Avengers: Age of Ultron (spoilers)

[Umbran]

Sometimes I swear this is true. I catch myself laughing more because I know it's something that the movie wants me to laugh at rather than because it's actually funny. Then I stop and go "Why did I laugh at that?"

There is a social element to laughter. In general, people will laugh more when they are with others than watching the same material alone,f or example. This is one reason why comedy movies, which otherwise don't really need a big screen, still survive in today's market - because you don't get the same experience watching it home alone.

 

[Morrus]

If you go to the market, and buy a package of ice cream that is clearly labelled "chocolate", and you take a spoonful and think, "Gee, I'm bored of chocolate," do you critique the ice cream for not being strawberry, or do you think that maybe you should have gotten different ice cream? That's the question I'm considering here. The thing is what it is, a pretty good adaptation of the original source material. Should we expect it to be other than that? Do we critique it on the basis of what it is trying to be, or what it is, regardless of the expectations set by the genre and adaptation?

No, I say I'm bored of chocolate, and it'd be nice if the ice cream shop sold strawberry, too. I'll probably still eat ice cream, because I like ice cream. But I'll mention to my friends that I'm getting a little bored of this particular ice cream formula, and hope they don't then inform me that I should just go and have a steak instead.

Part of the thing with IM3 is that reversing it is *meaningful*.

To you, perhaps. The fact that it's the red guy instead of the blue guy doing the bombarding doesn't make that much difference to me. It still looks and feels very similar.

Look, I get that it's not an issue for you. And that's fine. But it's becoming one for me.

I'm sorry if you aren't interested in the meta-text.

Oh, c'mon! We're talking Marvel superhero films here!

 

[delericho]

I'm not sure what prompted the sarcasm, but there are other ways to end action films beyond the ragtag team defence against a mass overwhelming faceless aerial bombardment that Avengers, Avengers 2, Winter Soldier, Iron Man 3, and Guardians of the Galaxy all used.

Yep, that specific ending is now getting really overused.

Well, 'Quantum of Solace' was a _terrible_ movie from my perspective, too, and I am a spy-thriller fan (not really a 'Bond' fan, though, until Daniel Craig started playing that part). I liked both 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall', but QoS was just bad. To me it felt like it was a video game adaptation including excessive 'action sequences' that felt pasted on and contributed nothing to the story.

A lot of the problems with QoS are down to the writers' strike - apparently union rules meant that no 'writer' could help them finish off the script, but that didn't bar the director (and Daniel Craig) from doing so. That's why it feels so unfinished by comparison with the others, and also why it's so very short.

It's a shame, really - there's quite a lot there that's actually quite good, and if you look at it sideways you can almost see the film that could have been. If only they'd felt they could delay it a year to make the thing properly...

 

[Umbran]

Oh, c'mon! We're talking Marvel superhero films here!

I'm not sure what you mean. Joss Whedon had a hand in the Marvel slate at this point, and he does play with imagery in such ways. But I allow that you may not find that to be interesting.

I asked up front - what else do you expect or want? But all you've said is that you want something different, with no further qualifications. If we are then analyzing how interesting the movies are, we are left grasping at straws over what you might find interesting.

 

[Morrus]

I'm not sure what you mean. Joss Whedon had a hand in the Marvel slate at this point, and he does play with imagery in such ways. But I allow that you may not find that to be interesting.

I asked up front - what else do you expect or want? But all you've said is that you want something different, with no further qualifications. If we are then analyzing how interesting the movies are, we are left grasping at straws over what you might find interesting.

We? You're the one trying to somehow define my movie tastes! I'm perfectly happy just saying whether or not I like a thing. I've tried answering your questions, but the answers aren't working for you, so we'll just have to leave it at that!

 

[Janx]

So, now, you are doing an adaptation. In general, in all the aforementioned pieces, major characters have the ability to fly, or have spaceships. You have a choice - try to artificially constrain the scene so that flight is not an option, or use flight and the vertical dimension. As an author, which do you do?

