Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

[ChristmasFnatic]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

But this hasnt been the case w/ any of the solo films.

Exactly. I dont see why some people are saying its hard to understand one without the other. The connections are subtle at best, and in the end, only comic book nerds/hardcore fans would really appreciate/care about.

[seannyd]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

But this hasnt been the case w/ any of the solo films.

Correct. But it might in Cap 3 since all characters seem to be in it other than Thor and Hulk. That's where my concern is coming from. Plus all the looking forward. Or too many winks. I mean, how many times did they mention "the situation in New Mexico" during Iron Man 2?

Like I've said before, these movies are 100% my favorite. I care more about Marvel movies than most 30 year olds should. And it's not about saying it's "difficult to understand". It's more about not serving the individual story that they're telling. It's a delicate balance that I thought they did VERY well during Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Cap 2, and Guardians. But given the grosses of Age of Ultron at this point, as well as the critical reaction, I worry that a backlash is coming.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by seannyd

Correct. But it might in Cap 3 since all characters seem to be in it other than Thor and Hulk. That's where my concern is coming from. Plus all the looking forward. Or too many winks. I mean, how many times did they mention "the situation in New Mexico" during Iron Man 2?

Like I've said before, these movies are 100% my favorite. I care more about Marvel movies than most 30 year olds should. And it's not about saying it's "difficult to understand". It's more about not serving the individual story that they're telling. It's a delicate balance that I thought they did VERY well during Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Cap 2, and Guardians. But given the grosses of Age of Ultron at this point, as well as the critical reaction, I worry that a backlash is coming.

The "situation in Mexico" was needed since Colson/Shield was coming out of IM1 and they wanted to establish the importance, it seems. They have been the "glue" to all of the movies except Thor 2.

_________________________________________

I'm more worried about burnout than backlash.

The general public might get sick of it either during the last phase or afterwards, but somewhere down the line were gonna an overlap of Marvel and DC bombarding us w/ TV Shows, Animation, Netflix, and Films all throughout the year w/ less breaks/breathers.

[Hellraiserfan]

I agree with all these posts mentioning that you Don't need to necessarily watch every single film to understand everything.

Just like Whedon/Feige said about the first movie being accessible to people who haven't seen the solo films, it's the same with Ultron. At most, people unfamiliar with the solo films when watching the first Avengers might be asking about certain characters but there were bits of dialogue here and there that gave everyone the gist of who or what these people were. Not so much in AoU but these films are never written to where they would confuse someone who hasn't been following everything.

I understand people's complaints that wish all the films would stand alone but I prefer this connected universe. Not just because I grew up reading comics, but it's just awesome they were able to take the connected style of the comics and make it work in live action films. Years ago I never thought I would be seeing big budget live action movies for some of these characters let alone these movies taking after the comics with having them all be tied together. Other than Marvel and DC who else can really do that and have a valid reason for it other than just $$$$. They started that with the comics so it makes sense to do it with the films yet meanwhile you hear talk that one studio(don't remember which)wants to do a Robin Hood universe kind of thing. That is lame and it's just copying Marvel/DC(DC is still working on catching up but have their release dates)and I hope if they go ahead with that the movies fail at the BO. I don't believe in comicbook movie fatigue because it's simply not true. That's a fact, just look at the BO numbers. As long as they keep making entertaining films people will go to see them regardless if it's "just another comic book film". My worry is if more studios try to make a connected universe with properties/franchises that don't have a reason to have one, there will be that many more films coming out every year and that's when things are going to hurt in regareds to movies making a profit.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

But this hasnt been the case w/ any of the solo films.

That ain't quite correct. From a character standpoint, you can say that from the solo films but certain details and plot points, yeah, you kind of need to see the other films. I mean, the references were all over the place in the party scene in AGE OF ULTRON. If you hadn't seen THOR THE DARK WORLD, you'd have no idea what Thor was talking about with Jane and such.

It's little things like that that bug.

It's unavoidable now considering we're 11 films deep into the cinematic universe.

