Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

[InuYashaCrusade]

Originally Posted by rickah88

The whole disc, or just the exclusive content?

Pretty sure exclusive content

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by InuYashaCrusade

Pretty sure exclusive content

That's what I figured, but with the way Disney is scaling back on all things disc related, unfortunately, this wouldn't surprise me.

[onyx527]

Originally Posted by Hellraiserfan

You think X1 was better than X-men 2??

X1 even when it was first released looked and felt like a made for TV film. I still enjoy it for the most part but X2 was a huge step up.

...wat

X2 is great, but X1 is amazing. Made for TV?? What are you smoking?

That first scene with Wolverine is one of the best.

Apologies to the thread, back on topic: Age of Ultron was pretty lousy. It was such a disappointment after Avengers 1, which is one of the funnest movies ever made.

[GxyExpress999]

[Show spoiler]

[explorer6]

The reason Loki's scene was cut from the movie was because of the potential confusion it caused with test viewers.

"I was part of the dream sequence for the character of Thor," Hiddleston told Digital Spy. "I shot for a day, and I enjoyed it very much, and then I received a phone call from [Marvel Studios President] Kevin Feige...who said, basically, in test screenings, audiences had sort of overemphasized Loki's role. So they thought that because I was in it, I was controlling Ultron, and that it was actually imbalancing peoples' expectations."

Hiddleston wasn't bitter about his part being trimmed, however.

"It made sense to me when I saw the film. Ultron was the bad guy. That was important. And that's why Loki wasn't in it."

It does kind of make sense upon seeing the movie, if Loki was included being such a big character in the movies there could've been confusion as to what role he plays in the events, or disappointment that he's not playing a bigger role. Also taking into account Loki's scepter already playing a part which might give further support to Loki's role in things in that context.

I can see why the decision was made. There was already so many characters receiving focus.

Recent interview:
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/new...pqihenE8rzYBUG

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by explorer6

A filler movie?

Yes, a filler movie. TO ME! Meaning: it's not very good, and I really could do without it, but the only reason I would own it is to complete the collection because it does indeed tie in with everything else, BUT, just like I said... it's not very good.

[explorer6]

Originally Posted by Darkstream

Yes, a filler movie. TO ME! Meaning: it's not very good, and I really could do without it, but the only reason I would own it is to complete the collection because it does indeed tie in with everything else, BUT, just like I said... it's not very good.

It still wouldn't be a filler movie because it all ties together and so it has a purpose and vision not simply there to fill time. One could argue that it's a "lead in" movie because

[Show spoiler]it's leading into Thanos who's the villain of villains... however, like i said that basically would mean everything was a lead in because it's all leading to the big showdown with Thanos. If you choose to look at it that way he's the main event so to speak. Ultron is a pretty big villain in his own right, i would disagree with that way of looking at it... Just because he was defeated and it leads to something seemingly "bigger" doesn't really take away from anything it's simply a new adventure imo.

I think people sometimes confuse something not being good and them not liking it. There's a big difference.

50 percent of the movie experience is the viewer themselves. Anyone can test this from their own experiences. Try watching a movie sometime where you're not in a "good vibe" mode, distracted, frustrated about life, etc, etc... then come back to the same movie at a different point in your life and see if the experience is any different? If so... the movie itself didn't change, you did. In that regard the viewer's state of mind/state of being is equally important to the quality of the movie for that person's experience. Then you factor in personal preferences to the equation and the rabbit hole gets even deeper.

To say it isn't a good movie, one would have to remove all of that... personal, and be able to look at it from multiple perspectives and be of open mind as "good" in the context of art can be quite subjective/relative in a lot of ways and which not many people are able to separate the personal .

Myself included, i love Whedon.. he's a personal hero of mine and so no matter how good i am at separating the personal there's most likely always going to be a little bias with me in regard to Whedon. I do try to keep an open mind and see the other side of it and not just be a fanboy blind to anything other than "Whedon is god" though but i realize my love for Whedon is going to translate into my love for his work somewhat. If i didn't know Whedon had a part in this movie and saw it blind i'd still love it and i'm confident and fully believe it's a great, fun movie experience though.
Some people might love DC, some people might prefer dark/realistic/serious, some people might see a movie in a bad vibe state of being, etc, etc... Whatever the case, it's very difficult to completely separate the personal as such.

