Avengers: Age of Ultron |OT| If you open this thread, you're an Avenger

Status
Not open for further replies.
such a great flick,

People underestimate the immensity of bringing so many characters together and having them interact evenly. A lot of people are giving Whedon some undeserved stick for this. I think he did a great job keeping the whole thing exciting, focused, funny and together.
 
tryagainlater said:
Looking at all the Marvel movie reviews, I feel very lonely liking Thor 2 so much. I thought it was funny :(
Click to expand...

I liked Thor: The Dark World. Certain aspects could've been better, but it was still enjoyable to me.

tumblr_mw6wuuyF4E1rvzq9no3_500.gif
 
Just got back from a second viewing and it's probably gone down in my estimation, but, as I said already before; it's problems that I think can be solved with an extended version. So much trimmed down. I think a few others share that opinion on here.

Also, Vision still great!
 
birthday-suit said:
I'm sorry. I put spoilers instead of spoiler.

I fixed it like 2 seconds after I did it.
Click to expand...
You're still doing it wrong. Firstly, you literally only tagged the name, which is beyond dumb. Secondly, this isn't the spoiler thread. You shouldn't be posting spoilers of that magnitude in this thread at all.
 
Dammit. I knew I should have stayed out of this thread.

As a rule of thumb, never just spoil one word. Do the entire sentence and, if you really want to be sure, preface it with "Spoilers for _________" although that's not necessary as much in threads about one topic. But most importantly, if you're not sure, just go to the designated spoiler thread.
 
People seriously need to be more vigilant with their spoilers. It's not just this thread that these drive-bys happen with poor use of tags. Most people probably didn't even know
Thanos was in this film, let alone that he dies[/spioler].
 
tryagainlater said:
Looking at all the Marvel movie reviews, I feel very lonely liking Thor 2 so much. I thought it was funny :(
Click to expand...

I enjoyed it loads when I saw it at the cinema. Found it really didn't stand up to repeat viewing. After my first viewing, I'd have ranked it as one of the better MCU films. Now I think it's one of the worst.

I reckon AoU will be better on repeat viewing. Expectations are already set for the story, pacing and problems with the editing, so you can just sit back and enjoy the ride.
 
:>

Glad to see some fans of Thor franchise in here <3

Thor was my entry point to MCU. I mean, I enjoyed Iron Man titles very much but it was not until repeated viewings of Thor movies that I got really invested in the Avengers.

I love the flavour he carries. That epic family-centric shakespearean drama is my thing :D
 
YesNOnoNOYes said:
:>

Glad to see some fans of Thor franchise in here <3

Thor was my entry point to MCU. I mean, I enjoyed Iron Man titles very much but it was not until repeated viewings of Thor movies that I got really invested in the Avengers.

I love the flavour he carries. That epic family-centric shakespearean drama is my thing :D
Click to expand...

I really liked Thor and I find it holds up well on repeat viewings. Kenneth Branagh was a perfect choice for Thor, to bring out those Shakespearean elements you mention. It also has a damn great score. I was really annoyed when they didn't bring Patrick Doyle, or any elements of his score, back for the sequel - although that's been one of the problems in the MCU overall, that general lack of continuity with musical scores across films, although Age of Ultron does revisit some thankfully.

Thor - Earth to Asgard

Thor: The Dark World though, I don't have much fondness for that at all.
 
Thor 1 was a good movie. I found it quite funny, more funny than Avengers 2 and the endless quips to be honest.

Thor 2 is just bad.
 
Got a chance to see it. I'm not a huge avengers fan or anything and thought it was pretty good. I thought it was more entertaining than the first movie, especially the main baddie
 
E the Shaggy said:
Didn't Whedon say he cut like an additional hour from the movie?
Click to expand...
Work cuts are always longer than the theatrical cut. There would be about an hour of additional footage available, but what would actually make it into the extended cut is a different story, since that hour could've included a lot of extended takes, shots that didn't really work out etc.

Having seen the film and hearing reports about the additional hour that was cut I think about 15-25 minutes of the footage would make it into the extended cut, at least. I'd really like an extended cut, but they shouldn't use all of the deleted footage, only what works.
 
I think Whedon said there'd be like 10-20 minutes of deleted scenes, so if there is an extended cut, it's only probably that much longer.
 
LosDaddie said:
You think the rumor is true? I find it difficult to believe
Click to expand...
Lengthy cuts are pretty common on the editing floor, since they often use all of their footage, cutting down what they feel wasn't necessary or what simply didn't work. After that they still could've had to cut down a few minutes to meet the demands of the studio. (They usually imply differently in interviews, but it's not really something thats openly admitted during press tours prior to release etc.)
 
Caode said:
I really liked Thor and I find it holds up well on repeat viewings. Kenneth Branagh was a perfect choice for Thor, to bring out those Shakespearean elements you mention. It also has a damn great score. I was really annoyed when they didn't bring Patrick Doyle, or any elements of his score, back for the sequel - although that's been one of the problems in the MCU overall, that general lack of continuity with musical scores across films, although Age of Ultron does revisit some thankfully.