But boy, for people like myself who didn't and don't read comics, it would've been nice to have the CAP films self-contained, while being apart of this cinematic universe. But, that doesn't seem possible, honestly.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

That ain't quite correct. From a character standpoint, you can say that from the solo films but certain details and plot points, yeah, you kind of need to see the other films. I mean, the references were all over the place in the party scene in AGE OF ULTRON. If you hadn't seen THOR THE DARK WORLD, you'd have no idea what Thor was talking about with Jane and such.

Tell me which reference or detail in AoU was a major plot point?

But the end of the film the Jane convo means nothing.

Minute details doesnt derail the main story.

[seannyd]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

Tell me which reference or detail in AoU was a major plot point?

But the end of the film the Jane convo means nothing.

Minute details doesnt derail the main story.

His example was clearly a minor one but his point still stands. This conversation is predicated on you watching movies that have nothing to do with the story that Age of Ultron is telling. The same way Sam Wilson's comment about following up on cold leads comes from Winter Soldier.

It's a delicate balance to be sure. And sometimes it's handled better than others.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

Tell which reference or detail in AoU was a major plot point?

But the end of the film the Jane convo means nothing.

If it means nothing, then why have it in there...especially since it references events that are important to Thor. If you watched THOR, then AVENGERS, but skipped DARK WORLD (because you didn't like the first THOR picture), Thor's words about Jane make no sense to the viewer who skipped DARK WORLD.

The Infinity Stones is the biggest WTF moment for viewers who never saw GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY. I mean, in this story of Ultron, what do the Infinity Stones actually have to do with them stopping Ultron? Technically nothing. And the way it's handled is even more evidence that it has no place in this film.

I ****ing hated IRON MAN 3. What happened if I skipped it after not really liking IRON MAN 2(which I don't like)? How the hell does Tony call the suit parts to him? And where the hell is his arc reactor in his chest?

Again, not saying the cinematic universe doesn't work but to say that the solo pictures work as individual pictures and you don't need to see the other films to understand things is flat out a lie. It wasn't even really true for Phase One. But because AVENGERS was teased from the get go, people made it a point to see all of the films leading up to that film. It made sense to. I was pretty much done with the Tony Stark character films after IRON MAN 2 but you feel obligated to see IRON MAN 3 for fear you might miss something that's important later. Same with GUARDIANS. GUARDIANS is nothing more than a big introductory preview of Thanos and the stones. I don't care for the film except for Rocket. Yeah, it has jokes but the real purpose of that film is to get audiences comfortable with the idea of these Infinity Stones that don't really play a factor until 4 years from now. That ain't the best way to tell a story.

I have no real feeling about seeing ANT-MAN, BLACK PANTHER, CAPTAIN MARVEL or DOCTOR STRANGE but you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be things in those films that will play into INFINITY WAR that may not get explained again because of how much INFINITY WAR has to do so again, you're obligated to see those if you really want to understand the story, even if you care not for any of those characters.

[Truewitt]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

If it means nothing, then why have it in there...especially since it references events that are important to Thor. If you watched THOR, then AVENGERS, but skipped DARK WORLD (because you didn't like the first THOR picture), Thor's words about Jane make no sense to the viewer who skipped DARK WORLD.

The Infinity Stones is the biggest WTF moment for viewers who never saw GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY. I mean, in this story of Ultron, what do the Infinity Stones actually have to do with them stopping Ultron? Technically nothing. And the way it's handled is even more evidence that it has no place in this film.

I ****ing hated IRON MAN 3. What happened if I skipped it after not really liking IRON MAN 2(which I don't like)? How the hell does Tony call the suit parts to him? And where the hell is his arc reactor in his chest?

Again, not saying the cinematic universe doesn't work but to say that the solo pictures work as individual pictures and you don't need to see the other films to understand things is flat out a lie. It wasn't even really true for Phase One. But because AVENGERS was teased from the get go, people made it a point to see all of the films leading up to that film. It made sense to. I was pretty much done with the Tony Stark character films after IRON MAN 2 but you feel obligated to see IRON MAN 3 for fear you might miss something that's important later. Same with GUARDIANS. GUARDIANS is nothing more than a big introductory preview of Thanos and the stones. I don't care for the film except for Rocket. Yeah, it has jokes but the real purpose of that film is to get audiences comfortable with the idea of these Infinity Stones that don't really play a factor until 4 years from now. That ain't the best way to tell a story.

