Jump to content

Avengers: Age of Ultron


Cheap21

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I'm pretty sure

That happens. Didn't bug me.

I preferred it to the first, but I know why it freaks some of critics out - it plays entirely by its own rules, where all these big Marvel films have become intertwined and yet the mix somehow works. I also loved the new team at the end.

Originally, the ending scene also featured Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel, but Marvel overruled Whedon on that, not wanting to drop the character into a line-up without having properly introduced her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I didn't feel anything about it, because I didn't take that scene that way and I don't agree with the premise.

As she said (both in that scene in this film and in the previous one), the Widow has a horrific past where she was trained to murder countless people, and as part of that process she was also physically mutilated by the organization that made her into that assassin - sterilized. All of that is what she carries on her conscience, spiritually and emotionally as well as what they did to her physically. I didn't take what she said to Banner to specifically be about her being sterilized. What was done to her via medical procedure was only the final finishing touch, IMO. What Natasha fears is what she believes she was made into both body and soul. That's what she said to Banner in the film. It wasn't just a scene where the Black Widow says, "me no babies!"

As for the reproduction issue, my mother went through a lot of rough, rough stuff as a woman, both as a professional and as a potential mother before I ever came along, and I didn't know about any of it until I was much older. So that scene hit me hard emotionally, and I already very much liked the Widow/Banner subplot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

she didnt say being infertile made you a monster. She said her being a killer made her a monster. Her backstory and why she was made infertile add to that and you completely lose the context of her statement, if you dont take that into account

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That was also the purpose of her flashback sequence in the Red Room with Julie Delpy, who I hope there's more of in the longer cut - and I hope they finally greenlight a Widow film where those two can fight to the death, but ScarJo's salary may be prohibitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think they should make a Widow film, but I think Johansson's asking price as a movie star at this point is likely prohibitive for how Marvel tends to try and get people locked in on a specific number. They will not shell out for her or most of the others, not after RDJ already took them to the cleaners to re-up his own deal.

I don't agree with most of the rest of that article, which seems to struggle to incorporate literally any piece of unrelated opening month publicity into some sort of unified freshman year thesis about how it all leads back to the Black Widow, but my reasoning has to do with the film I saw and how I view the Widow in the context of that and the other films. Every single film since the original Avengers, especially the excellent Winter Soldier, has indicated that Natasha - much like her comic book counterpart - is haunted by her past and her choices as a covert operative. The comics' Natasha is also actually much older than she appears (and was also sterilized). With S.H.I.E.L.D. as it was pre-TWS gone, and the team having hit a public low mid-AOU after their fight on the African coast, I had no problem believing

during the course of AOU. And at the end of the film, the Widow has instead re-dedicated herself while most of the original line-up has walked away.

I didn't see anything in the film as a betrayal of any version of the Black Widow I am familiar with. I think the argument in articles like this just come out of a convenient and ultimately momentary backlash that spreads based on a general vague feeling but is never well sourced, and instead of arguing the history they're often unfortunately based in an urgent moral imperative that ransoms either gender or sexuality to try and make me feel guilty or complicit if I don't agree with it. I guess it's just a question of how each of us personally takes Age of Ultron (and the other MCU films) when you see them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree about social media, but EW is hipper-than-thou central - Whedon's greatest hits are catnip to them. That's what they live for. They even had a big article about how logical Bruce/Natasha are. So for them to allow that article on their site at all was a real surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I love Banner and Natasha, myself. I don't have an issue with that. My issues with AOU, few though they are, are mostly slight nitpicks about the pacing which have to do with Whedon personally insisting on cutting the running time down to well under three hours. They just barely made it work. I also thought the character death was a mistake, but I don't think it hurt the movie, really - the character is barely there and it's more their counterpart's story.

As for Whedon, the man's definitely not infallible, but it's 2015, not 2000 - to come at him now seems like the Internet's at least a month late and twenty dollars short, to mangle an old saying. But I understand why it happens. He's low hanging fruit because the man has gone from the perennial underdog to the king of geek media, at which point any king's (or queen's) flaws become magnified and they become history's greatest monster. Next week it will be someone else. Eventually poor Patty Jenkins (who has not been able to get a feature made in years, despite being incredibly talented) will surely take her turn in the barrel if she gets stuck grinding out sausage for DC on the Wonder Woman movie. Low hanging fruit just bores me. (Speaking of DC, the first cast photo of Suicide Squad looks like a really bad night out with the Insane Clown Posse.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Anyone gets criticism, but Whedon's gone for eons barely getting a peep, with, "but...but Firefly!!! Buffy, sort of, if you ignore 4 seasons of the show!!!" used as some sort of holy shield. I think it's his bizarre decision to appoint himself a "genderist" and tell the world what is and is not sexist that put a spotlight on just what a real, and longstanding, problem he has had writing for women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't agree about Buffy overall, but I think he did get shielded too much at times in the past. That said, I don't think this has to be a question of settling a larger score or balancing a sheet - I think most of his work is pretty good with some bumps in the road, and I think his Avengers films are very good. I think he's been overrated at times but I don't think this is one of those times. I do think there are issues with how he's worked with female characters in some instances, and that he's not infallible, but I don't think the Black Widow or this film is the example to take a stand on; I think the hot take on her character arc in this movie is inaccurate and unfair to the film, to the character and to Johansson's performance.

