• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Joss Whedon and James Gunn botched their MCU sequels.

True. But Scarlett Witch hurting people accidentally while trying to save an even larger group of people isn't really the same as Tony Stark building a murderbot which ruined a country behind everyone's back. One of my few issues with Civil War is that the movie actively tries to take the heat off of Tony a bit. There's the already mentioned Tony-less botched operation plus Sokovia itself is mentioned in a brief line about Tony still feeling guilty. Tony basically goes "my bad" and that's the last we hear of it.

I want a movie were everyone basically calls Tony out for all of the bullshit he's gotten away with.

Civil War skews perception a lot. You're giving a grieving mother and the government telling you, "they did bad things". At the end of the Battle for New York it appears people are happy the avengers were here (plus they weren't the ones to send a nuke). Folks even dress up as the Avengers for halloween and other events. It's not like the world dislikes them. The Sokovia Accords are super misleading to the audience. I suppose it's justified since they had to pivot the narrative to get a certain result but the pivot is too transparent and bad.
 

EGM1966

Member
Agree on Ultron (which I found pretty damn dull) but GotG2 I thought was actually overall a bit better than the first.

It did loose the element of surprise for me though: in that I was fairly "what is this film/Groot/Racoon etc" having zero exposure to the IP thus quite surprised how fun it was and solid a film. Second I went in expecting it to be good so while it was it had less impact. Maybe similar issue for you OP?
 
Civil War skews perception a lot. You're giving a grieving mother and the government telling you, "they did bad things". At the end of the Battle for New York it appears people are happy the avengers were here (plus they weren't the ones to send a nuke). Folks even dress up as the Avengers for halloween and other events. It's not like the world dislikes them. The Sokovia Accords are super misleading to the audience. I suppose it's justified since they had to pivot the narrative to get a certain result but the pivot is too transparent and bad.
The Accords was never about the world disliking the Avengers, it was about the government's of the world getting nervous over a US based military operation that has no oversight and no respect for sovereign borders. This is spelled out for anyone with half a brain.
 
I'm genuinely surprised.

I went to see GOTG2 having seen no trailers, read no previews or opinions, and then read nothing about it afterwards. Guardians 2 is one of the worst in the entire MCU for me, full of terrible forced comedy and other attempts to make kids laugh (baby Groot) as opposed to the actual good stuff in 1. That overshadowed everything else that might have been okay in the movie and I have no desire to ever watch it again.

Age of Ultron on the other hand was a comic story in movie form, exactly what I expect from the MCU. It's not the greatest thing ever, but it's a bunch of superheroes doing their thing and I'm fine with that. I enjoyed it.

ditto, you have echoed my thoughts on what i felt about Guardians Vol 2, I was on a media black out after the first trailer and still felt the movie to be messy, comedy felt forced and off-putting. Doctor Strange balanced action with humor way way better than Guardians 2.

Agreed, you hit the nail on the head for me. Both sequels fall far short of their predecessors.

GOTG2 just didn't resonate with me like GOTG1 did - jokes were unfunny, dialogue felt forced, parts of the movie were not only predictable but a slog to get through and the soundtrack was completely disappointing. I watched it a second time and felt the exact same way.
 
Civil War skews perception a lot. You're giving a grieving mother and the government telling you, "they did bad things". At the end of the Battle for New York it appears people are happy the avengers were here (plus they weren't the ones to send a nuke). Folks even dress up as the Avengers for halloween and other events. It's not like the world dislikes them. The Sokovia Accords are super misleading to the audience. I suppose it's justified since they had to pivot the narrative to get a certain result but the pivot is too transparent and bad.

At the end of Avengers there's just as much questioning shown of the dangers of having such a group around as there are people celebrating.
 

Sephzilla

Member
I mostly agree. It wouldn't have been so bad if he had seemed more wracked with guilt in AoU. I'd have preferred if he had built Vision out of a desperate need to redeem himself rather than morbid curiosity.

Another minor gripe I have is Steve giving Tony an olive branch at the end of the movie. It makes sense considering Steve generally tries to be a high road kind of guy. But man, minutes earlier (on screen) Tony was literally trying to murder both Steve and his best friend (who were both innocent). There was a huge part of me that wanted Steve to just tell off Tony and tell him to get his shit together before he tries to murder someone else because he's having a hissy fit. I'm glad Widow gave him a little bit of that.

Civil War skews perception a lot. You're giving a grieving mother and the government telling you, "they did bad things". At the end of the Battle for New York it appears people are happy the avengers were here (plus they weren't the ones to send a nuke). Folks even dress up as the Avengers for halloween and other events. It's not like the world dislikes them. The Sokovia Accords are super misleading to the audience. I suppose it's justified since they had to pivot the narrative to get a certain result but the pivot is too transparent and bad.

Well, Age of Ultron making people's opinion shift on The Avengers does make sense though. In Avengers 1 they save New York from a completely foreign threat. In Avengers 2 the Avengers pretty much make the threat and the result is on their hands (but actually mostly Tony's). I wonder if the "Tony Stark built Ultron" news was mostly covered up.
 

Anung

Un Rama
Not seen GOTG2 yet so can't speak to that but Ultron was definelty a mixed mag. It does some things better than the original and a lot of things worse.

It's the dialogue that puts me off ever watching AOU again. It was just too much.
 

Veelk

Banned
Civil War skews perception a lot. You're giving a grieving mother and the government telling you, "they did bad things". At the end of the Battle for New York it appears people are happy the avengers were here (plus they weren't the ones to send a nuke). Folks even dress up as the Avengers for halloween and other events. It's not like the world dislikes them. The Sokovia Accords are super misleading to the audience. I suppose it's justified since they had to pivot the narrative to get a certain result but the pivot is too transparent and bad.

I think the narrative is that the world is generally grateful for what they have done, but as the acts of destruction keep mounting, fear and anger is slowly growing. There is a notable difference between the Avengers when they saved them from an external threat, to Age of Ultron where not only was shield revealed to have been corrupted from the inside but also Ultron was a problem that the Avengers themselves have caused. Additionally, the Hulk being unleashed in Africa was probably a wake up call to the avengers that as cool as having a giant green rage monster is, there is a real possibility that he might lose his mind and attack innocents.

So the preception is different because it's evolved with changing circumstances.
 
Another minor gripe I have is Steve giving Tony an olive branch at the end of the movie. It makes sense considering Steve generally tries to be a high road kind of guy. But man, minutes earlier (on screen) Tony was literally trying to murder both Steve and his best friend (who were both innocent). There was a huge part of me that wanted Steve to just tell off Tony and tell him to get his shit together before he tries to murder someone else because he's having a hissy fit. I'm glad Widow gave him a little bit of that.

Steve was at fault though and the letter was his apology. He was 100% wrong for not telling Tony the truth about Bucky earlier. He extended an olive branch because he knows no matter what, there's going to be a threat at some point he'll be needed for. He only gave Tony a burner phone he didn't tell him where he'd be and ask to meet up for coffee and make-up.
 
At the end of Avengers there's just as much questioning shown of the dangers of having such a group around as there are people celebrating.

No there isn't.

You then have a series that has in-universe Avengers' costumes, people wanting photos with Tony, etc. Sokovia Accords happen and there's, like, zero resistance from anyone (besides Cap) about them. They government plays back some footage and a grieving mother reassures Tony. The movie wants you to believe the Avengers did bad or attributed to the bad. Marvel wanted to pivot and they did the best they could. Not going to blame 'em for it but but it wasn't well done.
 
Another minor gripe I have is Steve giving Tony an olive branch at the end of the movie. It makes sense considering Steve generally tries to be a high road kind of guy. But man, minutes earlier (on screen) Tony was literally trying to murder both Steve and his best friend (who were both innocent). There was a huge part of me that wanted Steve to just tell off Tony and tell him to get his shit together before he tries to murder someone else because he's having a hissy fit. I'm glad Widow gave him a little bit of that.
Interesting take considering a lot of people thought cap was wrong from start to finish. That's the beauty of the movie though, the division in sides was real for audiences as well. Steve being indignant though would feel more than a little hypocritical imo considering he did keep a major personal secret from Tony purely for selfish reasons.


Edit: fuck, people, myself included, are starting to respond to subpar in earnest. I suggest we all take a brick to the head instead to save some time.
 

Veelk

Banned
Maybe I need to rewatch. Like I kinda get that, but I never picked up on any of it. And like the dinner scene with all the Avengers together is one of my favorite scenes in the MCU and totally shows why Whedon works on these films. Then there's the Hulkbuster scene. It's such a mixed bag.

Like I said, it's something you kind of have to look out for. It's also harder to detect acting wise because RDJ can only convey this through facial expressions and voice lines. Since he's in the Iron Man suit, he has no body language to work with.

But once you know to look for it, I think Tony's sheer discomfort with starring down his friend is pretty apparent.
 

Veelk

Banned
Steve was at fault though and the letter was his apology. He was 100% wrong for not telling Tony the truth about Bucky earlier. He extended an olive branch because he knows no matter what, there's going to be a threat at some point he'll be needed for. He only gave Tony a burner phone he didn't tell him where he'd be and ask to meet up for coffee and make-up.

And also, he views Tony as a friend.

And also also, he's empathetic toward the emotional anguish Tony must be feeling having seen what he's seen. Steve would be a complete hypocrite for holding Tony's emotions against him when the entire movie, he's crossed all those lines just to save his friend. The point of that scene is that Steve understand that ultimately Tony is just trying to do whats right and he respects him for that. This is a critical thing that Civil War gets right that BvS missed and is the fundamental reason for why they got such different reactions. Civil War understands two friends frighting is a tragedy only if they're actually friends. And that's what Steve and Tony are.
 

Sephzilla

Member
Steve was at fault though and the letter was his apology. He was 100% wrong for not telling Tony the truth about Bucky earlier. He extended an olive branch because he knows no matter what, there's going to be a threat at some point he'll be needed for. He only gave Tony a burner phone he didn't tell him where he'd be and ask to meet up for coffee and make-up.

Interesting take considering a lot of people thought cap was wrong from start to finish. That's the beauty of the movie though, the division in sides was real for audiences as well. Steve being indignant though would feel more than a little hypocritical imo considering he did keep a major personal secret from Tony purely for selfish reasons.


Edit: fuck, people, myself included, are stating to respond to subpar in earnest. I suggest we all take a brick to the head instead to save some time.

I think Steve was 95% justified in not telling Tony the truth. Reasoning: Upon finding out the truth Tony 180d and went from calm and collected to MURDER MURDER MURDER within seconds. Tony's actions at the end of Civil War completely justify why Steve kept that from him.

Steve let his emotions influence his judgement when it came to Bucky, but that was also partially fueled by the fact that he thought Bucky was innocent (and had reasoning to believe it) plus the fact that Bucky had "shoot to kill" orders on him without getting a fair trial.
 
I think Steve was 95% justified in not telling Tony the truth. Reasoning: Upon finding out the truth Tony 180d and went from calm and collected to MURDER MURDER MURDER within seconds. Tony's actions at the end of Civil War completely justify why Steve kept that from him.

Well it's a tough situation because Steve hid it from Tony and then was forced to reveal the truth only after Tony had to watch that video with Bucky standing right next to him when he was ALREADY experiencing a great deal of mental anguish and was EXHAUSTED from a global hunt for his fugitive friend. And Steve straight up lied to Tony's face before he had to be asked a second time. So yeah Tony went fucking nuts and it was kinda understandable, and Steve was at least partially to blame.

Steve wasn't wrong to protect Bucky from government agents trying to murder him, but he was definitely wrong to avoid telling Tony for as long as he did and still trying to lie about it when faced with the situation.
 

phanphare

Banned
No there isn't.

You then have a series that has in-universe Avengers' costumes, people wanting photos with Tony, etc. Sokovia Accords happen and there's, like, zero resistance from anyone (besides Cap) about them. They government plays back some footage and a grieving mother reassures Tony. The movie wants you to believe the Avengers did bad or attributed to the bad. Marvel wanted to pivot and they did the best they could. Not going to blame 'em for it but but it wasn't well done.

"I don't exactly feel safe with those things out there."

"it just seems like there's a lot they're not telling us."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWrSeqLH6Ko;t=25s

"these so called 'heroes' have to be held responsible for the destruction done to this city. this was their fight, where are they now?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWrSeqLH6Ko;t=35s


plus you say this: "The movie wants you to believe the Avengers did bad or attributed to the bad"

but that's not entirely accurate. the movie doesn't want you to think the Avengers did bad or are bad, the movie wants you to consider the collateral damage that comes with protecting the earth and how the world's governments would handle that.
 