I have no real feeling about seeing ANT-MAN, BLACK PANTHER, CAPTAIN MARVEL or DOCTOR STRANGE but you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be things in those films that will play into INFINITY WAR that may not get explained again because of how much INFINITY WAR has to do so again, you're obligated to see those if you really want to understand the story, even if you care not for any of those characters.

I still stand by the fact that you only notice these things because you have seen them all. Your average viewer who hasn't seen them all/care about them all isn't even fazed by these points. Not to mention, in general, audiences aren't worried about picking apart all these tiny details.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Truewitt

I still stand by the fact that you only notice these things because you have seen them all. Your average viewer who hasn't seen them all/care about them all isn't even fazed by these points. Not to mention, in general, audiences aren't worried about picking apart all these tiny details.

You're probably right. The wow factor is what most general audiences want from these things anyway.

[Jake2104]

Originally Posted by Truewitt

I still stand by the fact that you only notice these things because you have seen them all. Your average viewer who hasn't seen them all/care about them all isn't even fazed by these points. Not to mention, in general, audiences aren't worried about picking apart all these tiny details.

Exactly, these are more like Easter eggs, little treats placed in the film that members of the audience who have seen the film it is referencing will get, while those who haven't won't get the reference and it won't mean anything to then, so they will just ignore it. It's similar to an adult joke placed into a kids movie (shreck comes to mind), adults will get it but it just passes over kids heads. Another example is when movies with popular across actors sometimes have references to some of the actors older work/movies, so again those who have seen that movie will get out but others will just ignore the reference.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

If it means nothing, then why have it in there...especially since it references events that are important to Thor. If you watched THOR, then AVENGERS, but skipped DARK WORLD (because you didn't like the first THOR picture), Thor's words about Jane make no sense to the viewer who skipped DARK WORLD.

The Infinity Stones is the biggest WTF moment for viewers who never saw GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY. I mean, in this story of Ultron, what do the Infinity Stones actually have to do with them stopping Ultron? Technically nothing. And the way it's handled is even more evidence that it has no place in this film.

I ****ing hated IRON MAN 3. What happened if I skipped it after not really liking IRON MAN 2(which I don't like)? How the hell does Tony call the suit parts to him? And where the hell is his arc reactor in his chest?

Again, not saying the cinematic universe doesn't work but to say that the solo pictures work as individual pictures and you don't need to see the other films to understand things is flat out a lie. It wasn't even really true for Phase One. But because AVENGERS was teased from the get go, people made it a point to see all of the films leading up to that film. It made sense to. I was pretty much done with the Tony Stark character films after IRON MAN 2 but you feel obligated to see IRON MAN 3 for fear you might miss something that's important later. Same with GUARDIANS. GUARDIANS is nothing more than a big introductory preview of Thanos and the stones. I don't care for the film except for Rocket. Yeah, it has jokes but the real purpose of that film is to get audiences comfortable with the idea of these Infinity Stones that don't really play a factor until 4 years from now. That ain't the best way to tell a story..

Sif gives a stone to the Collector before Guardians in Thor 2.
The Tesseract, Odin's Treasure Room ,Thanos Cameo, Arc Tech similarity, and Odin explanation of The Aether, predate Guardians of the Galaxy.

Yet none of those references should have confused anyone trying to get the film.

[StingingVelvet]

It ain't a cameo or easter egg when Iron Man is the co-star of a Captain America film. You guys are acting like they stand alone but that is increasingly not the case. Maybe in "phase one" you could have made that argument, but not anymore. Rumor is Doctor Strange is going to premier on some random Netflix show even.

You guys like the connected thing, and that's fine, but don't pretend like it's not really THAT connected, because it totally is getting there (if it isn't there already).

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

It ain't a cameo or easter egg when Iron Man is the co-star of a Captain America film. You guys are acting like they stand alone but that is increasingly not the case. Maybe in "phase one" you could have made that argument, but not anymore. Rumor is Doctor Strange is going to premier on some random Netflix show even.

You guys like the connected thing, and that's fine, but don't pretend like it's not really THAT connected, because it totally is getting there (if it isn't there already).

You will still be able to enjoy Captain America 3 w/out watching the 3 IM films.
There not going to weigh down the story w/ loads of references from 5 solo films and 2 team films. Until this comes out there is no real argument, unless you want everything laid out for you.
In a linked universe they cant reboot every fil, and explain everything for newcomers to the film. As long as it doesnt derail the overall film, latecomers will just have to play catch up and fill in the minor blanks later.

[Adam_WM]

I don't really see why people are complaining about needing to see the other movies. You HAVE seen the other movies. You know how many comic books require you to have knowledge of things that happened in previous issues or even other series? Yup, most of them. I feel like if you don't want connected movies, watch things that aren't franchises.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

It ain't a cameo or easter egg when Iron Man is the co-star of a Captain America film. You guys are acting like they stand alone but that is increasingly not the case. Maybe in "phase one" you could have made that argument, but not anymore. Rumor is Doctor Strange is going to premier on some random Netflix show even.

You guys like the connected thing, and that's fine, but don't pretend like it's not really THAT connected, because it totally is getting there (if it isn't there already).

To be fair, this isn't anything new. Remember, much of early cinema was comprised of serials.

[ChristmasFnatic]

At the end of the day, as someone said, its the nature of a linked universe. Its a reward to those who seen them.

And yes, in comics, where theres issues over the decades, there are references that I doubt even Stan Lee himself remembers. But it doesnt destroy the story as a whole, nor will make you not understand it. Its just placed there enough to reward people who took the time to watch them all.

I really havent read a review nor comment about AOU or Cap 2, that they didnt enjoy it cuz they didnt understand what happened before. Even to a teammate of mine who didnt watched the past Marvel movies except IM1 and 2.

[StingingVelvet]

I really doubt Stark is going to get the kind of character development in Civil War that a new character would. His personality, back story and whatever else will be assumed as known to the audience, despite him not appearing in the previous Cap movies. Same for the 100 supporting characters, probably. Most of them at least.

Anyway, I'm fine with a shared universe, I just think each series should stand completely alone. Avengers is fine as a team-up thing, and little mentions are fine, but heroes from other series shouldn't be in a Cap series to the degree they're going to be, IMO.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I really doubt Stark is going to get the kind of character development in Civil War that a new character would. His personality, back story and whatever else will be assumed as known to the audience, despite him not appearing in the previous Cap movies. Same for the 100 supporting characters, probably. Most of them at least.

Anyway, I'm fine with a shared universe, I just think each series should stand completely alone. Avengers is fine as a team-up thing, and little mentions are fine, but heroes from other series shouldn't be in a Cap series to the degree they're going to be, IMO.

Its not the same, but did Loki appearing in Thor, Avengers, and then Thor 2 take anything away from your viewing exp?

[Geoff D]

I still don't think it's anything like as bad as you're making it out to be, Velvet. I understand that you're sore because the MCU in general doesn't blow your skirt up (hell, you know I don't like the original Avengers movie either) and you don't want your favourite (and mine) character sullied by the overarching story, but at the moment it's only reaching the point that any franchise reaches after several sequels: a certain amount of audience knowledge is taken for granted, whilst still drip-feeding other things to make sure that noobs aren't left in the cold either, which shows that they haven't gone full crossover, not yet.

You spoke about showing your boy the Cap movies in 20 years' time and not wanting to rely on other flicks to make up the difference, well for FWIW I think Cap/Winter Soldier/Civil War will make a handsome trilogy. Yes, Stark will be in Cap 3 but unless you plan on banning your boy from seeing any and all Iron Man/Avengers movies then he'll know who Anthony Stark is. And I honestly think that seeing Avengers 2 beforehand won't be a prerequisite because the writing will acknowledge what's gone on, perhaps it'll start with a Senate hearing or something where the events of Ultron are quickly expounded for the audience and will introduce Stark at the same time.