AVENGERS 2: Age of Ultron (5/1/15) - Final Trailer

[quote name='shrike4242']I need to put in some viewing time for Thor & Captain America for me, though at least I own them, so I'm a step better than you. :razz:[/QUOTE]

My Fiancee has not seen TIC nor HULK. We have seen the other movies together. It's not necessary to see all of them to understand the avengers.
 
Why wouldn't you own these movies? All but Iron Man 2 are really good-great. Speaking of which, Iron Man 2 is available on Netflix, so you don't even need to pay to see it.
 
[quote name='eastx']Why wouldn't you own these movies? All but Iron Man 2 are really good-great. Speaking of which, Iron Man 2 is available on Netflix, so you don't even need to pay to see it.[/QUOTE]

I think Javy has a kid so money has to go to diapers or something.
 
[quote name='TKtheknight']As of this post, the Avengers on Rotten Tomatoes so far has 24 good reviews and 1 bad review. That 1 bad review said "Apparently, bootleg copies of Transformers 3 made it to Asgard." Lol WTF?! XD[/QUOTE]
Avengers 96% fresh rating.

If you read that 1 negative review, Amy Nicholson the author calls Nick Fury, Nick Frost and apparently she hates Marvel in general. She gave all Marvel films - Avengers, Iron Man, and TIH all rotten reviews. But she gives every DC film even Green Lantern and Watchmen all fresh reviews. LOL
 
I loved Watchmen too, but I don't know how anyone could prefer the Green Lantern film to Marvel movies. It does not hold up under scrutiny. In other words, I hate her.
 
[quote name='eastx']I loved Watchmen too, but I don't know how anyone could prefer the Green Lantern film to Marvel movies. It does not hold up under scrutiny. In other words, I hate her.[/QUOTE]I didn't like Green Lantern, but I thought it was less stupid than Iron Man 2.

IMO most of the Marvel movies are fine, but I've felt no urge to watch any of them more than once, and I'm not surprised she compared Avengers to Transformers 3. That's the vibe the trailer has been giving me.
 
[quote name='whoknows']I didn't like Green Lantern, but I thought it was less stupid than Iron Man 2.

IMO most of the Marvel movies are fine, but I've felt no urge to watch any of them more than once, and I'm not surprised she compared Avengers to Transformers 3. That's the vibe the trailer has been giving me.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I agree that Iron Man 2 is not a good film. Maybe I did like Green Lantern slightly more, but that's faint praise.

Avengers has some obvious similarities to Transformers 3, namely that it involves a large-scale alien invasion in a big city, and to a lesser extent, the design of the giant worm seen in the trailer. But Transformers 3 also has about a million flaws, mainly involving script, logic, and tone. From the reviews so far, it sounds like Avengers is a far better movie. Certainly Joss Whedon is a better director and script-writer than Mr. Bay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='eastx']Oh, I agree that Iron Man 2 is not a good film. Maybe I did like Green Lantern slightly more, but that's faint praise.

Avengers has some obviously similarities to Transformers 3, namely that it involves a large-scale alien invasion in a big city, and to a lesser extent, the design of the giant worm seen in the trailer. But Transformers 3 also has about a million flaws, mainly involving script, logic, and tone. From the reviews so far, it sounds like Avengers is a far better movie. Certainly Joss Whedon is a better director and script-writer than Mr. Bay.[/QUOTE]
Movies like transformers shouldn't even need a review. Who goes to see transformers for the story? I personally like the transformers movies due to ILM's CGI work and the adrenaline rush. Same reason why I'm going to go see Battleship, Avengers, and GI Joe this summer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iron Man 2 is a great film. Most people get jaded by how superb the first film was and yeah, it wasn't as good as the first, but Iron man 2 was still a great movie.

As for Green Lantern and Watchmen, they were both pretty bad. Watchmen had it's moments, but it was devoid of all emotion and tension that made the graphic novel the powerhouse that it is. Green Lantern was just bad -- failed writing, failed acting and terrible 3D for a movie that should have been in space the entire time.
 
[quote name='whoknows']I didn't like Green Lantern, but I thought it was less stupid than Iron Man 2.