I think Steve was 95% justified in not telling Tony the truth. Reasoning: Upon finding out the truth Tony 180d and went from calm and collected to I'M GONNA MURDER AN INNOCENT MAN within seconds. Tony's actions at the end of Civil War completely justify why Steve kept that from him.
Counterpoint - that probably wouldn't have happened in a better setting, like between the events of Winter Soldier and AoU. Tony in Civil War is a huge emotional wreck and I think they showed that pretty well. That's the only thing that makes his temporary murderous breakdown believable for me.
 

Veelk

Banned
I think Steve was 95% justified in not telling Tony the truth. Reasoning: Upon finding out the truth Tony 180d and went from calm and collected to I'M GONNA MURDER AN INNOCENT MAN within seconds. Tony's actions at the end of Civil War completely justify why Steve kept that from him.

Not only is that retroactive knowledge that Steve couldn't have known, you're ignoring that the way would learn this information a significant factor. Tony is at the end of his rope as what has come to be his family is falling apart in front of his eyes as he's trying to wrestle with the guilt of how many deaths he's to blame for. He even has his source of stability, Pepper, leaving him. So he tries his best to just do the right thing only to find out that, yet again, Steve was right and he was wrong, there really was a thing going down in siberia (or wherever it was) with Winter soldiers. So he had his best friend crippled in that big fight for nothing.

So he comes in to this place, finally ready to just end this whole thing, only to bear witness to video evidence of his parents being murdered (something further introduced in the opening scene, showing his last encounter haunts him even today) by the guy standing next to him, something he learns was kept from him by his 'friend'.

Had Steve talked to him in a safe environment where he could process it in a healthy way, he would have grieved, but he wouldn't have lost his mind in that grief. Instead, having to find out this way drove him to mentally break. Steve is responsible for that.
 

Parch

Member
Been said enough already that GOGT2 is good.

The MCU is cruising along just fine. I think some are hoping or expecting them to hit the wall and start declining but I haven't seen it yet. I liked the latest Spiderman movie as well so they just keep pumping out consistent success.
 
"I don't exactly feel safe with those things out there."

"it just seems like there's a lot they're not telling us."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWrSeqLH6Ko;t=25s

"these so called 'heroes' have to be held responsible for the destruction done to this city. this was their fight, where are they now?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWrSeqLH6Ko;t=35s


plus you say this: "The movie wants you to believe the Avengers did bad or attributed to the bad"

but that's not entirely accurate. the movie doesn't want you to think the Avengers did bad or are bad, the movie wants you to consider the collateral damage that comes with protecting the earth and how the world's governments would handle that.

Good work soldier.


zg3A8.gif

Facts are kind of important to arguments.
 
"I don't exactly feel safe with those things out there."

"it just seems like there's a lot they're not telling us."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWrSeqLH6Ko;t=25s

"these so called 'heroes' have to be held responsible for the destruction done to this city. this was their fight, where are they now?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWrSeqLH6Ko;t=35s


plus you say this: "The movie wants you to believe the Avengers did bad or attributed to the bad"

but that's not entirely accurate. the movie doesn't want you to think the Avengers did bad or are bad, the movie wants you to consider the collateral damage that comes with protecting the earth and how the world's governments would handle that.

Read what I quoted. Especially the bolded. Your examples don't really shine anything because we know the government's angle. Look at all the civilians and how "we love you Thor!1111!!!"

Like, do you really believe the movie gave the Avengers a fair shake? If so then you were misled.
 
Not only is that retroactive knowledge, the way in which he found out played a significant factor. Tony is at the end of his rope as what has come to be his family is falling apart in front of his eyes in addition to wrestling with the guilt of how many deaths he's to blame for. He even has his source of stability, Pepper, leaving him. So he tries his best to just do the right thing only to find out that, yet again, Steve was right and he was wrong, there really was a thing going down in siberia (or wherever it was) with Winter soldiers. So he had his best friend crippled in that big fight for nothing.

