- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Avenger: AoU Reviews (**MAJOR SPOILERS**)
Posted on 5/4/15 at 10:50 am to VaBamaMan
Posted on 5/4/15 at 10:50 am to VaBamaMan
quote:i agree that could be true
That is the way SW made it seem. Now I think Abell was right, it was the scepter. The "AI" in the scepter using the power of the mind stone.
the only thing i have been arguing with Abell, is that there has been tons of character development throughout the Iron Man movies, especially in the first Avengers, that leads to Stark to logically making the decision he did in AoU without the writers shitting on the Tony Stark character.
1
Posted on 5/4/15 at 10:50 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Again, it's a comic book movie. What exactly were you expecting?
oh godPosted on 5/4/15 at 10:51 am to abellsujr
quote:
As long as you know.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 10:51 am to DelU249
Great well thought out response. Sorry the source material isn't intellectual enough for you.
This post was edited on 5/4/15 at 11:21 am
Posted on 5/4/15 at 10:52 am to DelU249
quote:
Again, it's a comic book movie. What exactly were you expecting?
oh god
winter solidier had a great plot, as did guardians of the galaxy. Days of future past had a pretty good plot although it was put together pretty horribly.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 10:57 am to DelU249
quote:like i said you're expecting the story to be on par intellectually with ex machina.....
people who like shiny lights?
are you now of the opinion this movie is made for little kids?
not to mention that an explanation like that was probably not seen as needed bc it wouldnt have been in line with the themes Whedon wanted.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 10:57 am to abellsujr
quote:
iron man is an a-hole
Yes.
Iron Man has been an a-hole from Scene One of Movie One. He's based on a character who is an a-hole in the comics. He has been reliably portrayed as an a-hole in every film. And now its some sort of criticism that he's an a-hole in this movie as well? That makes no sense. That's the character.
That's like complaining that the hero of James Bond movies is a womanizer. I mean, that's the damn character.
I do like how hard DC partisans, particularly Mulder, are trying to push the city destruction angle, as that was a charhe lobbed at MOS. It doesn't fit at all, but damn it, they will make it work because that's how my beloved property was criticized so I will get Marvel back! I'm an enraged fanboy who will now try and deflect criticism by complaining about fanboys rooting for the other team!
Not that one can't enjoy both a DC and a Marvel property.
However, the "innocent civilians" complaint makes no sense regarding Ultron considering this move bent over backwards, to an almost comical degree, to demonstrate how our heroes were minimizing or outright preventing civilian casualties. In fact, it was to the point where it was legitimately distracting. And, it took away from the Hulk's narrative arc, as he refused to go green again due to his culpability in civilian deaths as the Hulk, Yet since the movie went into contortions to show that there were NO civilian casualties and all the buildings destroyed were empty and going to be purchased by Stark, then that arc makes less sense and loses its power.
It's like people had a talking point before the movie ever came out they were going to lob as a criticism, still smarting over the Superman criticism, and they are going to use that talking point even though the film's problem is the exact tonal opposite.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 10:58 am to Hawkeye95
yeah, character development of any kind is too intellectual, shut up and turn on the bright lights!
Ultron was packed with potential
as was he and stark's "relationship" or whatever (and a theme Prometheus did poorly, ex machine hit out of the park, and the avengers made an oblivious mention of)
they just mention he's hacking into the nukes, but why wouldn't he shut down the banks and everything else to create distractions so that he could carry out his plan
Ultron was packed with potential
as was he and stark's "relationship" or whatever (and a theme Prometheus did poorly, ex machine hit out of the park, and the avengers made an oblivious mention of)
they just mention he's hacking into the nukes, but why wouldn't he shut down the banks and everything else to create distractions so that he could carry out his plan
Posted on 5/4/15 at 10:59 am to NorthShoreTiger44
I walked out of it not all that wowed, but felt it was solid. And it made me reopen my Infinity Gauntlet compendium to reread the demise of Thanos.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 10:59 am to jeff5891
quote:
the only thing i have been arguing with Abell, is that there has been tons of character development throughout the Iron Man movies, especially in the first Avengers, that leads to Stark to logically making the decision he did in AoU without the writers shitting on the Tony Stark character.