[/QUOTE]

I liked Watchmen too as someone who actually read the book, but the general consensus gave it a 64% rating because general movie goers didn't care for it.

Nothing wrong with her being a sole DC fangirl, but it's still hard to take Amy Nicholson's review with merit because it was so poorly written, no spell check, she got the chracters names all wrong (Nick Frost), and her past history shows EVERY Marvel film she reviewed, she gave all rottens.
 
Watchmen was amazing. Very dark. Honestly the DC killed it when they added more Specter sex scenes. Too bad about Rorschach...I actually liked that guy.
 
[quote name='GhostShark']Iron Man 2 is a great film. Most people get jaded by how superb the first film was and yeah, it wasn't as good as the first, but Iron man 2 was still a great movie. [/QUOTE]

Not me. I thought the first one was good, but it didn't blow me away. Iron Man 2 just had so many obvious plot holes. Keep in mind, I'm not one to nitpick or look for those things in movies, but they were just so obvious in Iron Man 2.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Not me. I thought the first one was good, but it didn't blow me away. Iron Man 2 just had so many obvious plot holes. Keep in mind, I'm not one to nitpick or look for those things in movies, but they were just so obvious in Iron Man 2.[/QUOTE]

examples of the plot holes?
 
I thought the first Iron Man kinda sucked, and the second one was substantially better. The second one realized it wasn't anything more than a stupid action flick and played it for all it was worth. Plus Mickey Rourke was a better villain than Jeff Bridges.

The next Iron Man is going to be better than the first two. Shane Black is going to tear shit up with the next movie.
 
[quote name='Tony Stark']examples of the plot holes?[/QUOTE]

Iron Man 2 has so many problems that if you didn't pick up on them while watching, you may just not be able to see them (no offense). Nothing wrong with liking it despite the problems, but some are just glaring (though others are more a matter of opinion).

  • Tony's disease is cured by a hastily-rushed deus ex machina right in the middle of the movie. Story and conflict-wise, it should have happened at the end and involved multiple steps. It definitely should not have come from a magic secret message from his dad, which makes no sense.
  • Justin Hammer. Funny, but not a well-developed character and most of his scenes feel awkward rather than organic.
  • Black Widow. Not only is she unconvincing as a military bad-ass (I hear she does a little better in Avengers, but Scarlett Johansen is really too petite to look athletic), but she's completely undeveloped and just there as an Avengers build-up rather than an organic part of the movie.
  • Pepper Potts went from being a sympathetic character in the first movie to a complete caricature. During the raceway attack, she yells and screams like an idiot rather than giving Tony the armor he needs to save them all. She literally could have killed herself, Tony, and Happy with her stupidity. She is also angry with Tony and hits him after he saves her at the end (WTF?). She is unlikable and unintelligent in Iron Man 2.
  • Ivan Vanko, Whiplash - As depicted in the film, he's just completely undeveloped. He wants revenge and nothing else. The sad thing is Mickey Rourke shot a lot of scenes that would've fleshed out his character but they all ended up getting cut and are not included as extras on the BD/DVD.
  • Tony peeing in his suit. 'Nuff said.
  • The anticlimax: The fight between Whiplash in his armor, Iron Man, and War Machine lasts for all of 10 seconds. It's the worst boss fight in movie history. Whiplash might be a little more threatening than Obadiah Stane, but at least Iron Monger actually challenged Tony in the first movie and didn't just fall over and die as soon as he appeared.

I'm probably missing a few things... For me, the complete misuse of Whiplash and lack of a climax, plus the aborted disease plotline, are what really spoil it. Some of the individual scenes are cool, but they don't come together into a cohesive movie.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
disease - fury cured his symptoms with a shot, the secret message was hidden in the diagram, which healed his chest issue

the climax - i think fighting off the "hammer-oid" attack was part of battling Vanko

others I can understand lol
 
Whiplash has and always will be a a C-level villain that nobody cares about. I can't honestly remember the last time he was even relevant in comics. He's instantly squashed anytime he is on a page. Giving him more purpose than revenge may have done the move some more good (still one of my favorite Marvel films), but I don't think it was really necessary.