You have two hours, and an ensemble cast. You need to spend a bit of time on each hero. How many villains can you develop, such that they are not essentially "faceless"?

It seems to me the formula is falling directly out of the constraints of the initial setup - if you are doing an Avengers movie, where half the characters have aerial travel as a major power, you are going to go up, or the viewers are going to look at you funny, or gripe about your arbitrary reason for keeping them grounded, or gripe about how stupid they were for not just flying. And, in order to keep characters with these power sets occupied, you need a whole lot of bad guys. You might as well embrace it.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Age-of-Ultron-(spoilers)/page2#ixzz3ZGtWcJ00.

I think this is the crux of the "why is the ending always a big aerial battle"

It's a GMing problem for a high level party with flying and stuff.

Now what they haven't had was ensemble heroes vs. ensemble villains. It's always been Heroes vs. leader and his minions or the Batman/spiderman model of Hero vs. pair of villains.

Now if it was Iron Man 4, I'd do an ending where his suit gets so damaged/constrained that he steps out and has to finish the job as Tony Stark (and not just the last 10 seconds).

 

[Morrus]

I think this is the crux of the "why is the ending always a big aerial battle"

It's a GMing problem for a high level party with flying and stuff.

The answer may well simply be that the genre is played out for me. Or it may be why I'm personally very much looking forward to DCs darker, grittier take, because it'll be a different direction.

Then again, for all I know that stuff may end up being the same but with fewer Whedonesque quips and a muted colour pallette, in which case I'll be disappointed.

 

[Tellerian Hawke]

The problem with superhero films is that they are always pushing the limits of the CGI action, in order to make the superpowers truly "super."

Also, it doesn't help that the average human attention span in terms of camera panning is 8 seconds. Yes, you heard right. 8 seconds. If the camera stays on one subject for more than 8 seconds, the audience gets bored.

I guess that's why Film Noir is so niche nowadays; not many people appreciate long camera shots and extensive dialogue anymore. They just want the sound byte.

Personally, I'd like to see a villain who can last through 2 or 3 films before they are finally able to deal with him. I think the original Star Wars trilogy (New Hope, Empire, Jedi) did that rather well; in the first film, the empire's big weapon is kaboshed, but Vader flees in his Tie Fighter, escaping destruction; in Empire Strikes Back, he comes on strong, and tempts Luke to join him, but this time, it's the heroes who must flee. Finally, in Jedi, Luke not only defeats Vader, but also FORGIVES him, in one of the most dramatic (and well-written!) endings in movie history! In each film, the villain becomes more real, less faceless. Vader starts out as just "the bad guy" in the first film, then he becomes "the obsessed, estranged father" in the second film, and finally, he becomes the tragic (yet redeemed, at the end) hero of the third film.

I get it, that sort of thing is hard to do.

But it's not impossible.

Also, some fights shouldn't take as long as they do; there are some things that might look pretty cool if they were allowed to think outside the box.

Examples of this from other movies:

Lonesome Dove: "You killed them all. I didn't fire a shot." --July Johnson, after watching Gus ride into Ermoke's camp and shoot Ermoke and all 5 of his buddies while they were all drunk.

The scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indiana Jones shoots the guy who makes the mistake of bringing a sword to a gunfight.

The final scene in Last of the Mohicans, where Unclas dies at the hands of Maugwa, and then Maugwa gets his a$$ handed to him a minute or two later by Chingatchgook. I think most people were thinking that Hawkeye would be the one to save the day, but it's obvious, once you see the old chief in action, that Hawkeye doesn't hold a candle to him in terms of physical prowess.

Just some random thoughts

 

[delericho]

Personally, I'd like to see a villain who can last through 2 or 3 films before they are finally able to deal with him.

Loki?

 

[Tellerian Hawke]

Well, Loki only opposes The Avengers once. He is more of a "guest star," in that sense; he is a main character in the Thor movies.