With that said and being considered, is one still committed to saying this isn't a good movie. If so... fair enough.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by explorer6

It still wouldn't be a filler movie because it all ties together and so it has a purpose and vision not simply there to fill time. One could argue that it's a "lead in" movie because

[Show spoiler]it's leading into Thanos who's the villain of villains... however, like i said that basically would mean everything was a lead in because it's all leading to the big showdown with Thanos. If you choose to look at it that way he's the main event so to speak. Ultron is a pretty big villain in his own right, i would disagree with that way of looking at it... Just because he was defeated and it leads to something seemingly "bigger" doesn't really take away from anything it's simply a new adventure imo.

I think people sometimes confuse something not being good and them not liking it. There's a big difference.

50 percent of the movie experience is the viewer themselves. Anyone can test this from their own experiences. Try watching a movie sometime where you're not in a "good vibe" mode, distracted, frustrated about life, etc, etc... then come back to the same movie at a different point in your life and see if the experience is any different? If so... the movie itself didn't change, you did. In that regard the viewer's state of mind/state of being is equally important to the quality of the movie for that person's experience. Then you factor in personal preferences to the equation and the rabbit hole gets even deeper.

To say it isn't a good movie, one would have to remove all of that... personal, and be able to look at it from multiple perspectives and be of open mind as "good" in the context of art can be quite subjective/relative in a lot of ways and which not many people are able to separate the personal .

Myself included, i love Whedon.. he's a personal hero of mine and so no matter how good i am at separating the personal there's most likely always going to be a little bias with me in regard to Whedon. I do try to keep an open mind and see the other side of it and not just be a fanboy blind to anything other than "Whedon is god" though but i realize my love for Whedon is going to translate into my love for his work somewhat. If i didn't know Whedon had a part in this movie and saw it blind i'd still love it and i'm confident and fully believe it's a great, fun movie experience though.
Some people might love DC, some people might prefer dark/realistic/serious, etc, etc... Whatevr the case, it's very difficult to completely separate the personal as such.

Let's just say, I didn't like it. It will be filler on my shelf. I hated the opening sequence with the forced comic-booky splashpage CG action sequence (although Cap flipping his bike was friggin cool), I hated Ultron's human personality (he should have been a cold machine), I hated the lame Hawkeye family thread, I hated the fact the whole climax revolves around a third world country being elevated off the Earth. There are some great moments, but as a whole, it's not one of Whedon's finest moments in filmmaking (certainly not on the level of the first Avengers or Firefly/Serenity).

[lkmg]

Too bad this doesn't come with a lenticular slip to match my 1st Avengers one.

[jaredofmo]

Originally Posted by cheecheung

To anybody that ordered the 3D edition from amazon, did it come in a red amaray case? Thanks

I can confirm it did. All retailers should have it, unless they've done a second run where they've decided to drop the red case and go back to standard blue. (You can bet that someday, it'll be reissued with a different colored case. When? Hell if I know.)

[explorer6]

Originally Posted by Darkstream

Let's just say, I didn't like it. It will be filler on my shelf. I hated the opening sequence with the forced comic-booky splashpage CG action sequence (although Cap flipping his bike was friggin cool), I hated Ultron's human personality (he should have been a cold machine), I hated the lame Hawkeye family thread, I hated the fact the whole climax revolves around a third world country being elevated off the Earth. There are some great moments, but as a whole, it's not one of Whedon's finest moments in filmmaking (certainly not on the level of the first Avengers or Firefly/Serenity).

Fair enough but to me that's more personal preference than any indication of a good/bad movie.

It wasn't a good movie to you personally.

I loved the Hawkeye stuff and thought it elevated the character and provided needed depth because before this movie i felt the character had been lacking from a team perspective. and after this movie i was seeing Hawkeye as a valued and crucial member bringing that "human" aspect to a team of larger than life gods among mortals.

I'd imagine that Ultron had such a personality because he was created by Stark combined with it being more in line with a family friendly adventure. There was also a strange blurred line with Ultron vs human

[Show spoiler] in that he seemed to hate how humanity was but at the same time the body he's creating for himself was extremely human in the same way he despised Stark but couldn't help but emulate his creator in a lot of ways. There might have been some malfunctioning in Tony's original programming that caused this where Ultron seemed to still have some of his original programming but it was all warped and twisted around. I could be wrong on that but that's the vibe i was getting. There's a lot of contrast there, he's joking but then casually cutting a guy's arm off which again speaks to this possible mixed wires thing.

To be honest that doesn't seem like too much criticism really, it's only a few things but i guess if you really hated Ultron and he was such a big part of the movie i could see how it can ruin the experience. It did take me awhile to appreciate the Ultron character... i've seen James Spader in a lot of things so it was difficult to separate his voice from him and put it to Ultron and he was somewhat of an unconventional villain but once i embraced it and let go of expectations and preconceptions i thought he was pretty awesome and came to enjoy Ultron.