While I do agree that Hammer should have developed a bit more, I don't think it was necessary as well. He was pretty superficial and uninteresting in his history as well. His daughters on the other hand are a completely different case.

The only thing I really agree with on your list, eastx, is the Pepper Potts point. I thought she was really lame in the movie as opposed to the first movie and the comics. I think part of that problem was having the Black Widow in the movie even though ScarJo pulls of a fantastic Widow. As for Widow, the only thing missing for me from her is a Russian accent.
 
C'mon GhostShark, Widow is also missing a personality (in Iron Man 2). Heck, at least in the first Ultimate Avengers comic series they made her attracted to Tony. That's some form of humanizing. We won't speak of what they did to her in Ultimate Avengers 2.

[quote name='Tony Stark']
the climax - i think fighting off the "hammer-oid" attack was part of battling Vanko[/QUOTE]

You thought Vanko falling down as soon as they started fighting was a good thing? That fight should not have gone one for a few more minutes? I'll also point out there's no real sense of danger during the Hammer drones fight. It's fine as an action sequence, but there's never the slightest question of who will win or not. That's one reason I wouldn't call it a climax.
 
I haven't seen the movie since it was in theaters, and since I didn't like it then I obviously wouldn't have watched it since, but what I can remember:

Mickey Rourke being immune to being hit by a car multiple times/he has no armor when he fights at that race, and nobody thinks of shooting him/he constantly takes off his helmet at the end fight for no reason.

Don Cheadle not only fits perfectly into the War Machine suit, but it also has no type of security so he can easily hop in.

The double laser at the end defeating Mickey Rourke when it didn't really hurt Iron Man/War Machine earlier in the movie. It also didn't really look like that big of a deal the first time it happened.

EDIT: Also Don Cheadle being able to control the suit perfectly on his first try.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='eastx']Iron Man 2 has so many problems that if you didn't pick up on them while watching, you may just not be able to see them (no offense). Nothing wrong with liking it despite the problems, but some are just glaring (though others are more a matter of opinion).[/QUOTE]
Films are never perfect.

Even Chris Nolan's mighty "The Dark Knight" had serious issues and plot holes as well.

1) Joker breaking in and escaping the bank robbery with a school bus

When Joker robs the bank and his school bus plows through it's wall, that's about 3-4 minutes where the bus is just sitting inside a giant hole in the building for people to see while his henchmen were loading up the bus with cash. Joker even had time to make small talk with the bank manager and all that. He later exits through that giant hole in the building with the school bus, and again no one seemed to noticed. He then drives his bus in between other school buses filled with kids screaming (even the DVD's close caption subtitles points this out) in broad daylight with incoming traffic, while dust and asphalt were raining down the bus' ceiling, and again no one noticed.

 2) Joker crashing Dent's party hosted by Wayne

So after Joker throws Rachel off the building to which Batman dives out of to rescue, both fall a number of stories and through a car, what happens afterwards? Did the Joker just leave the party and gave up looking for Dent? Did Batman forget that the Joker was still up at the party with a lot of innocent civilians? There was no closure to the scene. Next scene was at Gordon's office.

3) Batman slams his bike into the Joker's truck and falls off it, conscious perhaps

Joker's thug, rather than shoot a defenseless lying Batman (likely on the exposed mouth/chin area) decides to un-mask him. Fine. But in doing so, the thug gets shocked while touching Batman's cowl. So what does the Joker do? Rather than shoot him as well with his shotgun, after just seeing his own thug already get shocked, the Joker approaches Batman to un-mask him too! Into which Gordon comes out and pulls out his gun to arrest him.

First, that was just dumb by the Joker.

Second, Batman could've easily died twice in that scene if it wasn't for the Joker and his thug's stupidness. Argument is that Joker never intended to kill Batman. True. But Joker only revealed his intentions to Batman by the end of the film, and during this whole armored truck chase scene, Batman and Gordon didn't know that. All they knew was that Joker had already killed people including Judge Surillo, Commissioner Loeb, two civilians, and a guy dressed up as Batman with hockey pads. Joker and his henchmen could've easily shot and killed Batman at that point of the scene. Lucky for Batman, they were just dumb.

