Originally posted by Time ImmemorialWhat does this have to do with anything?
Just because you pay for a building after you blow it up, does that make it ok? Say I came to your house and burned it down, and then said here is some money. Am I forgiven? I mean that building was by far the least of the damage.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I noticed all the collateral damage cry babies about MOS eating this movie up but keeping silent about it.Typical.
Lol, not the same if you actually paid attention to both movies and people's reason for criticism.
Superman being thoughtful.
YouTube video
watch?v=c3YnTwpD-0Y
Another reason why I disliked this movie so much. Ultron written correctly is a force that could destroy the Avengers. It's an AI that can hack the worlds armaments and build a physical form that could content with the big guns of the Avengers. Yet, they nerfed him hard.
Why Ultron was a such a disappointment:
1. Ultron was too human for my taste. The whole Transformer face thing was unnecessary waste of money. Maybe they could have that for the early form. The prime could have been just like those drones and it would have been just fine. And why does Ultron even need teeth? He looked just out right stupid.
2. His built up was just lazy. He just went evil. His motivation wasn't there. His just wanted to end humanity after being born. They should have given him more time to flesh out his thoughts and motivation.
3. His plan was far fetch. Rockets to rip a city off the ground and drop it back on earth?
4. He didn't even bother to hack Iron Man at all. Not sure why that was.
5. His drones were even less of a threat than the Chitauris. I forget, did they even hurt anyone? The Chituaris at one point actually held down Hulk and hurt Cap.
6. Ultron was weak. I loved it when he used some kind of magnetic powers to pull Iron Man forward and blasted him. Aside from that, he barely did anything except acted like a brute. Being an advanced AI with Hydra weapon and vast knowledge, the writers could have given him sonics and disintigrator breams to play with. What we get is an Ultron that mostly displays brute force in weak shell. Did he even get a vibranium body? An Ultron that absorbed Thor's hammer strikes and lightning strike to power himself would have been scary. That fight between Hulkbuster and Hulk could have been taken out and replaced with a vibranium Ultron vs Hulk. That would have built Ultron's status that would require the Avengers to come up with a plan to beat. Anything like using the Mind Gem to destroy his conscience in his prime form, Wanda using her powers to destroy his inners, Tony and Vision hacking Ultron Prime, or a combination of these.
7. They killed Baron Strucker to make Ultron look badass. Wasted another good villain. Would have rather Strucker lived and Ultron managed to hack into one of those nuke facilities and nuked a city (or made up city). That would have raised the stakes and made Ultron scary. After that, the whole lifting of Sovoka into the skies wouldn't look so dumb.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Entertaining =\= well made.So why does it bother you that people dislike what you like?
AoU was rife with hilarious moments, had stunning comic-booky visuals, was well directed, dialogue was resonant, witty and fluid, acting performances were terrific, Ultron was a uniquely creepy robot, Vision was incredible, romance between bw and hulk was subtle, believable and necessary.
The only problem was with development of the villain, which is super difficult to accomplish when the movie has 30 other characters who need screen time. Also
Spoiler:. These problems may knock the movie down a peg, but the awesome parts still make the movie spectacular. Certainly not Whedon's best work, but well made imo.
the villain's defeat was lackluster
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Just because you pay for a building after you blow it up, does that make it ok? Say I came to your house and burned it down, and then said here is some money. Am I forgiven? I mean that building was by far the least of the damage.
The plot of civil war is gonna deal with the consequences of AoU.
This is the plot description released by marvel - Following the events of Age of Ultron, the collective governments of the world pass an act designed to regulate all superhuman activity. This polarizes opinion amongst the Avengers, causing two factions to side with Iron Man or Captain America, which causes an epic battle between former allies.
Originally posted by Firefly218Apparently not, as you've been spazzing out in this thread as well as the one in the the comic book forum well before I ever addressed you, pretty much anytime anyone expresses a negative opinion of the film. I'm just curious why you're so emotionally invested in it. Is it because you like Whedon?
If you come at me personally, I'm coming right back at you.
Originally posted by Firefly218
The plot of civil war is gonna deal with the consequences of AoU.This is the plot description released by marvel - Following the events of Age of Ultron, the collective governments of the world pass an act designed to regulate all superhuman activity. This polarizes opinion amongst the Avengers, causing two factions to side with Iron Man or Captain America, which causes an epic battle between former allies.
Guess I don't have to watch that anymore.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Apparently not, as you've been spazzing out in this thread as well as the one in the the comic book forum well before I ever addressed you, pretty much anytime anyone expresses a negative opinion of the film. I'm just curious why you're so emotionally invested in it. Is it because you like Whedon?
im not sure what you're talking about. As much as I love Whedon and this movie, I'm well aware of all of its flaws. When you call this movie bad without any legitimate argument and then personally attack all those who did like it, I retaliate. Criticism I'm fine with.
Originally posted by Firefly218
im not sure what you're talking about. As much as I love Whedon and this movie, I'm well aware of all of its flaws. When you call this movie bad without any legitimate argument and then personally attack all those who did like it, I retaliate. Criticism I'm fine with.
Despite common belief, one does not need to give a "legitimate argument" when expressing an opinion. With that said, most people did state why they disliked the film; the fact that you don't consider their greviances "legitimate" is a matter of opinion. Beyond that, no one personally attacked you until you attacked everyone who disliked the film by saying "What the **** is wrong with you people and your nitpicks".
Originally posted by ares834
Despite common belief, one does not need to give a "legitimate argument" when expressing an opinion.
Originally posted by ares834I've acknowledged other people's grievances and I've stated numerous times now that it's my own opinion that these grievances are overshadowed by awesome parts in the movie.
With that said, most people did state why they disliked the film; the fact that you don't consider their greviances "legitimate" is a matter of opinion.
Originally posted by ares834
Beyond that, no one personally attacked you until you attacked everyone who disliked the film by saying "What the **** is wrong with you people and your nitpicks".
That's a light hearted jab directed at all the people who disliked the movie, including critics and other friends of mine. It's not a personal attack on anyone. The only time I attacked a person's character/taste in films was when that guy attacked mine.
Jeez give it a rest Firefly. If you loved it that's great for you. But you can't just force us all to love it and magically take away any disappointment we felt while watching it.
Especially when you admit the movie had problems. Just because the great parts overshadowed it's problems for you, doesn't mean it will overshadow it for everyone else.