Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

[StingingVelvet]

Well with Civil War it's mostly a fear, no one knows how well that movie will pull off what it's attempting to do yet.

So far the only movies that annoy me Iron Man 2 and 3, basically being a prologue and epilogue to Avengers, respectively. Those are the only egregious examples of all this so far. As someone who loved the first Iron Man movie it's a real bummer to me that both sequels are drowning in "shared universe!" issues. Whether any future MCU movies fall down into this whole... we shall see.

I just worry they will, and worry other studios' copying the format can only lead to the same issues. I have the same fears with the expanded X-Men stuff, despite loving most of Fox's output so far.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

So far the only movies that annoy me Iron Man 2 and 3, basically being a prologue and epilogue to Avengers, respectively. Those are the only egregious examples of all this so far. As someone who loved the first Iron Man movie it's a real bummer to me that both sequels are drowning in "shared universe!" issues.

Isnt drowning a bit dramatic?

Its the middle of the film where they finally let Fury/SHIELD get properly introduced. Before and after those scenes its an Iron Man flick.

[Geoff D]

I agree. Most of IM2 deals with Stark struggling with his daddy issues, I honestly don't know where this 'extended trailer for Avengers' perception has come from. (I don't mean you specifically with that comment Velvet, but it's something I've seen mentioned more than once recently.)

Yes, Fury gets more screen time but it's not like SHIELD is a completely alien concept to the IM movies because Coulson was established in the first one (plus the Fury credits stinger), so branching it out a bit more in the second one doesn't come out of left field. And Widow has always been associated with the Iron Man character in the funny books, so bringing her in wasn't especially weird to me either.

[seannyd]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I agree. Most of IM2 deals with Stark struggling with his daddy issues, I honestly don't know where this 'extended trailer for Avengers' perception has come from. (I don't mean you specifically with that comment Velvet, but it's something I've seen mentioned more than once recently.)

Yes, Fury gets more screen time but it's not like SHIELD is a completely alien concept to the IM movies because Coulson was established in the first one (plus the Fury credits stinger), so branching it out a bit more in the second one doesn't come out of left field. And Widow has always been associated with the Iron Man character in the funny books, so bringing her in wasn't especially weird to me either.

To me, I feel like the perception has been slightly inflated but it's still accurate to an extent. And not necessarily as an extended trailer to the Avengers, but to the universe as a whole. The Thor references really took me out of the movie because all this talk about the "southwest region" had me thinking "What's Fury talking about?" because I knew it wasn't going to affect the story of Iron Man.

Mostly it just feels inorganic to the story that was being told. It's not necessarily the presence that's the problem, it's how they're integrated into the overall story that can cause dissonance when watching it.

I do feel that time has been kinder to Iron Man 2 in retrospect from my point of view, as simply watching it as a bunch of talented actors essentially riffing for two hours is entertaining in and of itself.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I agree. Most of IM2 deals with Stark struggling with his daddy issues, I honestly don't know where this 'extended trailer for Avengers' perception has come from. (I don't mean you specifically with that comment Velvet, but it's something I've seen mentioned more than once recently.)

Yes, Fury gets more screen time but it's not like SHIELD is a completely alien concept to the IM movies because Coulson was established in the first one (plus the Fury credits stinger), so branching it out a bit more in the second one doesn't come out of left field. And Widow has always been associated with the Iron Man character in the funny books, so bringing her in wasn't especially weird to me either.

I mean maybe drowning is the wrong word, but the point is it's hard to watch Iron Man as a trilogy without considering the MCU as a whole. The ending of Iron Man 2 is all about Avengers. IM3's plot is all about Avengers fallout. It's core to the series to an extent I dislike.

The standard I am operating on here is "I should be able to watch the solo series without even thinking about the MCU stuff outside of it." Iron Man fails that standard.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by seannyd

To me, I feel like the perception has been slightly inflated but it's still accurate to an extent. And not necessarily as an extended trailer to the Avengers, but to the universe as a whole. The Thor references really took me out of the movie because all this talk about the "southwest region" had me thinking "What's Fury talking about?" because I knew it wasn't going to affect the story of Iron Man.

Mostly it just feels inorganic to the story that was being told. It's not necessarily the presence that's the problem, it's how they're integrated into the overall story that can cause dissonance when watching it.

How else were they going to establish Shields power? They were set up for them to deal w/ Thor's hammer and Jane Foster's research. Them acting like super-cops in against Stane wasnt enough to show how extensive they are.

