It's not that they don't want to laugh during a superhero movie. In fact, it's a matter of balance, there is a time to be serious AND there is a time to be humorous. I liked Age of Ultron's dialogue a lot more than anything I've seen in Phase 2, but I'd be lying if I said the humour was perfect. Humour is partly the reason why Ultron isn't as threatening as it seems, and there have been scenes where comedy took priority over storytelling when it shouldn't have.

Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of the smug MCU fans telling people to essentially **** off and go watch something else when there are legitimate criticisms for Marvel's movies.

This, so much this, because we have genuine criticisms about the movies we aren't allowed to watch them? I am a big fan of these characters, I will watch anything they are in. But I do feel in order for the movies to get better they need to make changes.

The point about balance is spot on, no one has ever said they don't want humour in these movies, many MCU make me laugh and I like that, but don't have a joke seconds after an important character dies or an important dramatic beat happens as it just ruins the moment. The best CBM's, and movies in general, have you laughing one minute and then gasping or fighting back the tears the next. Marvel have yet to achieve this with their movies and it's why, for me, they haven't made a truly amazing CBM yet.

 

[Lorus]

Agreed. And I would also argue that every single character in this, from the Avengers to the enemies to the extras had the same exact types of quips. Where is the individual personality? The other marvel movies balanced this out much better (the second worst being the first Avengers film, so I guess that's Whedon for you, but this one was too over the top)

I disagree with this vehemently. One of Whedon's great strengths as a writer lies in his complete understanding of character and the humour comes organically from that. It's a personal pet peeve of mine when the old 'all Whedon characters have the same voice' line is trotted out because it isn't true at all. It seems like madness to me to suggest that there's no 'individual personality' in AOU.

 

[RedRose]

I disagree with this vehemently. One of Whedon's great strengths as a writer lies in his complete understanding of character and the humour comes organically from that. It's a personal pet peeve of mine when the old 'all Whedon characters have the same voice' line is trotted out because it isn't true at all. It seems like madness to me to suggest that there's no 'individual personality' in AOU.

I have never seen anything of Whedons before (except Avengers 1) and didn't know other people said that- it was just my observation in this movie vs the other Marvel movies. It reminded me of the cartoon.

 

[Gu3ree]

I liked the film overall but there was one part I hated with major, passionate, psychotic hatred. That was killing off Quicksilver. Can someone tell me why Whedon did that?

While I found the movie very complex and really hard to come down to one thought if it was good or bad, I enjoyed it, but that one scene involving the death of Quicksilver really stopped the story for me. Whedon ruined it. It was stupid and worse than Agent Coulson's death. What was the use of it? What was worse about this that it wasn't just a major comic book character, but a superhero, and an Avenger. Why did he kill him?

It was effing ridiculous. At least now I know he's not directing Infinity War. If I were the producer, I'd like to keep him, but make sure I'd restrict him from killing off a major comic book character. That was unjust.

No words can justify by how betrayed I feel by this. Damn you, Whedon.

But could anyone explain to me why Whedon did that? Was it in the comics?

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Whedon said he did it because he thought it would've been disingenuous to have a "war movie" like finale and all the heroes come out of it alive again like in the first Avengers movie. He felt someone had to die there.

He did shoot scenes of Quicksilver living and joining the new team at the end though, incase Marvel wanted him to live.

 

[warhorse78]

Does anyone know if there were test screenings of the movie that might have resulted in footage ultimately cut from the final movie?

 

[Jason Kane]

Whedon said he did it because he thought it would've been disingenuous to have a "war movie" like finale and all the heroes come out of it alive again like in the first Avengers movie. He felt someone had to die there.

He did shoot scenes of Quicksilver living and joining the new team at the end though, incase Marvel wanted him to live.

That scene better be a part of the DVD five months from now as the deleted scenes features

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Does anyone know if there were test screenings of the movie that might have resulted in footage ultimately cut from the final movie?

Thor's original trip to the cave.

 

[Spitfire]

Thor's original trip to the cave.

This is the only scene Whedon has confirmed but I wonder if others were changed as we know there were re-shoots. He also refers to re-shooting for Banner/Widow and I wonder if this was changed following test screenings as well?

 

[Gu3ree]

Quicksilver dying was the worst part of the movie because it didn't need to happen, and it ruined the movie. In a way almost, Coulsen's death did ruin the first Avengers movie.

A war movie, come on. Their they Avengers and supposed to save the day by the end. Imagine how better receptive this film would have been if Quicksilver didn't die.

 

[InJustice]

Quicksilver dying was the worst part of the movie because it didn't need to happen, and it ruined the movie. In a way almost, Coulsen's death did ruin the first Avengers movie.

A war movie, come on. Their they Avengers and supposed to save the day by the end. Imagine how better receptive this film would have been if Quicksilver didn't die.

Except Coulson's death had a purpose that worked well for the first Avengers movie. Nothing was going to band these group of egos unless there was something that hit them close.

Also, the war movie logic isn't that far-off, look at what happens in the last half of Age of Ultron. If that's not a war, I don't know what is. Lastly, I have a hard time believing that things would change from a movie reception standpoint, if Quicksilver didn't die. Quicksilver not dying doesn't change that the movie is paced horribly, had some silly plot points and disregarded some story elements.

 

[Aejej]

Whedon used Quicksilver as cannon fodder because he tried (in vain) to add a shred of emotional weight to the goings-on. Never once do you feel the Avengers are in any real danger.

When you watch Mad Max: Fury Road, it's a far different story. Whedon should take notes.

 

[Mad Ones]

I haven't felt danger when watching a comic book movie since TDK, and I honestly don't mind that. I know the heroes are going to win but I want to be entertained while watching it happen. I think Quicksilver's death was pointless, and I was actually starting to like him by the end. I thought it was a well done death scene, but one that didn't need to be made.

 

[Bert]

One thing I loved about the Avengers was Cap providing strategy of attack for the whole team. I was hoping this would appear in AoU. Alas, it did not. The first Avengers worked so well because it strongly highlighted the differences in each member of the team. I felt like this time around that was thrown out, the team was much more homogenized this time around.

 

[Asr]

I liked the film overall but there was one part I hated with major, passionate, psychotic hatred. That was killing off Quicksilver. Can someone tell me why Whedon did that?

IMO, Whedon made Quicksilver's death worse when Hawkeye later said "I've had a long day" and laid down next to Quicksilver's corpse. The way that scene was done was totally tasteless to a character that died trying to save his life. That whole scene left a proverbial sour taste in my mouth and turned me against Whedon as a director.

I don't get why all of Marvel's movies can't capture the tone that TWS had. That was a great example of what I like to see from CBMs in general. AoU felt like a total regression from TWS in terms of quality (and dramatic stakes).

 

[Delwin]

I watched the movie today and frankly speaking it is weakest of the MCU movies I have seen so far in my opinion. First: too many characters. Second: really weak villain. OK - the single "body" can be weak but he should be presented as unstoppable because of constant "rebirth" - like swarm of hornets...

Contrary to some opinions before: I believe that Quicksilver plot was good - jokes and "bam". The guy is dead (At least what we see in the movie). Plot on Hawkeye family is weak - I like the idea where he is the only one to get them into "shape" after being "hit" by Scarlet Witch but the family should just mentioned.

I like the plot on Natasha and Bruce but it jumped out of nowhere - was there any hints before? Of course it is completely absurd - who sane would turn down Scarlett ?