So he comes in to this place, finally ready to just end this whole thing, only to bear witness to video evidence of his parents being murdered (something further introduced in the opening scene, showing his last encounter haunts him even today) by the guy standing next to him, something he learns was kept from him by his 'friend'.

Had Steve talked to him in a safe environment where he could process it in a healthy way, he would have grieved, but he wouldn't have lost his mind in that grief. Instead, having to find out this way drove him to mentally break. Steve is responsible for that.

To me, that's what makes it so good. Both are right, and both are wrong. There is no winner, only losers and consequences.
 

Sephzilla

Member
Counterpoint - that probably wouldn't have happened in a better setting, like between the events of Winter Soldier and AoU. Tony in Civil War is a huge emotional wreck and I think they showed that pretty well. That's the only thing that makes his temporary murderous breakdown believable for me.

Maybe. In a more controlled situation things could (and likely would have) gone better. However it also could have clouded his judgement when it came to investigating Bucky's innocence. The reason I think it would have is because Tony at the end of Civil War already knows Bucky is an innocent man before he snaps, and he snaps anyway and doesn't care. So knowing Bucky killed his parents before hand could made Tony knowingly ignorant of the truth even further in advance. And, even pre-Civil War, Tony has had moments where he's gone a bit unhinged and had moments of emotional instability. Stark in Iron Man 2 is borderline suicidal for a good chunk of the movie and in the first Avengers movie he loses his shit because Cap called him out for being a dick.

Not only is that retroactive knowledge that Steve couldn't have known,

Based on some of Stark's previous actions, I think Steve could have made a logical assumption that Stark isn't the most stable guy. Like I said, he was borderline suicidal in IM2, tried to start a fight with Cap because Cap called out Tony for being a dick, and Tony built Ultron behind everyone else's back because he had a glorified nightmare. There was enough circumstantial evidence to show that Stark might not entirely be trustworthy with sensitive topics like that.
 

phanphare

Banned
Good work soldier.


Facts are kind of important to arguments.

CbV3LGu.gif


Read what I quoted. Especially the bolded.

Like, do you really believe the movie gave the Avengers a fair shake? If so then you were misled.

I did and I responded. there was also skepticism shown in the video I linked about some of the Avengers disappearing after all that stuff went down.

to your next line I don't really know what you're getting at tbh
 
I did and I responded. there was also skepticism shown in the video I linked about some of the Avengers disappearing after all that stuff went down.

to your next line I don't really know what you're getting at tbh

Let's just backtrack a bit:

At the end of Avengers there's just as much questioning shown of the dangers of having such a group around as there are people celebrating.

You then gave a video where 3 lines were said: 1 couple wondering and another of a politician calling out the Avengers (which we already knew the government's stance). While this goes on the screens are full of celebration. That is not equal. It isn't even close. (Even stranger that I'm being laughed at for not accepting facts :/) Paired with the pro-Avengers in-universe merch and lack of, ya know, people talking down the Avengers in the following movies illustrates a world where, ya know, people don't actually dislike the Avengers and there would be backlash if the government wanted to control them. This isn't seen in Civil War because it wouldn't make sense, so they decided to just omit that part and give you a grieving mother + government grade hate. If you don't find it misleading then that's on you.
 

Veelk

Banned
Maybe. In a more controlled situation things could (and likely would have) gone better. However it also could have clouded his judgement when it came to investigating Bucky's innocence. The reason I think it would have is because Tony at the end of Civil War already knows Bucky is an innocent man before he snaps, and he snaps anyway and doesn't care. So knowing Bucky killed his parents before hand could made Tony knowingly ignorant of the truth even further in advance. And, even pre-Civil War, Tony has had moments where he's gone a bit unhinged and had moments of emotional instability. Stark in Iron Man 2 is borderline suicidal for a good chunk of the movie and in the first Avengers movie he loses his shit because Cap called him out for being a dick.

Yeah, that's perfectly true. Tony does not have the mental stability that Steve has. He just doesn't. He got PTSD from the Chitauri invasion, while Steve was just fine. Tony is constantly questioning himself on whether he's doing the right thing, while Steve is relatively more confident about his morality. This isn't to say Tony is weak or shouldn't be a hero, but he's just more vulnerable than him. Nevertheless, as the ending of Civil War shows, Tony can get back up so long as he has actual time and care to cope.