4) Joker escaping Gotham Central prison

So after Joker's capture, Gordon un-cuffs him so that he could be interrogated by Batman in his cell... okay... but after Batman finishes interrogating the Joker, they all just leave without handcuffing the Joker back. To make matters worse, not only was Joker un-cuffed but they stationed a detective INSIDE the cell to watch over him? Really? How about OUTSIDE the cell instead, that way Joker wouldn't be able to subdue the detective which lead to the escape? Not a strong plot device in the movie.

5) Wayne finding a thumb print by rebuilding a bullet destroyed splinter

Here's a hard one a lot of people didn't even notice. Wayne went all CSI basically reconstructing destroyed splinters from bullet to get a thumbprint. He did so by firing bullets from his computer controlled gatling gun into brick walls that matched his crime scene. From there, he just did an easy comparison of the holes in which his computer reconstructs the bullet's fragments rebuilding it, and super imposing it on the brick wall from the crime scene.

It's just that Chris Nolan forgot two basic simple CSI rules:

First rule: the thumbprints are left on the shell casings and not the bullet. The shell casings are ejected even before the bullet hits the wall (which Batman used as his crime scene evidence). So for Batman to find a thumbprint in a bullet hole was just magic.

Even if Nolan applied the first rule correctly, there is also the second rule: you must use the same bullet and the same gun for the whole thing to even be possible. Basically, it's telling us that Wayne got extremely lucky by finding not just the right bullet, but also the right gun, a gatling gun. So that basically means the men who killed Mr. Dent and Mr. Harvey in the apartment used a gatling gun that fires 4,000 rounds per minute, but magically used it to just fire a controlled single shot burst in the crime scene.

6) After finding out that the clowns are hostages, Batman calls to inform Lucious Fox

Wouldn't it have been easier for Batman to just call Gordon, or one of the authorities and their captains? If Batman is able to turn every single cellphone in the city into sonars, surely a simple phone call to the right person (rather than Lucious Fox) would've saved Batman having to battle the officers.

7) If Dent was found to be fallible, all the crooks he put into jail would be set free
Batman's exact lines to Dent during his interrogation of one of Joker's schizo henchmen in a dark alley - "If anyone saw this, everything would be undone. All the criminals you got off the streets would be released. And Jim Gordon will have died for nothing."

So all those 500 henchmen that Dent threw in jail will be set free, because Dent went on a little spree to go after the crooked cops that killed Rachel? Did the film forget that they all went through a court of law earlier, and they were all found guilty already? The only function it serves is another plot device to give Batman a plausible reason to take the blame.

8) Batman telling Gordon to put the blame on Dent's killings on him

Noble act at the end by Batman. But why even need to do that? Why can't Batman have just told Gordon to put the blame on Dent's killings on the Joker, or the Joker's men, or even some of the mob? It could even be made into a mystery homicide for now or even accidental because it REALLY was accidental. Now the public are supposed to believe that Batman killed Dent who had supported him in the media throughout the entire film? It didn't make sense throughout the whole establishment of Batman's character in the entire film. Batman was praised by the public, and after being a good guy for 99.9% of the film, they now have to believe Batman becomes a cold blooded killer in the last part of the film?
Click to expand...
And that's just the gist of it, there's even more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/trivia?tab=gf

Point of the story, every film no matter how good will always have these plot holes.

Try googling Inception, The Departed, Fight Club.

Every film.
 
3) Batman slams his bike into the Joker's truck and falls off it, conscious perhapsJoker's thug, rather than shoot a defenseless lying Batman (likely on the exposed mouth/chin area) decides to un-mask him. Fine. But in doing so, the thug gets shocked while touching Batman's cowl. So what does the Joker do? Rather than shoot him as well with his shotgun, after just seeing his own thug already get shocked, the Joker approaches Batman to un-mask him too! Into which Gordon comes out and pulls out his gun to arrest him. First, that was just dumb by the Joker. Second, Batman could've easily died twice in that scene if it wasn't for the Joker and his thug's stupidness. Argument is that Joker never intended to kill Batman. True. But Joker only revealed his intentions to Batman by the end of the film, and during this whole armored truck chase scene, Batman and Gordon didn't know that. All they knew was that Joker had already killed people including Judge Surillo, Commissioner Loeb, two civilians, and a guy dressed up as Batman with hockey pads. Joker and his henchmen could've easily shot and killed Batman at that point of the scene. Lucky for Batman, they were just dumb.
Click to expand...
Joker doesn't want batman dead. Batman is his equal, his ying to his yang.
 
