Age of Ultron The Avengers 2! The Official News and Speculation Thread - - - - - Part 51

[Herolee10]

 

[TheVileOne]

No matter how you feel about Age of Ultron, there is no excuse for the way people treated Whedon on social media. The things they said were downright criminal. This goes way beyond bullying.

 

[Double B]

Why anyone would want Natasha with Clint (and the uncharismatic Jeremy Renner) is beyond me.

I too have noticed this fan explosion (read: criticism) of the MCU on Tumblr and Twitter in recent weeks. Fans, having popped up out of nowhere seemingly, with Pietro and Wanda avatars, and filled with the good old Tumblr-esque social justice warrior anger within, pulling apart everyone in a reason to be angry.

The internet has become a very strange place in the last 18 months, moreso than ever before.

 

[thanos1990]

These people on twitter

 

[Lighthouse]

Absolutely mystified by the reaction to Black Widow's depiction. Last time I was this mystified was when people were saying "Wolf of Wall Street" was misogynist.

I cannot understand how people are interpreting that she considers herself a monster because she can't have children. How can you completely miss that it wasn't that she was sterile, but that her experiences with this shadow organization had turned her into a relentless cold blooded killer. Seriously, how did people miss this?

 

[TheVileOne]

Where were these morons when Thor saved Black Widow from getting annihilated by the Hulk in the first movie?

 

[The Chris]

Or when Cap saved her in Winter Soldier, Avengers save each other.

 

[Ninjablade]

While I wasn't a fan of Natasha's character in the film, a lot of the backlash is way out of proportion.

 

[Mysteryman]

Agree with Ruffalo's take on Banner needing BW more so than her needing him. I'm wondering if people are turned off by the Bruce/Natasha relationship because they were holding out for Natasha/Clint.

That was my first thought when I saw that some people were against the Bruce/Natasha pairing.

 

[Frodo]

Absolutely mystified by the reaction to Black Widow's depiction. Last time I was this mystified was when people were saying "Wolf of Wall Street" was misogynist.

I cannot understand how people are interpreting that she considers herself a monster because she can't have children. How can you completely miss that it wasn't that she was sterile, but that her experiences with this shadow organization had turned her into a relentless cold blooded killer. Seriously, how did people miss this?

I'd say read my earlier post. In short , sterility is one of those touchy subjects which can evoke a visceral emotional response on behalf of the average viewer so , I think there are some people responding viscerally to that subject more than the specifics of the line of dialog and the context behind it.

You add to that that people don't expect to even have to deal with a subject like that in a comicbook film so for them it comes out of left field. Sometimes all it takes is certain subjects and words to evoke a negative reaction or response regardless of the context or content of the dialog . Think of it as a knee jerk reaction.

 

[C. Lee]

A reminder to everyone......

Uncensored cursing is not allowed on here....so do not post pics or links to stories that have uncensored cursing in them.

 

[Tony Stark]

No matter how you feel about Age of Ultron, there is no excuse for the way people treated Whedon on social media. The things they said were downright criminal. This goes way beyond bullying.

100% this.

My only complaints about Whedon, are he should have kept his mouth shut in the media no matter what took place. It just looks petty, and honestly he looks like the bad guy here not Marvel. He's getting paid millions of dollars to make a movie about comic book characters when there are people struggling to put food on the table that go to watch this movie.

Having said that, what he said does not excuse the vicious things said to him on twitter.

 

[Mysteryman]

That's exactly the case for some weird people, their fanfiction/shipping are ruined.

"-Welp

All of my ClinTasha head canons got Joss’d. Literally. Thanks a lot.
#Aou spoilers#Aou#I don't know what to think"

https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/age-of-ultron
"You know what Marvel should have done? They should have let Natasha be a strong female character without throwing in a damn romance we didn’t even want. If they didn’t want to give us Clintasha they should have just let her keep holding her own as she was, without resorting to a dagblasted love story. That’s what makes me the most angry about this film. Natasha was doing just fine as a compelling character when she was a single lady assassin in the last three films. If they gave us some Clintasha and kept her character none of us would have minded. But instead they re- wrote her character and threw her after Banner. "

Whoever wrote that paragraph sounds like they feel they speak for all fans on this issue .
They don't.

 

[TheVision]

Tony Stark: Maybe it was a thing he had to get out. He was venting his frustrations. I dont think $$ is a big deal, its about being an artist for him.

I never expected to hear anything negative about this movie. So this stuff is just a real surprising, sour experience to me. Its too bad we all waited for the film and now have to deal with this drama.

 

[Picard Stewart]

I've defended Joss. I think he's a brilliant film maker, and I've been a fan of his for a long, long time. However I'm disappointed for him to air the dirty laundry like that. I think he could have said what he did in a way that wouldn't stir the pot, so to speak.

Why should he keep quiet? He didn't get to do the movie he wanted even after he made them $1.5 Billion with the first one. They should have given him complete control. This is classic corporate crap getting in the way of the art-form.

Favreau went from a movie that no critic had the balls to bash to one pretty much every critic felt was mediocre.

Here we are five years after IM2 & its Whedon in Favreau's shoes now with a movie everyone agrees is a step down from the first.

I'm glad he's venting and exposing they're incessant meddling which never amounts to anything good.

