Age of Ultron Your worries/concerns with Age of Ultron

[lukebrodyg]

For me the biggest problem with Superman not trying to help people, or avoid destruction, during the fight with Zod is that they missed out on a more compelling story arc of the fight, rather than just two super beings hitting each other over and over with no visible effect on either of them.

If they had Superman sacrifice himself to save people during the fight, allowing the ruthless Zod to take advantage and get the upper hand, that would have made for a more compelling fight in my view, as well as telling the audience even more about who Superman is (or at least should be in many people's view).

The thing with the huge destruction before that fight wasn't that things can't break but rather that many found it to be lacking in dynamic. It just turned up to 11 right away and kept going, making it monotonous.

This is just listing some things I and other people have complained about and I'm not seeking to make this a discussion on MoS (I'm nothing but happy for the people that liked it). The point I'm making is that there's nothing saying that large destruction is automatically a problem. It comes down to if you manage to create a good story to back it up, since just large effects alone isn't worth much. How are the heroes dealing with the destruction, how do you pace it, how do others react to what the heroes are doing (are they saviors or seen as a source of the problem), etc.

We've already seen the Avengers trying to save people, we've heard how one member reacts poorly to what he had to do in battle, there's a team with varied powers that allow for good variety in action scenes, we've heard that the Avengers get shunned by the world for bringing destruction to the world, etc. All these things indicate that this movie will be different from how MoS dealt with these issues. Then it's up to every individual to judge what he/she likes best.

Well said and fair.

 

[TheVision]

Ive rewatched IM3 several times and I enjoy it more every time. Im glad it wasnt just a rehash of IM 1 and 2. It has its own fresh style and humor that Shane Black brought to it.

 

[lukebrodyg]

I definitely find myself wanting to see it again but it's not a strong enough desire to make it happen. It definitely felt different than the previous two but I can't give it the notch over IM2 which I know some will say is crazy!

I'm really wondering if AOU can top the enjoyment of the first? So much was built up and it had never heen done. How can it possibly? But I'm excited to find out!

 

[kedrell]

I rank IM3 as the least of the series as well but I still very much like the movie. It's mid-to-lower level among all the rest of the MCU to me but I still like it better than Thor2, TIH and GotG.

 

[lukebrodyg]

Cap: WS
Avengers
IM
Cap: TFA
GOTG
IM2
TIH
IM3
Thor
Thor: DW

GOTG was enjoyable but not what people make it IMO. I like Thor in the Avengers but his solos just don't do it for me.

I have a feeling AOU will be up there. My only concern with it is too drastic a shift in tone.

 

[kedrell]

I rank IM3 right around the same level as Thor1. Gave both an 8/10. I put the rest of the IM and Cap movies as well as TA above them.

IM1
TA
TWS
TFA
IM2
IM3/Thor
GotG
TtDW
TIH

 

[Tony Stark]

mine's pretty similar Kedrell, except I rank GOTG and IM3 a little higher, and IM2 a little lower. Outside of the first 4, I don't think there's any huge differences for me quality or enjoyment wise, they're all close.

IM1
TA
TWS/GOTG
IM3
Thor1
TFA
IM2
TtDW
TIH

 

[kedrell]

Yeah to me the MCU is still chasing IM1 in quality even though 2 or 3 times they've come damn close to matching it. Granted, IM1 is my 2nd favorite movie of all time.

 

[Shikamaru]

I consider Iron Man, Avengers and TWS to be the "Trinity" of the MCU as far as quality goes, in the sense they're the films who set the standard and should be seen as some of the best in the genre. Guardians is up there, but I'd still rank it a tad below that level, as I think it has a few problems the other three didn't.

I would also argue Agent Carter is up there with those three films, if you consider it have 6/7-hour long film.

 

[TheVision]

^^ Def agree with those picks.

 

[Ghostcrow13]

It's funny because whilst Avengers is my number 1 CBM if AoU tops it, A1 won't just fall to number 2, it will fall quite far, because I think TWS, DK, IM are better films, it's just Avengers has the extra boost of being an Avengers film which will lose more value after AoU.

 

[kedrell]

IM1, TA , TWS and TFA are the only ones in the MCU that I'd call genuinely great. Gave them all at least a 9/10 or better.

 

[blake c]

Heres my list:
Captain America, The Winter Soldier
Iron Man 1
Guardians of The Galaxy
The Avengers
Iron man 3
Captain America, The First Avenger
Iron Man 2
Thor
Thor, The Dark World

 

[0siris]

I don't know if this is a "worry" but it is a hope that straddles an overall worry I have with who should be one of the MCU's cornerstone characters:

The redemption of Thor as a warrior. Thor is an anachronistic character. That's what makes him special and different. It's one thing to have a character arc about immaturity to maturity, from irresponsibility to responsibility, it's another to have a character arc from God of War to 21st Century pacifist. Thor should be dangerous, a threat to humanity's beliefs (both religious and anti-religious) and politics, just by his existence--as as god, as an alien, as an alien god. He should like a good fight--the question is whom he fights, and for what reason. He's a Viking, and should remain as such. His ethics should be different from modern man's, inferior in some ways but superior in others.

