www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmeOjFno6Do (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmeOjFno6Do)
The trailer was released a week earlier because a low Res version somehow got leaked.
So far, this looks even better than the first Avengers movie. Thoughts?
I was underwhelmed, to be perfectly honest.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 24 Oct 2014, 00:08
I was underwhelmed, to be perfectly honest.
Considering how excited I am for this film I felt similarly to you, but I'm still excited, especially when I take into context how much ground this film is going to cover, from the apparent infiltration of the European HYDRA base/cell, the introduction of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, Tony Stark creating Ultron, Iron Man versus Hulk, and finally Ultron going mad and attempting to take over the world/The Avengers teaming up to destroy him. Not to mention all the various team-dynamics (it looks like Thor isn't too happy with Tony Stark, and hopefully Hawkeye and Nick Fury will also have something to do).
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 24 Oct 2014, 00:08
I was underwhelmed, to be perfectly honest.
Same here, but I'm confident that the movie will be satisfactory.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 24 Oct 2014, 10:53
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 24 Oct 2014, 00:08
I was underwhelmed, to be perfectly honest.
Same here, but I'm confident that the movie will be satisfactory.
I think it will be more than satisfactory.
The first Avengers movie is one of the best comic-book movies of all time.
It is, but will Ultron be as great as Loki?
I'm not as excited at this stage as I was in late 2011 when we had the first Avengers trailer. That being said I don't doubt this film will deliver. It might even be better in the sense that we have the whole "Avengers Initiative" out of the way and don't need to spend screen time to bring them together.
The Avengers fighting and quarelling with each other was one of the good aspects of the first film as well as Hawkeye becoming a villain for the first half, it could be interesting to see Stark on the other side especially if they set up a civil war.
Though if the civil war takes place, I wonder if they'll reverse the roles from the comics? Evans Rogers seems far more likely to sign off on superhero registration than Stark would.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 25 Oct 2014, 20:59
It is, but will Ultron be as great as Loki?
No, he'll be even better. :)
Quote from: riddler on Sun, 26 Oct 2014, 00:27
The Avengers fighting and quarelling with each other was one of the good aspects of the first film as well as Hawkeye becoming a villain for the first half, it could be interesting to see Stark on the other side especially if they set up a civil war.
It looks like Banner will lose it and might become the Savage Hulk in this one. The shots of him shivering like a recovering drug addict suggests things will be tough for him this time around, and I look forward to seeing him go up against Iron Man in the Hulk Destroyer costume.
As far as group dynamics go I love the shot of Thor grabbing Tony Stark's neck. It reminds me of Chewbacca doing something similar to turncoat Lando in 'The Empire Strikes Back' which Joss Whedon has referenced when discussing his second Avengers film. It seems like the group are going to have plenty of reasons to be peeved off with Stark.
QuoteThough if the civil war takes place, I wonder if they'll reverse the roles from the comics? Evans Rogers seems far more likely to sign off on superhero registration than Stark would.
I don't think so.
Remember that Steve Rogers, who makes a habit of snooping around, already has very good reason to be suspicious of the government following the events of 'The Winter Soldier' whereas Tony Stark has always had an, admittedly uneasy but mutually beneficial, alliance with the government who he contracts his weapons to.
I think Tony will want to redeem himself with the government and the public at large after precipitating the events of The Age of Ultron and will align himself with the government via the Superhero Registration Act, which will be a big shame for him because it will only further solidify him as a villain of sorts, at least in the audience's eyes.
I was also a lot more excited for the first Avengers movie too, but I'm still eager to see this one.
What makes you say Ultron will be better than Loki, Johnnygobbs? :)
Good enough rational for me JB, i guess we'll have to wait and see. I kind of hope the spider-man cross over comes true for the next phase.
So far in the first 2 films both villains are connected to one of the heroes; Loki to Thor and Ultron to Stark. The difference being Stark actually creates Ultron.
Perhaps if Banner loses it, could we see a mini civil war here? Cap and Thor vs. Hulk and Iron Man?