[pjl80]

Originally Posted by explorer6

I think people sometimes confuse something not being good and them not liking it. There's a big difference.

50 percent of the movie experience is the viewer themselves. Anyone can test this from their own experiences. Try watching a movie sometime where you're not in a "good vibe" mode, distracted, frustrated about life, etc, etc... then come back to the same movie at a different point in your life and see if the experience is any different? If so... the movie itself didn't change, you did. In that regard the viewer's state of mind/state of being is equally important to the quality of the movie for that person's experience. Then you factor in personal preferences to the equation and the rabbit hole gets even deeper.

To say it isn't a good movie, one would have to remove all of that... personal, and be able to look at it from multiple perspectives and be of open mind as "good" in the context of art can be quite subjective/relative in a lot of ways and which not many people are able to separate the personal.

Oh, I just cannot resist jumping into the conversation with sentences like that first one. I'm active on the MarvelStudios reddit board, and someone tried to say that Age of Ultron was definitively one of the best movies in the MCU. Not subjectively, more like definitive scientific fact. Basing it on acting, cinematography, etc etc. Argued anyone who had differing opinions...while not admitting that it was a personal opinion in and of itself.

Now, I'm not trying to equate your post to that....I just want to highlight that the exact opposite can occur. A personal opinion can enamor one to the side of liking a film so much they cannot separate their own positive feelings and will overwhelmingly defend or counter criticism of the movie much like a negative standpoint will pick apart everything. I think you did a great job in representing your opinion, but I always have to analyze the subjective "good".

So, what did I do in that original scenario? I broke down numbers. I tried a couple of different models, employing various scoring systems and adding and removing sources. Eventually, I came to the following sources. Rotten Tomatoes Score and their users base score, Metacritic (which uses a weighted system to give weight to noted critics and publications) and their users, IMDB (only user scores), and MRQE (a newer site, also uses professional reviews from a large source base on a school style grading system). Took those scores, averaged them, combined them, looked for movement, etc. This mixes a general consensus of opinions and professional reviewers....I'd like to have a team of Avengers level critics to analyze all of the MCU for their "film" quality, but alas....haven't figured that out yet.

Anyway....before this gets any longer of a post.....the results!

Top 4. Some variances in this set for order...but always the same titles.
Iron Man
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Avengers
Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Middle 4. The variables. A wider spread points wise in the final, so lots of differing opinions...AKA the polarizing opinions.
Ant-man
Avengers: Age of Ultron
Iron Man 3
Captain America: The First Avenger

Bottom 4. The "mixed" reviews. No movies had a real failing grade in any of the 6 sources, at worst coming in as a very average film.
Thor
The Incredible Hulk
Thor: The Dark World
Iron Man 2


To be clear, not my personal ranking, just as objective as I could get to find the relational value of Age of Ultron.

[ceeece]

I'm really impressed with Best Buy's cardboard shipping envelope. They even added an extra piece inside. I ordered the steelbook (with Ultron on the back) and it's perfect shape. The sticker on the front says "Exclusive Lenticular packaging."

[explorer6]

I would agree with that person you referred to that it is definitively and unequivocally a great if not amazing movie experience.

I can't say that it is definitively the best movie in the Marvel/Disney universe though. I could easily see arguments made for the movies you listed.

Saying something is unequivocally and definitively great is different from saying something is definitely better than something else.

I do agree with you that the opposite can occur, i said this in the post and even used myself as an example. The personal factor can influence negative and positive.

I appreciate your effort into trying to rank them objectively and removing the personal factor. The only problem with your data if i'm understanding it correctly is there's still so much personal involved. If you're taking data from IMDB/Rottentomatoes/metacritic there's a lot of that personal factor involved in this data.

I don't believe there is any definitive way to prove which movies are the best in a way that's ratings based, i only believe that it can be definitively and unequivocally defined as great or not great [good/bad].

I don't think your ratings are ridiculous though, like aforementioned i could easily see arguments made for each of those movies to be at or near the top. I just don't know how much i believe that a truly objective based rating system defining which ones are the best is achievable to where it's definitive and isn't including the "personal factor". I'm sure each fan has their own ratings and rankings of where each movie is. Can i say that if someone puts Winter Soldier first that they're wrong, that Iron Man or Age of Ultron has to be first? I can't say that. What i believe i can think is that Winter Soldier, Age of Ultron, and Iron Man are all definitively good/great movie experiences. If anything based on experience, if you've seen thousands of movies you have a vast amount of data and experience to compare with and should be able to determine and define what is a good or bad movie experience taking out the personal factor to the best of one's ability.