The first Thor and the first Avengers flirted with this to varying degrees, but it has been undermined since then, both in TDW with weinerfication of Thor ("then how does that make you any different Malekith?" wtf protest of Odin's plans to defend his own people from destruction) and even TWS, showing that it was probably Hydra and not Nick Fury seeking to recover Hydra weapons, essentially suggesting any attempts to counter Asgard as a potential threat to humanity as the "Nazi" thing to do (tainting Fury's rationale, with the appeal to Hitler fallacy), going against even the most liberal theories of international relations which suggest some level of common security measures against unknown entities are rational.

In addition, the overall weakness of Thor (and Loki) and their abilities has been an overall problem for me. Ultron is an opportunity to fix that. Bring out the warrior in Thor. Show how powerful he should have been. It leads to much more interesting tension among the Avengers and Thor's place in the MCU moving forward, particularly if he comes away from the Ultron experience with a reasonable disdain for humanity. This can reiterate the mindset that he is a god, at least compared to mankind, leading to either a) abandoning earth and leaving it to its own devices (which may be what happens since he likely is absent in Civil War) or b) leaving earth and reclaiming Asgard only to return as King Thor, seeking to be a benevolent but forceful god for an aimless species that makes stupid mistake after stupid mistake. In fact, Thor's chastisement of the rest of the humanity could be one of the things that leads to Civil War--his "pox on all of houses" retreat to space could be a Rorschach test to Iron Man and Cap, IM thinking its the lack of superpower gun control that led to Thor's disdain, Cap thinking its too much micromanagement and attempts to fix things that led to Thor's disdain.

 

[lukebrodyg]

I don't know if this is a "worry" but it is a hope that straddles an overall worry I have with who should be one of the MCU's cornerstone characters:

The redemption of Thor as a warrior. Thor is an anachronistic character. That's what makes him special and different. It's one thing to have a character arc about immaturity to maturity, from irresponsibility to responsibility, it's another to have a character arc from God of War to 21st Century pacifist. Thor should be dangerous, a threat to humanity's beliefs (both religious and anti-religious) and politics, just by his existence--as as god, as an alien, as an alien god. He should like a good fight--the question is whom he fights, and for what reason. He's a Viking, and should remain as such. His ethics should be different from modern man's, inferior in some ways but superior in others.

The first Thor and the first Avengers flirted with this to varying degrees, but it has been undermined since then, both in TDW with weinerfication of Thor ("then how does that make you any different Malekith?" wtf protest of Odin's plans to defend his own people from destruction) and even TWS, showing that it was probably Hydra and not Nick Fury seeking to recover Hydra weapons, essentially suggesting any attempts to counter Asgard as a potential threat to humanity as the "Nazi" thing to do (tainting Fury's rationale, with the appeal to Hitler fallacy), going against even the most liberal theories of international relations which suggest some level of common security measures against unknown entities are rational.

In addition, the overall weakness of Thor (and Loki) and their abilities has been an overall problem for me. Ultron is an opportunity to fix that. Bring out the warrior in Thor. Show how powerful he should have been. It leads to much more interesting tension among the Avengers and Thor's place in the MCU moving forward, particularly if he comes away from the Ultron experience with a reasonable disdain for humanity. This can reiterate the mindset that he is a god, at least compared to mankind, leading to either a) abandoning earth and leaving it to its own devices (which may be what happens since he likely is absent in Civil War) or b) leaving earth and reclaiming Asgard only to return as King Thor, seeking to be a benevolent but forceful god for an aimless species that makes stupid mistake after stupid mistake. In fact, Thor's chastisement of the rest of the humanity could be one of the things that leads to Civil War--his "pox on all of houses" retreat to space could be a Rorschach test to Iron Man and Cap, IM thinking its the lack of superpower gun control that led to Thor's disdain, Cap thinking its too much micromanagement and attempts to fix things that led to Thor's disdain.

I really like what you've said here. I've not been overly impressed with Thor's solo movies. Incorporating what you've said would make his story so much more compelling. I really like his challenge to Ultron in the AOU trailer. I would love to see him shift tonally in that way moving forward in the MCU.

 

[kedrell]

A lot to chew on there. But I am intrigued and yes Thor is currently coming in 3rd place to Cap and Tony among the sub-franchises. I'd love for him to get an extra boost and I believe Feige is well aware of this moving forward to Thor: Ragnarok which I hope will do for Thor in 2017 what TWS did for Cap last year.