[quote name='whoknows']I haven't seen the movie since it was in theaters, and since I didn't like it then I obviously wouldn't have watched it since, but what I can remember:

Mickey Rourke being immune to being hit by a car multiple times/he has no armor when he fights at that race, and nobody thinks of shooting him/he constantly takes off his helmet at the end fight for no reason.

Don Cheadle not only fits perfectly into the War Machine suit, but it also has no type of security so he can easily hop in.

The double laser at the end defeating Mickey Rourke when it didn't really hurt Iron Man/War Machine earlier in the movie. It also didn't really look like that big of a deal the first time it happened.

EDIT: Also Don Cheadle being able to control the suit perfectly on his first try.[/QUOTE]
Then you don't remember, I believe Rhodes, saying that he had been training on the armor.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Joker doesn't want batman dead. Batman is his equal, his ying to his yang.[/QUOTE]
But Batman didn't know that. All he knew was that Joker had already killed a lot of important people. Read the scene again. He could've easily had been killed twice in that scene.
 
[quote name='HanawayCoca']Films are never perfect.

Even Chris Nolan's mighty "The Dark Knight" had serious issues and plot holes as well.

And that's just the gist of it, there's even more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/trivia?tab=gf

Point of the story, every film no matter how good will always have these plot holes.

Try googling Inception, The Departed, Fight Club.

Every film.[/QUOTE]

In the scene where Bruce Wayne is riding his motorcycle underneath an 'L' line while racing to the apartment overlooking Commissioner Loeb's funeral, he passes a modern Volkswagen New Beetle. The sound of the car is that of an old, 4-cylinder boxer air-cooled beetle, and not the sound of a Volkswagen New Beetle.
Click to expand...

Whoever wrote that needs a life.
 
1) Joker breaking in and escaping the bank robbery with a school bus

When Joker robs the bank and his school bus plows through it's wall, that's about 3-4 minutes where the bus is just sitting inside a giant hole in the building for people to see while his henchmen were loading up the bus with cash. Joker even had time to make small talk with the bank manager and all that. He later exits through that giant hole in the building with the school bus, and again no one seemed to noticed. He then drives his bus in between other school buses filled with kids screaming (even the DVD's close caption subtitles points this out) in broad daylight with incoming traffic, while dust and asphalt were raining down the bus' ceiling, and again no one noticed.

 2) Joker crashing Dent's party hosted by Wayne

So after Joker throws Rachel off the building to which Batman dives out of to rescue, both fall a number of stories and through a car, what happens afterwards? Did the Joker just leave the party and gave up looking for Dent? Did Batman forget that the Joker was still up at the party with a lot of innocent civilians? There was no closure to the scene. Next scene was at Gordon's office.
Click to expand...
Those 2 scenes baffled me.

6) After finding out that the clowns are hostages, Batman calls to inform Lucious Fox

Wouldn't it have been easier for Batman to just call Gordon, or one of the authorities and their captains? If Batman is able to turn every single cellphone in the city into sonars, surely a simple phone call to the right person (rather than Lucious Fox) would've saved Batman having to battle the officers.
Click to expand...
Question, so what did Lucious do with that info after getting that call from Batman?
 
[quote name='Clak']Then you don't remember, I believe Rhodes, saying that he had been training on the armor.[/QUOTE]
That's true, I don't remember, but sort of makes sense at least.
[quote name='HanawayCoca']Films are never perfect.

Even Chris Nolan's mighty "The Dark Knight" had serious issues and plot holes as well.