[I personally can't see how Dark World is the second worst and how the First Avenger is that high but there is some serious competition with those movies at the mid tier/top, the only ones i felt was average was The First Avenger and Iron Man 2, but First Avenger also had some quality actors taking into consideration and i never seen Hulk]

[StingingVelvet]

Every evaluation of a movie's quality is a subjective opinion, guys.

[pjl80]

Originally Posted by explorer6

I would agree with that person you referred to that it is definitively and unequivocally a great if not amazing movie experience.

I can't say that it is definitively the best movie in the Marvel/Disney universe though. I could easily see arguments made for the movies you listed.

Saying something is unequivocally and definitively great is different from saying something is definitely better than something else.

I do agree with you that the opposite can occur, i said this in the post and even used myself as an example. The personal factor can influence negative and positive.

I appreciate your effort into trying to rank them objectively and removing the personal factor. The only problem with your data if i'm understanding it correctly is there's still so much personal involved. If you're taking data from IMDB/Rottentomatoes/metacritic there's a lot of that personal factor involved in this data.

I don't believe there is any definitive way to prove which movies are the best in a way that's ratings based, i only believe that it can be definitively and unequivocally defined as great or not great [good/bad].

I don't think your ratings are ridiculous though, like aforementioned i could easily see arguments made for each of those movies to be at or near the top. I just don't know how much i believe that a truly objective based rating system defining which ones are the best is achievable to where it's definitive and isn't including the "personal factor". I'm sure each fan has their own ratings and rankings of where each movie is. Can i say that if someone puts Winter Soldier first that they're wrong, that Iron Man or Age of Ultron has to be first? I can't say that. What i believe i can think is that Winter Soldier, Age of Ultron, and Iron Man are all definitively good/great movie experiences.

See, I have an issue with "unequivocally great", when it barely musters an average of 75% across an average of a multitude of sources. Especially with professional critics, where it lagged into 3/5 or 3/4 Stars type of ratings. As "StingingVelvet" points out, all evaluations are subjective. Which only strengthens the point honestly...without an actual, factual, scientific, mathematical absolute....how can any film be argued to your standard for Age of Ultron. How do we establish "great"? How many items are on the scale? Is it only "great of not great [good/bad]" as you say? What about terrible, awful, pretty good, elite, etc? It's ALL subjective.

So, how do we as a society deal with this? We have professionals. People who study film, cinematography, etc. The AFI puts out the Top 100 films of all time. We find other with like minds and opinions and listen to them among our friends. It goes on and on...

Now, I should clarify. I didn't want to blast a spreadsheet into a forum post, thought that might be too much. The rankings I compiled are not a "My top 12" from a fan board. I took the publicly available scores from said sources and laid them into a spread sheet. Age of Ultron got scores of 74 87 66 71 79 70. Those are general acceptance numbers culled from tens of thousands of users and hundreds if not thousands of professionally published reviews....both in the highly regarded sense of NYT, Roger Eberts site, etc etc.

Now, you don't subscribe to the mathematical approach I put forth. No problem. But you cannot then say that anyone who disagrees with your opinion of the movie being an "amazing, unequivocal great movie" is wrong. Otherwise what is the backing of said argument? Your own personal held standard of the film direction, editing, etc etc. Same as everyone else's. What I'm trying to do is add some tangible consensus behind a argument for either side. I find the movie to be polarizing in that way, and I feel comfortable in saying that after personally watching it multiple times, I thought it was "OK". That's it. Just OK.

[bell_packet]

Originally Posted by explorer6

The reason Loki's scene was cut from the movie was because of the potential confusion it caused with test viewers.

I can understand then why they cut his scene, but they should've at least put it in the deleted scenes on the disc. I hate it when they tell us about cool things that have been deleted, but then don't include them in the extras so we can at least see them.

[roguejp]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Every evaluation of a movie's quality is a subjective opinion, guys.

Exactly. There are no objective measurable items to determine how good or bad a movie is. There are only opinons.

[Agent_Blu]

Originally Posted by roguejp

Exactly. There are no objective measurable items to determine how good or bad a movie is. There are only opinons.

I'm pretty sure we can all agree that movies should all be judged the same way as everything else in civilized society - the person with the loudest opinion is right.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Every evaluation of a movie's quality is a subjective opinion, guys.

Thank You.