 

[Stringer]

Let's be logical here, since that seems pretty hard to do around here.

You think they'll do all this building up to AOU only to take step down in the action?

The scale and the stakes aren't the concern. It's the execution. Whedon doesn't shine as an action director. I hoping in the end AOU will live up to my action standards but I haven't seen any indication of it thus far.

 

[Mjölnir]

That wish is not in line with Thor's character. He likes to fight but he would not want others to fight an unnecessary fight in the comics either, he's always been the guy that would fight for others. In TDW he isn't making a pacifistic choice at all, he's just taking on the battle himself to save others which is just what his character is.

In both comic and in myth Thor was the protector of mankind so there's just nothing in the sources to have him look down on that humanity needs a protector.

As for increasing his powers I'm all for that. There's a lot more that they can show, although he is technically still the only one that's shown that he can take on a wielder of an infinity stone single-handedly. At least Hemsworth's comments on his powers in AoU seem promising so I look forward to what they will do with him in that regard.

As for franchise, Thor has still not had a movie that uses his potential to the fullest (like I think TWS did for Cap) but I still hold his franchise as #1. I think Thor was the best solo of phase 1, and he had the second of phase 2 (Hulk and GotG is not in this comparison for obvious reasons). Cap comes second for me with being third in phase 1 and winning phase 2.

 

[0siris]

That wish is not in line with Thor's character. He likes to fight but he would not want others to fight an unnecessary fight in the comics either, he's always been the guy that would fight for others. In TDW he isn't making a pacifistic choice at all, he's just taking on the battle himself to save others which is just what his character is.

In both comic and in myth Thor was the protector of mankind so there's just nothing in the sources to have him look down on that humanity needs a protector.
.

I'm citing the King Thor storyline by Dan Jurgens, when Thor brings Asgard to earth in order to interfere with humanity's affairs for the good of humanity. This inspires a resurgence in "Thor worship" across the globe, as the savior for global chaos. I only read parts of it and it's been 10-15 years since it's release so I remember little beyond the idea, but conceptually it was one of the better extrapolations of "what Thor means to humanity." I just wasn't a big Dan Jurgens fan so its execution was subpar.

As for the TDW and pacifist, pacifist was an exaggeration to represent the general MCU trend where he is essentially ashamed of being Thor and de-Thors himself to live a schlub life with Jane Foster. Thor should enjoy being Thor. His tension lies in the fact that he has Viking bloodlust, but he is responsible in how he vents it. He should be out looking for the good fight, looking for injustice to right, looking for innocents to protect, and be willing to start a fight over it, as opposed to being passive or disdainful of battle. Asgard went out of its way to defend humanity from the Frost Giants--that should be Thor's ethos. There is more then enough tension and internal conflict or interpersonal-among-fellow-heroes conflict with that "need to fight but who to fight" concept, the noble but aggressive warrior, to tell a thousand stories, yet the MCU has abandoned such an approach and turned Thor into "an everyman." Peter Parker is an everyman. Thor is not.

 

[Mjölnir]

I'm citing the King Thor storyline by Dan Jurgens, when Thor brings Asgard to earth in order to interfere with humanity's affairs for the good of humanity. This inspires a resurgence in "Thor worship" across the globe, as the savior for global chaos. I only read parts of it and it's been 10-15 years since it's release so I remember little beyond the idea, but conceptually it was one of the better extrapolations of "what Thor means to humanity." I just wasn't a big Dan Jurgens fan so its execution was subpar.

As for the TDW and pacifist, pacifist was an exaggeration to represent the general MCU trend where he is essentially ashamed of being Thor and de-Thors himself to live a schlub life with Jane Foster. Thor should enjoy being Thor. His tension lies in the fact that he has Viking bloodlust, but he is responsible in how he vents it. He should be out looking for the good fight, looking for injustice to right, looking for innocents to protect, and be willing to start a fight over it, as opposed to being passive or disdainful of battle. Asgard went out of its way to defend humanity from the Frost Giants--that should be Thor's ethos. There is more then enough tension and internal conflict or interpersonal-among-fellow-heroes conflict with that "need to fight but who to fight" concept, the noble but aggressive warrior, to tell a thousand stories, yet the MCU has abandoned such an approach and turned Thor into "an everyman." Peter Parker is an everyman. Thor is not.

That was kind of a story to change things up though, as comics tend to try to do after gong on for many decades.

He's not ashamed of being Thor either, he just doesn't want to be king of Asgard. He is still the protector of Asgard, as he states at the end of TDW, and I don't know why you think he isn't looking to fight for justice as AoU begins with the Avengers beating down Hydra and having been at it for quite some time (the team is established and working as a unit by now).