Yes and No. The character is almost bipolar in some ways. He does think he is the one who should save humanity. Simultaneously he is more intelligent than to iniate something he doesn't know the result of in the slightest. His decisions in the past he always had at least a fairly clear vision of what he was doing would create. This is the first time he went on a complete lark to create something that would drastically change humanities future. Even he isn't that stupid.
I think it is a bigger farce that he was able to talk Banner into it.
Btw, we never got an explanation of why Jarvis was suddenly fit to be what he originally "needed" the scepter's "AI" to be, when creating Ultron. I think that might be the bigger sign of him being influenced. He has Jarvis, Jarvis doesn't work. He creates Ultron. Then he decides to do it again, but he has nothing else to use for an AI, yet he is still so moved to go through with building it, that Jarvis is suddenly perfect for it. It is strange. It's also another sign pointing to him being continually influenced.
This post was edited on 5/4/15 at 11:04 am
Posted on 5/4/15 at 11:02 am to jeff5891
ex machina isn't a movie for geniuses, it's just an awesome movie.
almost all movie goers respond to this kind of stimuli, whether or not they realize it is up for debate
quote:what themes? I guess that is my point. This movie is without subtext, imagery or anything visually creative. beyond the action scenes, it's all kind of static.
the themes Whedon wanted
almost all movie goers respond to this kind of stimuli, whether or not they realize it is up for debate
Posted on 5/4/15 at 11:03 am to Baloo
quote:
However, the "innocent civilians" complaint makes no sense regarding Ultron considering this move bent over backwards, to an almost comical degree, to demonstrate how our heroes were minimizing or outright preventing civilian casualties. In fact, it was to the point where it was legitimately distracting. And, it took away from the Hulk's narrative arc, as he refused to go green again due to his culpability in civilian deaths as the Hulk, Yet since the movie went into contortions to show that there were NO civilian casualties and all the buildings destroyed were empty and going to be purchased by Stark, then that arc makes less sense and loses its power.
that is to be expected in a movie with that much action, they can't show people dying at that clip as the movie clearly has a younger audience in mind. Its ok to kill robots, even kids know that, but killing people is a little bit more taboo. well at least at that scale.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 11:04 am to LNCHBOX
quote:So, the whole, "we're a team" thing from the first Avengers had no bearing on his character? How about his tough as nails, battle it out personality? Both of which he throws out the window here. I had more respect for Tony Stark than to think he could want to blow up his equipment and build a all powerful robot that could destroy the world with AI he didn't fully understand without consulting his crew. a-hole, yes. Smart arse, yes. Careless, maybe, but not when the world is at stake. Stupid, no.
You're completely blind to the character. Would you rather me say you're apparently too stupid to follow a comic book movie? I chose what I thought was the least insulting of the two.
This whole, "they want to set up Civil War" stuff is fine. I understand that somebody has to turn to the darkside a little. I'm just not going to say that the way Tony acted when he constructed Ultron is fully in character with what the MCU has created. Like some have said, he looked like a villain in some cases. But like I also said, I believe he was blinded a little bit by the power of the gem.
I don't understand why people are so insulted by this.
This post was edited on 5/4/15 at 11:07 am
Posted on 5/4/15 at 11:06 am to Hawkeye95
I'd rather just have people die. need something at stake
take TDKR, which everyone here thinks is some massive turd
you see the people in the streets dying, cops are killed...there are stakes. there is sacrifice. the actions are heroic because there is something at stake and people making sacrifices
ultron is a fun movie; but my god is there anything wrong with it? nothing? some of these posters are looney tunes
take TDKR, which everyone here thinks is some massive turd
you see the people in the streets dying, cops are killed...there are stakes. there is sacrifice. the actions are heroic because there is something at stake and people making sacrifices
ultron is a fun movie; but my god is there anything wrong with it? nothing? some of these posters are looney tunes
Posted on 5/4/15 at 11:06 am to Baloo
quote:
Iron Man has been an a-hole from Scene One of Movie One. He's based on a character who is an a-hole in the comics. He has been reliably portrayed as an a-hole in every film. And now its some sort of criticism that he's an a-hole in this movie as well? That makes no sense. That's the character.