And that's just the gist of it, there's even more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/trivia?tab=gf

Point of the story, every film no matter how good will always have these plot holes.

Try googling Inception, The Departed, Fight Club.

Every film.[/QUOTE]
While it may be true that no movie is perfect, the difference between Iron Man 2 and any of the movies you mentioned is the issues were a lot less obvious and it's just people nitpicking. If you have to look up plot holes on the internet, then yeah, people nitpicking.

I don't actively look for those things in movies, I just try to enjoy it. The issues Iron Man 2 had were hard not to notice. It's just a poorly written movie.
 
[quote name='whoknows']That's true, I don't remember, but sort of makes sense at least.

While it may be true that no movie is perfect, the difference between Iron Man 2 and any of the movies you mentioned is the issues were a lot less obvious and it's just people nitpicking. If you have to look up plot holes on the internet, then yeah, people nitpicking.

I don't actively look for those things in movies, I just try to enjoy it. The issues Iron Man 2 had were hard not to notice. It's just a poorly written movie.[/QUOTE]
Speaking of poorly written comic book movie, Green Lantern is def the biggest one.

So sad. Had so much high hopes for a huge Geoff Johns film.
 
Wow, I never picked up on most of those Dark Knight plotholes (besides Joker leaving the party). Like WhoKnows said, they don't jump out as much as Iron Man 2's issues.

Anyway, here's a great 3-page interview with Loki. IGN also ran one with Black Widow and Hawkeye, but they didn't give very interesting answers.

Also, this interview teases a few cool possibilities for future films and characters, including Ant Man:

[youtube]O2nEz-AXmig[/youtube]
 
[quote name='eastx']Wow, I never picked up on most of those Dark Knight plotholes (besides Joker leaving the party). [/QUOTE]

Speaking of which, Disney just announced that they have reached an agreement with WB to debut the new trailer for DKR in The Avengers on May 4. So win win win for everyone!

[quote name='eastx'] Anyway, here's a great 3-page interview with Loki. IGN also ran one with Black Widow and Hawkeye, but they didn't give very interesting answers.

Also, this interview teases a few cool possibilities for future films and characters, including Ant Man:

[youtube]O2nEz-AXmig[/youtube][/QUOTE]

Wow!

He talks about Ant-Man, Quicksilver, and Scarlet Witch!

Seems there's actually room for Marvel Studios to use characters that most assumed are just for Fox.

Hope it could be the same with Sony.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='merchie89']anyone else going to the marvel marathon at AMC theaters? getting a ticket for $20, so im going[/QUOTE]
5 movies in a row scare me, but it's been sold out in my city anyway.

But reading from what others have said including seeing a print out of the schedule, it's actually not that bad since you get lenghty breaks in between films.

So it starts around 11 am or and they give you 30 mins to an hour break between movies so you can pick up lunch / dinner and ends with 3D Avengers at midnight.
 
[quote name='Jcaugustine']5 movies in a row scare me, but it's been sold out in my city anyway.

But reading from what others have said including seeing a print out of the schedule, it's actually not that bad since you get lenghty breaks in between films.

So it starts around 11 am or and they give you 30 mins to an hour break between movies so you can pick up lunch / dinner and ends with 3D Avengers at midnight.[/QUOTE]

I'd hate to be burnt out after a 12 hour movie marathon by the time Avengers finally plays. It would dilute the experience in my opinion.
 
[quote name='merchie89']anyone else going to the marvel marathon at AMC theaters? getting a ticket for $20, so im going[/QUOTE]

$20.00? How did you manage that, 40 is the price tag on AMC's webpage.
 
[quote name='merchie89']anyone else going to the marvel marathon at AMC theaters? getting a ticket for $20, so im going[/QUOTE]
What are the orders the movies are going to be played in? Will it be in order of how they were released in theaters, or in order of actual chronology?

If its actual chronology then when does The Incredible Hulk take place? I know its after Iron Man but is it before or after Thor?
 
[quote name='HanawayCoca']What are the orders the movies are going to be played in? Will it be in order of how they were released in theaters, or in order of actual chronology?

If its actual chronology then when does The Incredible Hulk take place? I know its after Iron Man but is it before or after Thor?[/QUOTE]


it's in order I think
IM1
TIC
IM2
Thor
CA
The Avengers

What does the schedule look like? I think this would only work if

1-You have no job that day or the day after
2-You have a group of comic nerds willing to go with you.
3-Have lots of money to burn on snacks..... If you just feed off of Concession stand food only for the entire run...you looking at maybe 10000+ calories and god knows what in sodium.

I can't do it...no way.... I'll do it for Batman since that will be easier to sit thru but not 6 movies....

Cags do need to post pictures on here if they are doing it though.
 
[quote name='whoknows']I haven't seen the movie since it was in theaters, and since I didn't like it then I obviously wouldn't have watched it since, but what I can remember:

Mickey Rourke being immune to being hit by a car multiple times/he has no armor when he fights at that race, and nobody thinks of shooting him/he constantly takes off his helmet at the end fight for no reason.

Don Cheadle not only fits perfectly into the War Machine suit, but it also has no type of security so he can easily hop in.

The double laser at the end defeating Mickey Rourke when it didn't really hurt Iron Man/War Machine earlier in the movie. It also didn't really look like that big of a deal the first time it happened.

EDIT: Also Don Cheadle being able to control the suit perfectly on his first try.[/QUOTE]

In regards to War Machine, it was hinted at by Nick fury after that fight that Tony not only let him win, but basically wanted Rhodes to walk away with the war machine suit. Most likely, Tony gave up on life by that point and was hoping Rhodes would take over.

I have no problem with any of the Iron Man movies, nor any of the Marvel movies. People forget that Comic movies can be at times nonsensical and confusing, literred with way to many references that seem like plot holes at first glance. They are after all, actually based on COMICS.

You can enjoy stuff like the Marvel series and more heavier tuff like Dark Knight Rises. There's more than enough room in the comic movie industry for both types of movies.
 
[quote name='-Never4ever-']
I have no problem with any of the Iron Man movies, nor any of the Marvel movies. People forget that Comic movies can be at times nonsensical and confusing, literred with way to many references that seem like plot holes at first glance. They are after all, actually based on COMICS.

You can enjoy stuff like the Marvel series and more heavier tuff like Dark Knight Rises. There's more than enough room in the comic movie industry for both types of movies.[/QUOTE]

Of course there's room for different kinds of comic movies. But each movie needs to be effective as a movie, otherwise we end up with stuff like... Elektra. In other words, saying, "It's based on comics. It doesn't need to make sense or have developed characters." is exactly not how to make a good comic movie.
 
[quote name='-Never4ever-']In regards to War Machine, it was hinted at by Nick fury after that fight that Tony not only let him win, but basically wanted Rhodes to walk away with the war machine suit. Most likely, Tony gave up on life by that point and was hoping Rhodes would take over.

I have no problem with any of the Iron Man movies, nor any of the Marvel movies. People forget that Comic movies can be at times nonsensical and confusing, literred with way to many references that seem like plot holes at first glance. They are after all, actually based on COMICS.

You can enjoy stuff like the Marvel series and more heavier tuff like Dark Knight Rises. There's more than enough room in the comic movie industry for both types of movies.[/QUOTE]

Again, I haven't seen it since it was in theaters, but if that is the case then I'll just chalk that up to poor writing, because I know I'm definitely not the only one that questioned that.

There's no way all the plot holes can be answered by references to the comics, and adding stuff like that in to begin with to movies that they want to appeal to everyone, which includes people who have never read the comics is pretty stupid, because most of the audience will be left confused.

The Marvel movies are fine, for mindless action movies, I won't say they aren't entertaining, because they are (in the same way that movies like Transformers, Independence Day, etc are)

I just see them as stuck in the category of "good for a comic book movie"
 
How many of you actually read the source material for these movies? Because it isn't really realistic to expect a movie based on a comic to be any tighter than the source material it's based on. None of these movies are going to be magnificent works of art, and as much as I like comics, the comics aren't either. If you understand that, then problems like stated before aren't going to surprise or bother you for that matter. Fans of this genre are wiling to look past the fact that what we're reading/watching isn't exactly Shakespeare, and we enjoy it. If these issues bother you that badly then I simply suggest you might enjoy other genres of film.
 