If anything that's a choice that was more likely to lead him to battle than to sit on the throne of Asgard so I just don't see where you got the idea that he's being passive or disdainful of battle.

 

[InternetPeople]

I don't know if this is a "worry" but it is a hope that straddles an overall worry I have with who should be one of the MCU's cornerstone characters:

The redemption of Thor as a warrior. Thor is an anachronistic character. That's what makes him special and different. It's one thing to have a character arc about immaturity to maturity, from irresponsibility to responsibility, it's another to have a character arc from God of War to 21st Century pacifist. Thor should be dangerous, a threat to humanity's beliefs (both religious and anti-religious) and politics, just by his existence--as as god, as an alien, as an alien god. He should like a good fight--the question is whom he fights, and for what reason. He's a Viking, and should remain as such. His ethics should be different from modern man's, inferior in some ways but superior in others.

The first Thor and the first Avengers flirted with this to varying degrees, but it has been undermined since then, both in TDW with weinerfication of Thor ("then how does that make you any different Malekith?" wtf protest of Odin's plans to defend his own people from destruction) and even TWS, showing that it was probably Hydra and not Nick Fury seeking to recover Hydra weapons, essentially suggesting any attempts to counter Asgard as a potential threat to humanity as the "Nazi" thing to do (tainting Fury's rationale, with the appeal to Hitler fallacy), going against even the most liberal theories of international relations which suggest some level of common security measures against unknown entities are rational.

In addition, the overall weakness of Thor (and Loki) and their abilities has been an overall problem for me. Ultron is an opportunity to fix that. Bring out the warrior in Thor. Show how powerful he should have been. It leads to much more interesting tension among the Avengers and Thor's place in the MCU moving forward, particularly if he comes away from the Ultron experience with a reasonable disdain for humanity. This can reiterate the mindset that he is a god, at least compared to mankind, leading to either a) abandoning earth and leaving it to its own devices (which may be what happens since he likely is absent in Civil War) or b) leaving earth and reclaiming Asgard only to return as King Thor, seeking to be a benevolent but forceful god for an aimless species that makes stupid mistake after stupid mistake. In fact, Thor's chastisement of the rest of the humanity could be one of the things that leads to Civil War--his "pox on all of houses" retreat to space could be a Rorschach test to Iron Man and Cap, IM thinking its the lack of superpower gun control that led to Thor's disdain, Cap thinking its too much micromanagement and attempts to fix things that led to Thor's disdain.

This is great

 

[TalismanRing]

God or Pseudo God, Thor having a disdain for humanity for making stupid mistakes would make him come off as a self deluded hypocrite about his own bone headed past mistakes. Courting war with the Frost Giants ring a bell? Trusting Loki again ring another? Not to mention it was a member of his own family who first tried to invade Earth.

Why then would Iron Man or Cap care about his disdain? They just might unite in saying good riddance and avoid Civil War entirely.

 

[BigThor]

The scale and the stakes aren't the concern. It's the execution. Whedon doesn't shine as an action director. I hoping in the end AOU will live up to my action standards but I haven't seen any indication of it thus far.

Not really a "step down"... Some of us just prefer to see more hand to hand combat action scenes like in The Raid 2 and Cap 2 than the large epic CGI battle scenes that we've seen in so many big budget films. I know AoU is suppose to fall into the epic CGI category, but it doesn't get me as excited as the hand to hand category.

Hopefully Daredevil can achieve that for me even if it's on the small screen.

Fair enough, but with Thor vs Vision, IM vs Hulk, and Cap vs QS you "might" just get your wish.

You all think the choreographer from TWS is involved in this film for the fun of it? Nah he's involved to help bring us more TWS styled action on a larger scale.

 

[Solaire]

I too saw Snowpiercer, John Wick, Cap 2 and Kingsman. Those were great action films with some amazing fighting and gunplay. But I won't think of them one but while watching AoU. The fights in the TWS were the best fights I've seen in any comic film, much better than any Batman( which is why I tend to be disappointed in Nolan Batman) but I also love the large scale battles that we saw in Avengers and GOTG. I'm still smiling from that trailer, it did an amazing job at teasing some action moment I WANNA see lol.

And since I see some rankings I'll say. TWS, Iron Man, GOTG, Avengers are the greats in the MCU for me. Films I've seen numerous times in theaters due to how much I enjoyed them.

 

[Just_Human]

Im hoping the scepter wont give Ultron his consciousness

But in the 3rd trailer, we see Stark experimenting with the scepter, and in the 2nd Thor tells him : "you have meddled with something you don't understand"

Was Thor referring to something from another World (scepter)?

Plus, we have that Pinocchio reference....