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 26 Oct 2014, 09:23
I was also a lot more excited for the first Avengers movie too, but I'm still eager to see this one.
What makes you say Ultron will be better than Loki, Johnnygobbs? :)
He's played by James Spader.
He is the actual creation of one of the Avengers.
He starts off as an apparent hero.
He won't need to call upon aliens to do his dirty work.
He looks awesome in the trailer: "There are no strings on me". 8)
Agreed! I'm all for Ultron topping Loki then.
That line about strings started off lots of parodies of Pinocchio as Ultron . I guess more publicity is good. ;D
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 26 Oct 2014, 14:41
Agreed! I'm all for Ultron topping Loki then.
That line about strings started off lots of parodies of Pinocchio as Ultron . I guess more publicity is good. ;D
Do you have a link?
http://comicbook.com/2014/10/25/best-avengers-age-of-ultron-and-pinocchio-mashup-so-far/ (http://comicbook.com/2014/10/25/best-avengers-age-of-ultron-and-pinocchio-mashup-so-far/)
:)
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 26 Oct 2014, 16:10
http://comicbook.com/2014/10/25/best-avengers-age-of-ultron-and-pinocchio-mashup-so-far/ (http://comicbook.com/2014/10/25/best-avengers-age-of-ultron-and-pinocchio-mashup-so-far/)
:)
;D
I like the final shot of Pinocchio without the strings. He looks evil and it's like a horror film.
Another trailer was released a fortnight ago. And it still give the film a grim, ominous tone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZoO8QVMxkk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZoO8QVMxkk)
It's definitely certain that this will be yet another game-changer for Marvel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WM915QsOyI&hd=1
New tv spot and it looks much better here. I still think we're going to be in for a very similar movie to the first but should still be fun.
Quote from: Grissom on Mon, 30 Mar 2015, 21:53New tv spot and it looks much better here. I still think we're going to be in for a very similar movie to the first but should still be fun.
Now that they're established as comrades, I'm looking forward to seeing the various team members fall out and take one another on.
I just got out after seeing this tonight. It's an enjoyable movie, but not as good as the first Avengers.
The main positives is this movie has a bigger focus on the heroes, especially the ones who some complained got 'short shrift' in the first film i.e. Hawkeye and Black Widow. Despite the Hulk not getting more screen time as promised, he does have an important story-line with another character (I won't say who). Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch were inserted into the plot with reason, and they made sense. Vision maybe was a little rushed, but he had a unique personality as an AI that played well with Thor. Anyone who is afraid that the film could be too bleak like in the first trailer need not be afraid - the humour is lively and fun as ever.
My gripes in this movie, however, is that I didn't find Ultron to be that threatening as I thought he would be, until the last twenty minutes, and the film had unusually blatant exposition going on. There slightly are a bit too many characters this time around. The product placement was obvious, but you'd expect that in Hollywood blockbuster films.
Strangely, not too much about the movie drastically changed the rest of the Marvel Universe like The Winter Soldier did. It's not a critique by the way - just an observation.
All in all, entertaining - but the first Avengers was better plotted, and I think Captain America: The Winter Solder raised the bar in Phase 2 of the MCU.
Just saw it myself. Without giving anything away, I didn't think it was as good as the first Avengers or the more recent TWS and GOTG, but I enjoyed it overall, I can't say I was really disappointed. It's a good entry in the MCU as it stands, but not the best.
Trying to stay clear of spoilers, but I see that Age of Ultron is gathering a general reception that isn't quite as warm as the first Avengers film. Looking forward to checking it out this Thursday night. Made an attempt to see a double feature of Avengers 1+2, but unfortunately can't get all friends together for a 4PM start time, but oh well. Guess the 7PM single feature is going to have to do.
agree with the last few posts; enjoyable for sure but a step and a half behind the first film. Ultron wasn't overly threatening and not as fun as Loki.