[quote name='Clak']How many of you actually read the source material for these movies? Because it isn't really realistic to expect a movie based on a comic to be any tighter than the source material it's based on. None of these movies are going to be magnificent works of art, and as much as I like comics, the comics aren't either. If you understand that, then problems like stated before aren't going to surprise or bother you for that matter. Fans of this genre are wiling to look past the fact that what we're reading/watching isn't exactly Shakespeare, and we enjoy it. If these issues bother you that badly then I simply suggest you might enjoy other genres of film.[/QUOTE]

While I don't look down on the Marvel pantheon to the same extent that WhoKnows kinda sounds like in his last post, what's the real point of what you're saying? That we should not be critical of these movies because they're based on comics? That's a poor excuse. It's perfectly okay to judge a movie as a movie, just like we judge videogames as games instead of going, "Well, it's based on a movie or book."

It is silly to expect an adventure or action story to transcened the genre of story and reach the level of Shawshank Redemption or something. But it's not silly to expect an action movie to work as a movie, telling its story and developing its characters effectively. I would argue that most of the Marvel films do that (especially the first Iron Man). We're all going to respond to each film differently because they are all unique and have different strengths and weaknesses. There is no reason (other than fanboyism) to give each one an automatic pass and turn off your own critical eye.
 
I think your logic in regards to the quip about video games is a bit flawed, as you're comparing different aspects, apples to oranges so to speak. We do judge video games as games, in their mechanics, their enjoyment level etc. However, if one is playing a game based on prior work and complains about the story of the game when the source material is basically no different, that's ridiculous. Comics have plots holes, movies based on comics have plot holes, who would have imagined that?

To put it simply, you can't build on a rocky foundation and expect the result to be any better than what it's based on, especially if the new work closely follows the source. On the other hand, if the film is a completely original work then fine, judge it. Otherwise you should look back to the source material for why the film makers weren't exactly worried about minor issues with the film.
 
[quote name='Clak']To put it simply, you can't build on a rocky foundation and expect the result to be any better than what it's based on, especially if the new work closely follows the source. On the other hand, if the film is a completely original work then fine, judge it. Otherwise you should look back to the source material for why the film makers weren't exactly worried about minor issues with the film.[/QUOTE]

There's no reason a film can't be better than the comic, book, or game that created it, and the reverse is true as well. In each case, the new work is an adaptation and will automatically be different in some ways. There are some very close adaptations of comics like Watchmen, which I very much enjoyed as a fan of the book, but some other people found difficult to follow or whatever. Are their opinions invalidated because of the source material? Everyone has an opinion and what's important to me may not be important to you, and vice versa, so each person's take is in fact valid. (I make exceptions for people who express their opinions stupidly, but that's just me.)

Besides, even if your argument was sound, it doesn't hold up in this case anyway. None of the Marvel movies is a close adaptation of its source material. They all take liberties in order to trim down larger storylines into concise films. I could list tons of changes or additions for each movie, as I'm sure you could too. When someone writes a film script (that is not a slavish adaptation), they are telling a new story based on ones that have come before. That is the writer's chance to create a coherent story, regardless of any problems that past versions of the story may have had. Then the director and editor get their hands into the mix, so the final result is never identical to what the scriptwriter wrote.

What we see on-screen during the film is what we respond to, not the original comic or other source. People can and often do feel differently about a film adaptation and the source because like I said, they're always different, to varying degrees. To say that we should just shut up and not criticize Iron Man 2 or any film because the sources are inherently flawed or chaotic is an extremely flawed and naive argument.
 
Sounds good.

I look forward to seeing it at midnight Thursday. Seeing it in 2D of course, I wouldn't watch a movie in 3D even if the tickets cost the same price, since I've yet to see a movie where 3D does anything but subtract from the experience.
 
Saw the Avengers. it was alright. The dialogue is cheesy, but then again I'm not really a Joss Whedon fan.
The action at the end was cool and the hint at Thanos in the next movie is something to look forward to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top