Thor - Earth to Asgard

Thor: The Dark World though, I don't have much fondness for that at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Branagh really delivered the theatrical aspects of the Asgardian family drama. He was the right choice, like you say!

I really enjoyed the backstory of Thor characters, to be honest :x

Not sure if it still spoilerific but I will just black it out just in case :> (hate spoiling things for others~)

Thor's own arc is a bit shallow ("The Arrogant Prince Humbled" sort of thing) but it was delivered nicely and just with enough humour. Loki's arc had more depth, with him discovering that he was actually never a real runner for the throne of Asgard, and yet despite that, he could not harm Odin when he fell over, and how he loves his mother so.

And to that veins, Odin's role as a father to both of them is super captivating for me. Sometimes I think he really favours his own son over his adopted. There's something very human and very flawed in this. Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe he is impartial and he loves them both the same, just that Loki does fail him .... and in such terrible deeds, too. Maybe maybe :>
IDK

I looooove.




Oh, that is a pretty score <3 Thanks for reminding! :D

(on that note, I wished they had used the Avengers team song a bit more in Ultron too) (aaa)
 
Cloud Strife said:
This, the RT score is like saying 74% of people have rated it positively,
Click to expand...
But that's the whole point of Rotten Tomatoes, seperating the reviews between good and bad and showing their ratio.
If you take that away, you get Metacritic.

And one shouldn't use any score to judge a movie anyway. It is a tool to help you decide which movies to look for.


Gartooth said:
Am I right to assume that there's been no official confirmation on an extended cut?
Click to expand...
Yeah, at best it is a leak,
at worst someone at Amazon UK is blowing something out of proportion.

I think it is the later: Whoever at Amazon UK wrote that email, probably only reacted to some things Joss Whedon said in an interview, that the DVD will be full of extra scenes.
 
Scorpion Soldier said:
Work cuts are always longer than the theatrical cut. There would be about an hour of additional footage available, but what would actually make it into the extended cut is a different story, since that hour could've included a lot of extended takes, shots that didn't really work out etc.

Having seen the film and hearing reports about the additional hour that was cut I think about 15-25 minutes of the footage would make it into the extended cut, at least. I'd really like an extended cut, but they shouldn't use all of the deleted footage, only what works.
Click to expand...

In the interview when Whedon mentions an early cut was 3½ hours long, he explicitly say it was the first cut. The process in editing usually goes:

Assembly cut, which is all of the shot footage. This is often done on-going while the film is shooting, adding in the dailies at the end of each day. Scenes are shot out of sequence, so the assembly cut is the first cut to put them in their actual sequence.

Rough cut come next, which starts to trim the assembly cut. VFX and often audio is still missing at this stage, and place holder scene will be used.

Once shooting has wrapped, the director and producer then joins in the editing. This edit is called the directors cut, or first cut (which is what Whedon was referring to). Based on the edit produced, they set the general sequence of shots, see what additional shooting is required, what plot points need changing or removing, and so on.

After re-shoots are done, and VFX shots are completed, you get Fine cuts, Pick cuts and eventually the Final cut, which makes up the theatrical release.

To my mind, the parts of the film that have been trimmed too much would have been done late in the editing process, especially as Whedon said he wanted to get AoU's run time to be less than the first Avengers (it's run time is 1 minute less). So he would have been cutting seconds here, minutes there from selected scenes. None of the editing issue come from whole scenes that are missing and needed to explain things, it's just existing scenes are too brief.
 
To everyone worried about the RT score, I just want to point something out. Even thought its at a 73, the score sits at a 7/10. Most movies with this kind of score sit in the 80's. Just look at Furious 7, it has a 6.7/10 and still sits at an 82%.
 
Everyone just needs to calm down about this Rotten Tomatoes business. It's a movie a lot of people in this thread have been looking forward to. Why not go in and form your own opinion if you're set on watching it anyway, instead of worrying about what others have to say about it.

Most, if not all, of you guys don't work for Marvel. Let them worry about the RT score.

/Marvel simp
 
Krev said:
No. Guardians is similar to this in a lot of ways. Star Wars at least looks different.
Click to expand...

Guardians doesn't look different?

Quick said:
Everyone just needs to calm down about this Rotten Tomatoes business. It's a movie a lot of people in this thread have been looking forward to. Why not go in and form your own opinion if you're set on watching it anyway, instead of worrying about what others have to say about it.

Most, if not all, of you guys don't work for Marvel. Let them worry about the RT score.

/Marvel simp
Click to expand...

I doubt they care. Money > reviews.
 
No one should be worried about the RT score. What they should be worried about is that many long time Marvel fans, including total shills like me, were let down by the film. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

In an alternate universe, Avengers The Kang Dynasty released today
37
594
Doom85 replied
Toxic Avenger | Official Teaser #1 | Miss Meat
6
570
CastorSoze replied
Avengers Doomsday Cast Announced
News Event  2 3 4
153
7K
Doom85 replied
Leaked Avengers: Doomsday concept art
2
73
7K
MonkD replied
Marvel reveals The New Avengers (spoilers obviously)
News Spoilers  2
61
771
Reizo Ryuu replied
Top Bottom