That's like complaining that the hero of James Bond movies is a womanizer. I mean, that's the damn character.
I do like how hard DC partisans, particularly Mulder, are trying to push the city destruction angle, as that was a charhe lobbed at MOS. It doesn't fit at all, but damn it, they will make it work because that's how my beloved property was criticized so I will get Marvel back! I'm an enraged fanboy who will now try and deflect criticism by complaining about fanboys rooting for the other team!
Not that one can't enjoy both a DC and a Marvel property.
However, the "innocent civilians" complaint makes no sense regarding Ultron considering this move bent over backwards, to an almost comical degree, to demonstrate how our heroes were minimizing or outright preventing civilian casualties. In fact, it was to the point where it was legitimately distracting. And, it took away from the Hulk's narrative arc, as he refused to go green again due to his culpability in civilian deaths as the Hulk, Yet since the movie went into contortions to show that there were NO civilian casualties and all the buildings destroyed were empty and going to be purchased by Stark, then that arc makes less sense and loses its power.
It's like people had a talking point before the movie ever came out they were going to lob as a criticism, still smarting over the Superman criticism, and they are going to use that talking point even though the film's problem is the exact tonal opposite.
It's not wrong to make the comparison of the destruction in the two movies. I'm sure that MOS was in the minds of the Avengers writers as they made sure that every point of destruction was addressed either visually or with a line of script ("Has Stark Relief Services been notified?"). They made sure that they had an out for any criticism of their destroying two cities.
One opportunity that Avengers had that MOS did not, is that they're a team and not one individual superhero. When writing Avengers, you're actually looking for something for the non-powered heroes to do. So you write in hordes of opponents and put the scrubs in charge of crowd control and evacuation. Something that Superman doesn't have the luxury of doing.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 11:07 am to DelU249
quote:
This movie is without subtext,
Do what now? There was all kinds of subtext.
quote:
imagery or anything visually creative
This I can agree with. Nothing truly new was used from a visual standpoint. Yeah there were things what were spectacular to see. There wasnt anything that was a OH WOW moment from a visual/image standpoint though.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 11:08 am to VaBamaMan
quote:And so easily. This is something I have also been thinking about.
I think it is a bigger farce that he was able to talk Banner into it.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 11:09 am to VaBamaMan
quote:I know what they were shooting for, but when it is flat out stated in the dialogue, it's not really subtext.
There was all kinds of subtext
Posted on 5/4/15 at 11:11 am to abellsujr
quote:
So, the whole, "we're a team" thing from the first Avengers had no bearing on his character? How about his tough as nails, battle it out personality? Both of which he throws out the window here. I had more respect for Tony Stark than to think he could want to blow up his equipment and build a all powerful robot that could destroy the world with AI he didn't fully understand without consulting his crew. a-hole, yes. Smart arse, yes. Careless, maybe, but not when the world is at stake. Stupid, no.
This whole, "they want to set up Civil War" stuff is fine. I understand that somebody has to turn to the darkside a little. I'm just not going to say that the way Tony acted when he constructed Ultron is fully in character with what the MCU has created. Like some have said, he looked like a villain in some cases. But like I also said, I believe he was blinded a little bit by the power of the gem.
It would've been nice if we had seen the Avengers as a fully formed team for just one film. Instead we saw them infight until they were a team, then infight until they broke up. Now we have the next version of Avengers, but they'll have minimal exposure before we get to the Infinity Wars, where we'll have a mish-mash of the two teams forming a third version of the Avengers.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 11:13 am to DelU249
quote:so if i say Avengers isnt on par intellectually with ex Machina, that means ex Machina is a movie for geniuses?
ex machina isn't a movie for geniuses,
I feel like im constantly falling for the fallacy trap.
quote:
what themes?
quote:that sensory overload you talked about when you got out the film probably got in the way.
This movie is without subtext,
Freauxzen had a pretty decent write up on it, did you read that?
This post was edited on 5/4/15 at 11:15 am
Page 14 of 27
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News