I also think there is a rivalry that plays into his psychology. Tony mentions how he percieves, with jealousy, how flawless Steve appears to be. Tony sees Steve as an impossible measure that he can't live up to no matter how hard he tries. His father constantly talked about the Great Captain America, while he clearly had a less favorable opinion of Tony himself. Now that he's known Cap personally for years, he sees that all the stories were true.

Keeping this in mind sheds yet another layer on the conflict he and Steve have. Tony desperately wants to be in the right and have Steve be in the wrong, just this once. Just this once, Tony wants to have the moral high ground where he is doing the right thing, while Steve is doing wrong by being blinded by his feelings toward his friend. You can almost read his thoughts on his expression when he gets the files showing that Steve was right about the Winter Soldiers in the airplaine. "Goddammit. Of course, he's right again. " and you can sense his disappointment in himself at being the fuck up yet again.

So, head hung low, he goes to the Hydra base to help Cap and his friend with the Winter Soldier problem, like he should have done from the beginning.

Edit: I went back and Gif'd it. His frustration at finding out that he was, yet again, wrong is very palpable.
 

kiguel182

Member
Ultron is bad movie and a mess.

GOTG2 has a bit of a weird pacing and it's not as lean as the first but it has some great character moments. It suffers from trying to cram a lot in the movie but it's an entertaining romp.
 

Sephzilla

Member
Yeah, that's perfectly true. Tony does not have the mental stability that Steve has. He just doesn't. He got PTSD from the Chitauri invasion, while Steve was just fine. Tony is constantly questioning himself on whether he's doing the right thing, while Steve is relatively more confident about his morality. This isn't to say Tony is weak or shouldn't be a hero, but he's just more vulnerable than him. Nevertheless, as the ending of Civil War shows, Tony can get back up so long as he has actual time and care to cope.

I also think there is a rivalry that plays into it. Tony mentions how he percieves, with jealousy, about how flawless Steve appears to be. Tony sees Steve as an impossible measure that he can't live up to no matter how hard he tries. His father constantly talked about the Great Captain America, while he clearly had a less favorable opinion of Tony himself.

Keeping this in mind sheds yet another layer on the conflict he and Steve have. Tony desperately wants to be in the right and have Steve be in the wrong, just this once. Just this once, Tony wants to have the moral high ground where he is doing the right thing, while Steve is doing wrong by being blinded by his feelings toward his friend. You can almost read his thoughts on his expression when he gets the files showing that Steve was right about the Winter Soldiers in the airplaine. "Of course. Of course, he's right. " and sense his disappointment in himself at being the fuck up yet again.

I like this take. Captain America being a focal point of Stark's dad issues is a layer of Stark I didn't entirely think about. He wants to be right just so he can, at some level, be better than his dad.
 
Avengers 1 was sanctimonious and cliché. The battle of New York was not fun. It was just faceless fodder with no minds. I don't get how people can like A1 more than AoU.

I'm not a Josh Whedon fan, I find his moments of pause to be sappy
 

phanphare

Banned
Let's just backtrack a bit:



You then gave a video where 3 lines were said: 1 couple wondering and another of a politician calling out the Avengers (which we already knew the government's stance). While this goes on the screens are full of celebration. That is not equal. It isn't even close. (Even stranger that I'm being laughed at for not accepting facts :/) Paired with the pro-Avengers in-universe merch and lack of, ya know, people talking down the Avengers in the following movies illustrates a world where, ya know, people don't actually dislike the Avengers and there would be backlash if the government wanted to control them. This isn't seen in Civil War because it wouldn't make sense, so they decided to just omit that part and give you a grieving mother + government grade hate. If you don't find it misleading then that's on you.

but the seeds for Civil War were clearly planted right then and there. there's skepticism shown from civilians, news anchors, and government officials

plus, ya know, Civil War happens post-AoU
 
Let's just backtrack a bit:



You then gave a video where 3 lines were said: 1 couple wondering and another of a politician calling out the Avengers (which we already knew the government's stance). While this goes on the screens are full of celebration. That is not equal. It isn't even close. (Even stranger that I'm being laughed at for not accepting facts :/) Paired with the pro-Avengers in-universe merch and lack of, ya know, people talking down the Avengers in the following movies illustrates a world where, ya know, people don't actually dislike the Avengers and there would be backlash if the government wanted to control them. This isn't seen in Civil War because it wouldn't make sense, so they decided to just omit that part and give you a grieving mother + government grade hate. If you don't find it misleading then that's on you.
Except we DO see anti-Avengers protests in AoU and government questioning of unilateral action by Avengers team members at the end of Winter Soldier. Avengers may end more sympathetic towards the heroes but the very last fucking scene is the world security council calling the Avengers dangerous and questioning their judgement.