Everything popular is flawed in some way, but not everything popular and/or flawed is therefore fundamentally broken, or good or bad. That goes for movie franchises or creative personalities or comics or TV shows or whatever else. I can be sick and tired of hearing about Firefly while also really loving the Avengers flicks, while also thinking AOU is better than the first film, while also thinking it's time for Whedon to move on. I don't feel any of that is a balancing act for me so much as a kind of equanimity. It's the same way I try to look at most things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I liked the movie, but I didn't love it like the first one. Just didn't seem like The Avengers but a movie where someone tossed in the characters from The Avengers. Thank goodness for all of the action and James Spader's voice. But Chris Emsworth!!!!! My Gawd!!!!! The height, the arms, the voice. Good lord, the indelicate thoughts running thru my head during the movie - to be hammered by that guy. Lawd!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I definitely think it's time to write off Nina for good. I think her killing Drew might actually be a good idea. She could completely lose it after losing both Sasha and Willow and she ends up murdering Drew and eventually she gets caught and sent away to prison for a long time. 
    • I hope it's okay to post this here(as in from DC)  
    • Quick question - did Christie and Leann share any scenes together in the '80s before Leann left the show?
    • This is the perfect way to encapsulate the situation. So many morally-reprehensible stories were foisted on the show and its characters in ATWT's dwindling years. Rape should never be used as a cheap plot device or in a way that degrades the victim. Jack's sexual assault was another heinous example of how nasty the the show's tone had become. The fact that people like Hogan Sheffer, Ron Carlivati, Jean Passanante, Charles Pratt, Dena Higley, etc., somehow end up winning awards for their material, decimates the credibility and integrity of the awards, IMHO. Soaps used to have a solid moral core and did not originally wallow in the gutter, rolling around in filth and depravity just to be cool, hip, campy, or whatever else modern-day PTB aim for. Thank you. Cruelty, degradation and misogyny are not components which lend themselves to successful soaps, which have always been predicated on warmth, family bonds, and providing a comforting haven for their audience. The genre has been crippled because the cynical and ignorant executives in charge understand neither the shows nor what the audience wants to see.
    • Beverlee was on a whole other level from Kim. It's not like they were in competition with each other. I get the feeling that Kim had a slight problem with the super-professional, serious cast members who just wanted everyone to be prepared and do the work, as she seems to like having fun on set. (She's made a few cracks about Chris Bernau being like that). Bev was definitely one of those. But they didn't work together that much. Yeah, they made her manic and also much weaker. She always had a vulnerability, but wanting to kill herself over that guy? No way. Not only that, he didn't leave her! She insisted he marry Maeve. When they did the tribute to Bert/Charita, the compilation of scenes with her showed how much the cast had been almost totally turned over in a relatively short period of time. Nearly every shot was of her by herself because most people she had worked with had been fired, left or been replaced. I assume they couldn't show her with people who hadn't been replaced, like Don Stewart, Elvera Roussel, or Robert Newman because they would have had to pay them for using their clips. It's dreadful to watch. Like she had no connection to the current show.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • A little too much focus on Chad and Cat today but I enjoyed the episode. I have a feeling that Jennifer’s gonna get dumped on though, even though I think that her anger is completely understandable and justified. And honestly, Ron is finally gone; Abigail can come back now.  But, welcome back, Anna! It was nice seeing Carrie have scenes with her mother. Christie Clark and Leann Hunley have never really had that many scenes together and to see them have them now is really nice. I’m glad that both of them were there to comfort Marlena too. Their words were definitely the thing that Marlena needed to hear. Btw, with all this talk of Noah, does it mean that he’s gonna be introduced soon? Amy, revealing that John changed her flat tire many years ago seemed a little random though. I would rather she have said something about how everybody in Salem knows of John Black because of how he was always such a hero. But at the same time, her story also showed what a great guy John was.  I liked Kate’s scenes with Philip too, and her promise to get back at Xander for what he did. And since we didn’t see JPL in the bed, did he need some time off or something? And yeah, everything involving ‘One Stormy Night’ still seems very Ron-like to me.
    • The second photo featuring the late John Spencer is from the Law & Order episode, "Prescription For Death", which was the (second) pilot/first episode all the way back in 1990! He played the father of a daughter that had gone to the ER for a mere sore throat but ended up dead because the doctor on call was drunk and had given her medication that she had an adverse reaction to, after receiving some other medication. So, he will always have that great distinction in addition to The West Wing. (The first pilot, "Everybody's Favorite Bagman", was filmed in 1988! The show was offered to CBS, but they passed. In syndication, it is oddly placed as the sixth episode of Season 1. And Roy Thinnes played DA Alfred Wentworth there. When NBC picked up the show two years later, Thinnes declined to return, and that's how we got Steven Hill's DA Adam Schiff.)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy