Age of Distraction: Where Avengers Messed Up
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
Oh Vision matters... to Phase 3. In this movie he sticks out like a sore thumb. The only people I talked to who were excited about him were already comic readers, everyone else was really confused by his presence.voltair27 said:
The Maximoff Twins are better, but we'll have to wait and see how that plays out.
Oh, please. I mean, your entire argument boils down to "Avengers I is more 'substantial' in that it's referenced in subsequent movies and Avengers II isn't" at a time when there are no movies subsequent to Avengers II. Do you seriously believe that the events in Age of Ultron aren't going to come up? Scarlet Witch isn't going to come up again? Vision isn't going to come up again? Nor his infinity stone? Hulk's disappearance isn't going to come up again? Cap & Tony's disagreement isn't going to come up again?
They're ALL going to come up again.
They're ALL going to come up again.
Also keep in mind that Ultron was born of Stark's hubris... and the Mind Stone. It also establishes that Stark is willing to go to unreasonable lengths to make the world secure(important for Civil War). Honestly, aside from the building of the team itself, I can't really say that the first Avengers was any more important in the long term than the second. And it would be a little weird to go straight from "The Avengers have formed and they are awesome!" to "And now they in an all out war against each other because reasons!"
I think that for Civil War to not be an abrupt "where the fuck did that come from" disruption of the MCU, it is important that they showed that the Avengers are important for more reasons than just one battle they fought in New York. Call it filler if you like, but they needed to be shown doing things together before we rip them apart.
I think that for Civil War to not be an abrupt "where the fuck did that come from" disruption of the MCU, it is important that they showed that the Avengers are important for more reasons than just one battle they fought in New York. Call it filler if you like, but they needed to be shown doing things together before we rip them apart.
It's not so much that the movies reference them, it's that they fit together. Almost everything about Phase 1 ties into Avengers 1, and just about everything in Phase 2 spins out of it. If you decided to skip Avengers, there'd be a giant hole in the MCU that doesn't make sense. (Iron Man's PTSD, the weapons build-up in Winter Soldier, why Loki is even more reviled by Jane/Asgard, etc)Pyrian said:
But if you skipped Age of Ultron, there's only a couple things you're missing (Vision and the new Avengers members) which could just have easily be introduced in the Phase 3 films where they're actually relevant. Plus Phase 3 looks like it will have its own internal storyline leading up to Infinity War, where that robot army was just a tiny blip on the radar.
Sure, it's still pretty early and I could be wrong, but it's a lot easier to sweep the events of Age of Ultron under the rug than the previous movies.
I agree. But Age of Ultron could've easily gone one step further and ended with Iron Man and Cap still pissed at each other. It perfectly explains why Stark leaves the Avengers, and makes it easier to generate tension between them in Civil War. There's no reason to smooth their relationship over if the rift will just be torn open again immediately.Scars Unseen said:
I kinda got to agree/disagree. This film sets up a few threads to carry over to the next film that really couldn't have been set up in a single-hero one. The vision's creation, the Twins, and the dissolving of the original avengers and introduction of the new team. It also laid hints as to what could be the cause of civil war. Remember, during the film you have Ultron tearing shit up to the point of global threat level significance, and before that you have the cause of the Hulk vs Hulk-Buster fight. You also have seeds sown about why they could fight with each other, that while "resolved" in order to save the world, still would factor in to decisions and thoughts. Tony is still the creator of Ultron and it will have consequences. There is a new team and that may tear Cap's loyalties between the two. Add onto that the hints of Wakanda and about Fury's representative status and you have a recipe for a lot of political uproar to justify the tensions that would cause civil war.
But does that make the film only a means to get to Phase 3 then? Perhaps a little. It did continue Tony's arc, though none of the other characters seemed to have clear continued progression. Thor was a fighter, and aside from perhaps the spring scene (which may or may not demonstrate some character growth compared to the beginning of the MCU, I'm not sure, it was too short a scene) he didn't do much else besides some good scenes and as a means to verify that the Vision was (trust)worthy. Captain I don't know about, still haven't seen winter soldier so can't say if I missed something there or not carried through or continued. Hulk and Widow's thing seemed a bit rushed to me though. Not bad, and makes sense, but I wish it was something more introduced and explored prior and then wrapped up here, as it is it feels like there is a middle part I was missing. I did like Hawkeye's stuff though, and without his own movie, it seemed a good way to flesh out his character where he wouldn't be anywhere else before the original avengers disolved.
Still enjoyed the film, and I think there is more in the movie to make it have purpose then argued. Hard to say there isn't til the next films are released and any hints we missed can be referred back to. I will agree that it could have done a lot more to continue characters or tie up Phase 1.
But does that make the film only a means to get to Phase 3 then? Perhaps a little. It did continue Tony's arc, though none of the other characters seemed to have clear continued progression. Thor was a fighter, and aside from perhaps the spring scene (which may or may not demonstrate some character growth compared to the beginning of the MCU, I'm not sure, it was too short a scene) he didn't do much else besides some good scenes and as a means to verify that the Vision was (trust)worthy. Captain I don't know about, still haven't seen winter soldier so can't say if I missed something there or not carried through or continued. Hulk and Widow's thing seemed a bit rushed to me though. Not bad, and makes sense, but I wish it was something more introduced and explored prior and then wrapped up here, as it is it feels like there is a middle part I was missing. I did like Hawkeye's stuff though, and without his own movie, it seemed a good way to flesh out his character where he wouldn't be anywhere else before the original avengers disolved.
Still enjoyed the film, and I think there is more in the movie to make it have purpose then argued. Hard to say there isn't til the next films are released and any hints we missed can be referred back to. I will agree that it could have done a lot more to continue characters or tie up Phase 1.
I agree but I also think everything this side of the first Avengers movie is about keeping the status quo.
Hold on, Vision and the Maximoffs may be a few items, but they're incredibly important characters. Perhaps the Maximoffs could have been introduced later, but Vision and Ultron are tied together inherently. You can't spontaneously have the Vision appear without Ultron and skipping over Ultron would be a terrible idea since he's a pretty major character.Fanghawk said:
Aside from that, there's also the revelation of the Mind Stone itself, which is a pretty big deal for the MCU. Age of Ultron may not have been tied into the Phase 2 movies as much (which can also be argued seeing as they were dealing with the results of Avengers 1, and Winter Soldier), but you can be sure that its repercussions will be felt for a while.
Why is everybody so sure that Ultron is gone for good? The last copy of him is confronted, alone, by the one character who has told everyone else that he would "rather see [Ultron] alive than dead". He only agrees to kill Ultron because Ultron is a threat to the entire planet. When Vision finds that last Ultron, Ultron has been completely removed from any source of power. His clones are all destroyed, all his work has been dismantled, even his last body has large parts of it torn off and worst of all, he's been permanently disconnected from the internet.
So now we see Vision alone in the woods with a unique form of life that he'd like to keep alive, and in an off-screen flash of light kills him? I'm calling bullshit on that. There's pretty much no way Vision isn't hiding him somewhere that he believes Ultron can't become a threat again (and thus, most certainly will become a threat again).
So now we see Vision alone in the woods with a unique form of life that he'd like to keep alive, and in an off-screen flash of light kills him? I'm calling bullshit on that. There's pretty much no way Vision isn't hiding him somewhere that he believes Ultron can't become a threat again (and thus, most certainly will become a threat again).
They make jokes, but they basically have S.H.I.E.L.D. again. Same equipment, same seemingly limitless amount of supplies, same control over the governments of the world (that base didn't build itself).piscian said:
It's basically The Avengers + Not-S.H.I.E.L.D. but still S.H.I.E.L.D. at this point.
A pity, it would have been interesting to see who they manage without a monolithic organisation backing them up. Winter Soldier's only remaining influence was giving us the Twins, and explaining why they're initially hostile. Beyond that? Might as well have never happened.
Na, that was the last one. However, in classic comicbook style we didn't see the last one get destroyed did we? We saw it lung at Vision followed by a cutaway and a blinding light from the gem. Given that Vision was so adamant that Ultron was Unique, and he didn't want to destroy him, but must can we really assume that Vision actually destroyed him. Also given that The Vision isn't actually a pure Vision and actuallypiscian said:
Adam Warlock because of the Gem, and Adams backstory has his original creation in a chamber that was identical to the one Ultron had vision built in, not the caccoon he later comes from. Adam gets an evil doppelganger Magus because of eveything with the Gems.
Looking at it Vision probably Absorbed Ultron, and will later emerge out of the Vision. Kinda how he's done so in the past. After all The Vision had a delayed subroutine to rebuild Ultron the first time. So Ultron Version Unknown will be a Evil Doppleganger of The Vision, is my bet.
I didn't like how there was no explanation as to why the Avengers were the Avengers again. In the last Avengers movie they all go there separate ways, through the phase 2 they have no interaction throughout all of their individual movies. Then all of a sudden out of nowhere they're a team again with no explanation as to why. I get that they were going after Hydra, but a scene where they reform would have been nice.
I'd argue that Iron Man 3 is more filler than Age of Ultron.
Age of Ultron establishes Tony's fear for the world and his desire to protect it post-Avengers with a single, well made scene after Scarlet Witch messes with his mind.
Iron Man 3 takes an entire movie, a subplot with a boy sidekick, and the introduction and subsequent destruction of AIM to tell the same story.
I mean, Iron Man 3 seemed to show that Tony was stepping away from the superhero mantle, and embracing his more "consultant" role: he'll always be Iron Man, but he won't be as active. AoU immediately resets that, and the only differnce that Tony develops post-Avengers is he no longer has the Arc Reactor in his suit. Hell, i t even shows that Tony's still tinkering and building new suits with Veronica, F.R.I.D.A.Y, the Mark 46 (I think is its number), and even Ultron.
Also, the claim that Vision didn't matter in this movie makes me think you saw a completely different film. Vision brings the team back together after Tony still messes with AI, which smooths over the in-team conflict so they can fight together against Ultron. It also shows Stark always putting the future in his hands (to build a suit of armor around the globe - the Fifty States initiative), an attitude that will undoubtedly cause conflict in Civil War when the "bigger baddie" is other heroes. Vision also brings a concrete presence to the stones on Earth, not the proxies of the Tesseract or Scepter. Vision also serves to distinguish Stark - the lack of JARVIS in the suit means that Stark is more alone than he has been.
Ultimately, I don't think that it's fair to argue that Age of Ultron isn't important. The crux of your article revolves around post-Avengers projects mentioning Avengers. The team up wasn't even really necessary the first time - why does Thanos use Loki when he could just take Loki's scepter? Why is there an army of aliens at the ready? Why does Loki, from the lackluster original Thor, need his own spotlight? The character development in Avengers is hardly there - everyone enters how they leave, just more willing to work on a team, despite leaving alone. I guess Avengers introduces Mark Ruffalo's Hulk and Hawkeye, but both of them could be introduced at any time - possibly even in Agents of Shield. Avengers only became truly significant to the universe with Winter Soldier and Iron Man 3.
People bring up that Avengers didn't address the damage the fight causes, but ignore that would bloat the movie and lead to unnecessary filler CGI sequences (Man of Steel). But the events do get addressed and analyzed in other MCU works, and give time and context for the audience to digest the full significance of the fighting, not just the on screen events (Daredevil, Agents of Shield). Asking for the events AND analysis in one movie would have lead to either a three-four movie, or a film with no center.
Avengers became a cornerstone once the Phase 2 building was finished. Before that it was just a film with a big cast.
Avengers 2 can't be compared until it has similar time to build a legacy moving into Phase 3.
Age of Ultron establishes Tony's fear for the world and his desire to protect it post-Avengers with a single, well made scene after Scarlet Witch messes with his mind.
Iron Man 3 takes an entire movie, a subplot with a boy sidekick, and the introduction and subsequent destruction of AIM to tell the same story.
I mean, Iron Man 3 seemed to show that Tony was stepping away from the superhero mantle, and embracing his more "consultant" role: he'll always be Iron Man, but he won't be as active. AoU immediately resets that, and the only differnce that Tony develops post-Avengers is he no longer has the Arc Reactor in his suit. Hell, i t even shows that Tony's still tinkering and building new suits with Veronica, F.R.I.D.A.Y, the Mark 46 (I think is its number), and even Ultron.
Also, the claim that Vision didn't matter in this movie makes me think you saw a completely different film. Vision brings the team back together after Tony still messes with AI, which smooths over the in-team conflict so they can fight together against Ultron. It also shows Stark always putting the future in his hands (to build a suit of armor around the globe - the Fifty States initiative), an attitude that will undoubtedly cause conflict in Civil War when the "bigger baddie" is other heroes. Vision also brings a concrete presence to the stones on Earth, not the proxies of the Tesseract or Scepter. Vision also serves to distinguish Stark - the lack of JARVIS in the suit means that Stark is more alone than he has been.
Ultimately, I don't think that it's fair to argue that Age of Ultron isn't important. The crux of your article revolves around post-Avengers projects mentioning Avengers. The team up wasn't even really necessary the first time - why does Thanos use Loki when he could just take Loki's scepter? Why is there an army of aliens at the ready? Why does Loki, from the lackluster original Thor, need his own spotlight? The character development in Avengers is hardly there - everyone enters how they leave, just more willing to work on a team, despite leaving alone. I guess Avengers introduces Mark Ruffalo's Hulk and Hawkeye, but both of them could be introduced at any time - possibly even in Agents of Shield. Avengers only became truly significant to the universe with Winter Soldier and Iron Man 3.
People bring up that Avengers didn't address the damage the fight causes, but ignore that would bloat the movie and lead to unnecessary filler CGI sequences (Man of Steel). But the events do get addressed and analyzed in other MCU works, and give time and context for the audience to digest the full significance of the fighting, not just the on screen events (Daredevil, Agents of Shield). Asking for the events AND analysis in one movie would have lead to either a three-four movie, or a film with no center.
Avengers became a cornerstone once the Phase 2 building was finished. Before that it was just a film with a big cast.
Avengers 2 can't be compared until it has similar time to build a legacy moving into Phase 3.
Yeah, that bugged me with the start, especially considering Iron Man 3 seemed to say that Tony Stark would be stepping back from the full Iron Man mode. Maybe Agents of Shield explains it, but the beginning was a tad hand-wavy. Especially considering Shield's collapse in Winter Soldier, it makes me wonder who is actually contacting them. They say Cap's the leader, but I'm not sure how he has Thor's number. Even the "Lullaby" for the Hulk seemed like a relatively practiced element, but there was no in-universe explanation for the reformation.Virtual Boy said:
That said, the movie quickly made me ignore the reformed team. They had to fight Hydra to address their presence, and it gave a nice setup to Ultron - a problem that demanded the team reunite.