Your nitpicking

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I mean maybe drowning is the wrong word, but the point is it's hard to watch Iron Man as a trilogy without considering the MCU as a whole. The ending of Iron Man 2 is all about Avengers. IM3's plot is all about Avengers fallout. It's core to the series to an extent I dislike.

The standard I am operating on here is "I should be able to watch the solo series without even thinking about the MCU stuff outside of it." Iron Man fails that standard.

[seannyd]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

How else were they going to establish Shields power? They were set up for them to deal w/ Thor's hammer and Jane Foster's research. Them acting like super-cops in against Stane wasnt enough to show how extensive they are.

Your nitpicking

They didn't need to establish SHIELD's power prior to Thor. They could have established that power in Thor. I'll be honest and say that while I was excited about whatever was happening in New Mexico, I knew it didn't have anything to do with Tony's journey and therefore I spent way too much time thinking about what that meant instead of focusing on the journey.

I feel like you think I'm needlessly picking on these movies for their interconnectivity. On the contrary, I love it for the most part. I just want it to be done well and it hasn't always been. As a counterpoint, the stuff they did in Daredevil was far more organic (slight reference to Avengers battle of NY, mentioning individual Avengers occasionally to illustrate points) and it worked PERFECTLY. Same thing with Agent Carter having Stark working with Vanko. There wasn't a signpost saying PAY ATTENTION TO THIS like the Thor references were in IM2 to me. And that's fine. Iron Man 2 was the MCU going through some growing pains, figuring out what worked and whatnot. I think Phase 2 really showed those pains paid off. And while the problems in Ultron weren't dealbreakers for me, I could see how they could become problematic going forward especially with the gargantuan cast of Civil War.

Now, it's possible that an extended cut of Ultron would render those concerns moot, but I'm starting to doubt we'll ever see such a thing.

That being said, I do feel like you can still love a thing and be able to point out its faults.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by seannyd

They didn't need to establish SHIELD's power prior to Thor. They could have established that power in Thor. I'll be honest and say that while I was excited about whatever was happening in New Mexico, I knew it didn't have anything to do with Tony's journey and therefore I spent way too much time thinking about what that meant instead of focusing on the journey.

I feel like you think I'm needlessly picking on these movies for their interconnectivity. On the contrary, I love it for the most part. I just want it to be done well and it hasn't always been. As a counterpoint, the stuff they did in Daredevil was far more organic (slight reference to Avengers battle of NY, mentioning individual Avengers occasionally to illustrate points) and it worked PERFECTLY. Same thing with Agent Carter having Stark working with Vanko. There wasn't a signpost saying PAY ATTENTION TO THIS like the Thor references were in IM2 to me. And that's fine. Iron Man 2 was the MCU going through some growing pains, figuring out what worked and whatnot. I think Phase 2 really showed those pains paid off. And while the problems in Ultron weren't dealbreakers for me, I could see how they could become problematic going forward especially with the gargantuan cast of Civil War.

Now, it's possible that an extended cut of Ultron would render those concerns moot, but I'm starting to doubt we'll ever see such a thing.

That being said, I do feel like you can still love a thing and be able to point out its faults.

Daredevil referencing the Attack on New York is cool, but IM2 Fury mentioning the Southwest issue is different???? Theyre both comments.

Mentioning its faults and saying references "takes you out of the film" doesnt sound the same to me.

Plus Agent Carter & Daredevil were televison shows w/ time to slowly build. IM2 is a 2 hour format w/out that luxury. Apples & Oranges.

[seannyd]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

Daredevil referencing the Attack on New York is cool, but IM2 Fury mentioning the Southwest issue is different???? Theyre both comments.

Mentioning its faults and saying references "takes you out of the film" doesnt sound the same to me.

Plus Agent Carter & Daredevil were televison shows w/ time to slowly build. IM2 is a 2 hour format w/out that luxury. Apples & Oranges.

I'm not saying ALL references take me out of the films. I'm just saying ones that do not seem to be organic take me out of the films. And I certainly don't see how mentioning faults and being taken out of the film are different. Anything that would take me out of the film would have to be a fault of the movie.

The Thor references were looking forward to a thing we didn't know about yet. I didn't even realize they were talking about Thor until the after credits scene. I just knew they were talking about something that didn't have to do with the Iron Man 2 story.

The references in Agent Carter or Daredevil were references that were either organic to the story (the characters making references to other people/events that changed their perception of reality as it related to the story) or did not effect the flow of the story (a scientist named Vanko just happens to be a person working in that lab - he was relevant to the story, but his name didn't require any knowledge from the viewer to understand why he was there yet people who did know get an added layer of enjoyment).

All I'm saying is context is everything. And the context presented in Iron Man 2 did not provide successful integration of the larger universe into the story that Iron Man 2 was trying to tell.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I mean maybe drowning is the wrong word, but the point is it's hard to watch Iron Man as a trilogy without considering the MCU as a whole. The ending of Iron Man 2 is all about Avengers. IM3's plot is all about Avengers fallout. It's core to the series to an extent I dislike.

The standard I am operating on here is "I should be able to watch the solo series without even thinking about the MCU stuff outside of it." Iron Man fails that standard.

The Iron Man series failed miserably at it, as did THOR THE DARK WORLD.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by seannyd

All I'm saying is context is everything. And the context presented in Iron Man 2 did not provide successful integration of the larger universe into the story that Iron Man 2 was trying to tell.

Fury mentions a mission that he is working on, so Colson will stay and watch Stark. The after credits scene shows what the Shield mission was.

Can U explain how this was inorganic?

[mpstjohn]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

The Iron Man series failed miserably at it, as did THOR THE DARK WORLD.

They started failing as the studio took control from the filmmakers. Avengers 2 basically renders watching IM3 pointless anyway since some exposition at the party scene sums up the important things they'll likely keep (Pepper taking over the Stark's company) and retcons the personality change he went through in that film after the first Avengers. I doubt Pepper's new powers will become as big a part anyway (if they're not completely ignored) since Paltrow is already making suggestions for actresses to replace her (she wants out of the MCU like Portman).

IM3 feels like a movie they made just because it was on their schedule and the expectation was there, after the changes they made from the arc Favreau was trying to build leading to the Mandarin (notice in the first film the image of the Mandarin's rings behind Stark in the terrorist's video), the reveal at the end makes it feel less like the perfect end of the overall story (sort of Iron Man's Dark Knight Trilogy) and more like something to tide you over until Winter Soldier. Thor 2 fails similarly, they went through three directors (the first of which would've been their first female director) during filming and ended up with a film that appears to have more of Kat Dennings than of Thor or The Dark World.

The more control they leave to the filmmakers (Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, First Avenger, Winter Soldier, Avengers 2), the better the films. The more the studio goes over the filmmakers heads the more it feels like the diluted version of a much better film.

[seannyd]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

Fury mentions a mission that he is working on, so Colson will stay and watch Stark. The after credits scene shows what the Shield mission was.

Can U explain how this was inorganic?

It is inorganic because it is completely irrelevant to the plot of Iron Man 2. It is putting a giant sign post up that gets no payoff in the movie proper.

Again, I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense. You're right. It makes sense. It tracks logically. But it does not serve the story of Iron Man 2. And it's ultimately a giant wink at the audience for no other purpose than to announce to them that Thor is coming.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by seannyd

It is inorganic because it is completely irrelevant to the plot of Iron Man 2. It is putting a giant sign post up that gets no payoff in the movie proper.

Again, I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense. You're right. It makes sense. It tracks logically. But it does not serve the story of Iron Man 2. And it's ultimately a giant wink at the audience for no other purpose than to announce to them that Thor is coming.

If Fury has other things to attend to, that is outside of the Tony Stark story, I dont see how that detracts from the direct plot.
Its the beginning of the connections w/ out leaving leaving IM2 and giving ten minutes away for a Southwest scenario.
Its natural/organic for them to connect the universe subtly or overtly, since the intent was there since The Incredible Hulk.

[Tamburello Rouge]

MCU fans are the new Star Wars fans.

[stvn1974]

Really late to the party but I finally saw the film today and thought it was amazing. Really dug the Scarlet Witch. Now just to decide on what version of the BD I want to get day one.

I also teared up a bit during the Force Awakens trailer. Seen it a billion times online but on the big screen it was all shiny and new.

[bleszinski]

Avengers: Age of Ultron= August 18, 2015

[imsounoriginal]

That date's confirmed?

[seannyd]

Not saying it's wrong, but a quick google search of anything age of ultron related in the last 24 hours doesn't show anything in regards to a release date. Do you have a source for that?