My complaints (if you can call it that) is what I feared would be the problem with the first film: overcharacterization. I don't generally read avengers comics, I prefer the ones which stick to one or two heroes. I find the avengers comics to be too much endless fighting with very little of the characters out of costume. Part of the appeal of super heroes are that they are regular people with double lives but this film didn't show much of the heroes 'other sides'. Let's be honest the fight scenes dragged on too long much the same as the dark knight rises and man of steel.
Now the above being said, there was still quite a bit to enjoy. Ruffalo is really good as Banner. Vision an scarlett witch looked like they walked off a comic page. I am very excited about the civil war and this one did start early elements of it; Stark and Banner keeping secrets and working on things without the rest. I did feel it gives a good set up for stage three and am quite excited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJGGWhQBpOg
In the past, I used to dismiss the criticism over this scene and never took the accusations of Whedon being a mysogynist seriously. I thought this was supposed to show Natasha's sadness of being forged into a killing machine to the point her training tried to deprive her of having any shred of humanity. But after all the scandals involving Whedon that we've read over the past five years, and most importantly, poor Charisma Carpenter sharing her own horrible experience while she was pregnant behind the scenes of Angel, I now believe the criticisms of Bruce and Natasha's exchange in AOU are valid.
Quote
Carpenter, 50, was in her early 30s when she worked on the shows, which both premiered in the late '90s. A 2002 pregnancy led to more negative behavior from Whedon, she wrote, such as him "refusing" to take calls from her agents to share the news and calling her "fat" despite her only weighing 126 pounds at the time.
"Once Joss was appraised of the (pregnancy), he requested a meeting with me," Carpenter wrote. "In that closed-door meeting, he asked if I was 'going to keep it' and manipulatively weaponized my womanhood and faith against me. He proceeded to attack my character, mock my religious beliefs, accuse me of sabotaging the show, and then unceremoniously fired me the following season once I gave birth."
Carpenter has spoken in the past about how her pregnancy affected her time on "Angel," saying at a 2009 convention that she thought Whedon was "mad at (her)" and suggesting to Complex in 2018 that the production did not account for her pregnancy when scheduling the show. In her statement, Carpenter said that when she was six months pregnant, she was "asked to report to work at 1:00 AM" despite her doctor "recommending (she) shorten (her) work hours."
"Due to long and physically demanding days and the emotional stress of having to defend my needs as a working pregnant woman, I began to experience Braxton Hicks contractions," Carpenter wrote. "It was clear to me the 1:00 AM call was retaliatory ... Back then, I felt powerless and alone. With no other option, I swallowed the mistreatment and carried on."
https://www.today.com/news/charisma-carpenter-accuses-buffy-creator-joss-whedon-cruel-behavior-t208681
Joss Whedon not only has serious women issues, he seems to hate the idea of procreation too. What a vile, awful excuse for a human being.
Since we're at it, there's been plenty of speculation that Whedon has some sort of antipathy to romantic couples. The best example is Buffy's series finale, where Anya and Spike (both fan-favorite characters) were killed off. Now yes, Spike was eventually brought back. But that was to save Angel from cancellation. His original death in Buffy looks pretty final because it was intended to be final. Anya had been with Xander for a few years and same with Buffy and Spike.
Basically, the two romantic couples on the show had been split up IN THE FINALE, when there was nothing further to gain on a dramatic level anymore. Maybe you could argue that Spike sacrificed himself and died a hero, which somewhat redeemed him after some bad decisions he'd made and that justified killing him off. But killing off both Anya AND Spike in the finale was pretty controversial to a lot of fans. There was no obvious reason to kill off either character in the finale. But it happened anyway and fans were very vocal about that.
And now that I think about it, that seems to have been the first crack in Whedon's armor. Everyone noticed that the characters who died were in longstanding romantic relationships. And people wondered if that wasn't the reason they were killed off.
It has been years since I watched Buffy and Angel, but I remember hearing Spike was supposed to get killed off in his first few appearances. The network strong-armed Whedon into keeping keeping him alive instead, because he became a huge fan favourite, much to Whedon's anger. James Marsters revealed Whedon had pushed him against the wall and promising he would kill him off the show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hynZ2j9M9IE