People laugh at you because you don't know how to incorporate facts that counter your idiotic misreading of these incredibly simple movies.
 

Sephzilla

Member
Avengers 1 was sanctimonious and cliché. The battle of New York was not fun. It was just faceless fodder with no minds. I don't get how people can like A1 more than AoU.

I'm not a Josh Whedon fan, I find his moments of pause to be sappy

There's a few reasons why people like A1 more than AoU. The primary reason is...

tumblr_nx3kocjF8V1tc8fneo1_500.gif


Seeing all of these heroes finally join forces on screen was one of the most hype moments ever and was pretty much unprecedented at this level. At some level Avengers 1 gets a bit more of a pass because it's an "experience" movie. And the characters in this movie don't feel like overly quippy caricatures of themselves like they do in AoU. AoU basically carries all of the same flaws as the first movie, including The Avengers facing off against a generic hoard of enemies, plus more.
 
Guardians 2 is one of the best movies I've seen this decade. It had a strong villain who was despicable and a really bad person. For that reason Guardians 2 has a more grounded story, and one that will stay relevant forever. I agree with Avengers 2.
 

Aurongel

Member
Age of Ultron is a clumsy, flabby movie but it's far from terrible and features some more interesting material than the first film which rested almost entirely on the hype and excitement from these characters sharing the same film. Years from now when people are used to crossover expanded universe films, they'll look back on the first Avengers and wonder why it's so straightforward and simplistic.
 
Honestly I think both Ultron and Vol. 2 are at least as good if not better than their predecessors. The first Avengers takes too long to get going while Ultron is fun right out of the gate. Vol. 2 has better character moments and a better villain than the first. Can't say I agree with the premise of the thread.
 

ZeoVGM

Banned
Avengers 1 was sanctimonious and cliché. The battle of New York was not fun. It was just faceless fodder with no minds. I don't get how people can like A1 more than AoU.

I'm not a Josh Whedon fan, I find his moments of pause to be sappy

Because while you didn't enjoy it, many people did love the final battle. We had never seen anything like it in a comic movie. It was the dream of comic fans, young and old, becoming reality: live action Avengers, teaming up and fighting the kind of fight you would only see in the comic books.

And people loved the interactions between the Avengers. Seeing them come together for the first time was something special. It was a simple but cohesive story.
 

Kelsdesu

Member
There's a few reasons why people like A1 more than AoU. The primary reason is...

tumblr_nx3kocjF8V1tc8fneo1_500.gif


Seeing all of these heroes finally join forces on screen was one of the most hype moments ever and was pretty much unprecedented at this level. At some level Avengers 1 gets a bit more of a pass because it's an "experience" movie. And the characters in this movie don't feel like overly quippy caricatures of themselves like they do in AoU. AoU basically carries all of the same flaws as the first movie, including The Avengers facing off against a generic hoard of enemies, plus more.


tenor.gif


Literally how I felt seeing that scene.
 
Because while you didn't enjoy it, many people did love the final battle. We had never seen anything like it in a comic movie. It was the dream of comic fans, young and old, becoming reality: live action Avengers, teaming up and fighting the kind of fight you would only see in the comic books.

And people loved the interactions between the Avengers. Seeing them come together for the first time was something special. It was a simple but cohesive story.

it was a failed opportunity to have Super Heroes fight Super Villains.

I hate fodder enemies like Shit-ary and Orks because they are braindead zombies and no fun.

Ultron was a good villain because he physically engaged the Avengers, unlike Loki who sat back and only had contact with the Hulk for a brief moment.

anyway, the MCU needs Super Villains badly, not just main boss Super Villain but Super Villains who drive part of the tension.

Reason why Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 1 and 2 were so great was because of the Villain.

Can't wait for Thanos
 
Top Bottom