 

[Quasimod0]

Not everyone is saying its a step down from the first. Personally I feel like its even better. And I've seen a lot of people say that.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I don't get why Marvel had a problem with the farm scenes but wanted a scene with Thor going to a cave to find out about the Infinity Stones which had very little to do with the main narrative. I know Marvel always likes to set future films up in their movies but the more subtle the set up is and the more tied to the main plot of the movie it is the better it is. It's still a movie, not a single issue of a comic book or an episode of a TV show. I still want to feel like I am getting a complete story.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Why should he keep quiet? He didn't get to do the movie he wanted even after he made them $1.5 Billion with the first one. They should have given him complete control. This is classic corporate crap getting in the way of the art-form.

Favreau went from a movie that no critic had the balls to bash to one pretty much every critic felt was mediocre.

Here we are five years after IM2 & its Whedon in Favreau's shoes now with a movie everyone agrees is a step down from the first.

I'm glad he's venting and exposing they're incessant meddling which never amounts to anything good.

You never give a director complete control, especially in a franchise as big as the MCU. It's almost like you think everything he wrote and shot was pure gold and that Marvel were the ones keeping him down, when it even came up that test audiences didn't like certain things and that Marvel execs were trying to get him to address that in editing the film. Directors are not infallible and sometimes need for the execs to keep them on the path of the producers' vision for the film, since it is ultimately the director who works for the producer and not the other way around.

Also, I see how you're conveniently leaving out how TWS improved upon TFA and the Russo Bros. talked about how much of a collaborative effort it was between them, Feige, and several other Marvel producers.

 

[Picard Stewart]

Not everyone is saying its a step down from the first. Personally I feel like its even better. And I've seen a lot of people say that.

Filmmakers care about the way their films are perceived critically. There's not a doubt in my mind that Whedon sees that RT score as a kick in the nuts by the studio's meddling.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Filmmakers care about the way their films are perceived critically. There's not a doubt in my mind that Whedon sees that RT score as a kick in the nuts by the studio's meddling.

How do you know he cares about the RT? He's never said about making a fan that only pleases the critics. If anything, Whedon cares more about what the fans think since that's who he's making the films for and getting the critics to like it also would be a bonus.

 

[darthcoolness3]

Did anyone get the Avengers collectible cups at the theater concession stand when they saw the movie, and are they only available for the opening weekend or will they be at the concession stand the entire time at the movie is in theaters?

 

[Picard Stewart]

You never give a director complete control, especially in a franchise as big as the MCU. It's almost like you think everything he wrote and shot was pure gold and that Marvel were the ones keeping him down, when it even came up that test audiences didn't like certain things and that Marvel execs were trying to get him to address that in editing the film. Directors are not infallible and sometimes need for the execs to keep them on the path of the producers' vision for the film, since it is ultimately the director who works for the producer and not the other way around.

Also, I see how you're conveniently leaving out how TWS improved upon TFA and the Russo Bros. talked about how much of a collaborative effort it was between them, Feige, and several other Marvel producers.

Film is a Director's medium so this whole "execs and producers" should call the shots mentality you're supporting is poison.

That's why filmmakers like Iñárritu and Cuaron hate the corporate approach to fimmaking. It cripples the artist and in doing so cripples the art.

 

[Raiden]

You never give a director complete control, especially in a franchise as big as the MCU. It's almost like you think everything he wrote and shot was pure gold and that Marvel were the ones keeping him down, when it even came up that test audiences didn't like certain things and that Marvel execs were trying to get him to address that in editing the film. Directors are not infallible and sometimes need for the execs to keep them on the path of the producers' vision for the film, since it is ultimately the director who works for the producer and not the other way around.

Also, I see how you're conveniently leaving out how TWS improved upon TFA and the Russo Bros. talked about how much of a collaborative effort it was between them, Feige, and several other Marvel producers.

Exactly. And look over at WB where they supposedly gave their directors complete control. Aside from Chris Nolan, they had Bryan Singer (which gave them Superman Returns) and Martin Campbell (which gave them Green Lantern). Both Singer and Campbell were accomplished filmmakers before they accepted the job to make a DC superhero movie, and both men failed miserably, so much so that WB refused to make any sequel from their movies.

While I agree that too much control is a bad thing, I do think that for Marvel, it's a collaborative effort and they did gave Whedon a choice between cutting the farm or the cave. And Whedon's original plan to include both Capt. Marvel and Spider-Man at the end would not have worked as well, as neither character has been introduced in MCU. AOU is not a perfect movie, but I do feel that it's a superior film than the previous Avengers movie.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Film is a Director's medium so this whole "execs and producers" should call the shots mentality you're supporting is poison.

That's why filmmakers like Iñárritu and Cuaron hate the corporate approach to fimmaking. It cripples the artist and in doing so cripples the art.

While film can be looked at as a director's medium, it can also be a producer's medium if the movies are being created to build a larger universe, like what the MCU is doing. Director-oriented films work best if the goal is to create one-off, highly conceptualized pieces. Since that is not what is being done in the MCU, the producer/film studio president (Feige) is the one running the show, creating the general outline and shape of the universe with the directors being the ones who flesh out the finer details while fitting into that outline Feige gives them. There's nothing wrong with having a corporate way and a director's way because there are times and places for both in the film industry.

 

[Vartha]

A reminder to everyone......

Uncensored cursing is not allowed on here....so do not post pics or links to stories that have uncensored cursing in them.