Avengers: Age of Ultron

[selenak]

Met kangeiko and naraht yesterday, which was lovely and included a brunch and a lengthy walk along the Thames respectively. I also watched Avengers: Age of Ultron. Non-spoilery version: I liked, though didn't love it the way i did the first movie. (Perhaps inevitable because getting-together-tales are a soft spot of mine.) Was tickled (by which I mean very amused) by some stuff that literally Josses lots of fanon, due to the fact that I wasn't keen or neutral towards said fanon. Rolled my eyes at one bit of dialogue, enjoyed lots of others (not surprisingly.) Because I watched it in close proximity to the Oppenheimer play , there were inevitable thematic overlaps for me. Was sad about SOMETHING which wasn't the something I expected. Do have a favourite among the new characters.



Because I was/am in a grumpy non-shipper type of mood, the fact Joss managed to torpedo not one but several ships in a non-lethal way amused the hell out of me, especially since the mere existence of Clint/Coulson always mystified me. Due to being brainwashed for much of the first movie, Clint had been the Avenger in need of fleshing out anyway, and giving him a secret (except for Natasha and Nick Fury, both of whom knew) family contributed to doing it, not to mention that the absolute contrast to the longe wolf/lethal agent image is fun (and appeals to my inner Americans watcher). His close relationship with Natasha isn't negated by this, they're bffs throughout the film, she's the cool aunt for the kids and is friends with his wife, and as someone who adores platonic m & f friendships I'm 100% on board with this. Now a wife Clint's in love with, has three children by and who totally supports him (with no sign of wanting to leave him due to his job) can't be removed as an obstacle to anyone's ship of choice easily, but fandom has practice and is probably going to retcon her and the children out of existence or kill them off anyway, but I hope for some brave souls actually writing Clint the family man as well.

(Sidenote: does Natasha's conversation with Mrs. Barton about the latest kid count as Bechdel passing, or does the fact Natasha finds out in said conversation that the kid isn't, as she thought, going to be a girl - and thus named after her - but a boy stuck with Nathaniel for a name negate the "not about a man" criterium? Anyway, Natasha's flashbacks to the Red Room include Madame B her instructor talking to her without any male person of any age mentioned. However, she doesn't have any conversations with Wanda or Maria Hill in the present.)

Still on a shipping note, Natasha/Bruce through the film I was okay with without emotionally connecting to it - though I had loved their scenes in the first Avengers movie - until the end when she threw him into the abyss after kissing him because getting the Hulk in that particular situation was more important than Bruce's feelings. That - which ended the romantic part of it - sold the relationship to me, because I'm weird like that. It's such a Natasha thing to do, and it satisfies my "I care about you, but I care about the mission/greater good/cause/issue of the day more" kink.

Mind you, Bruce had another reason to head towards the wilderness again at the end of this film, because his other big relationship is with Tony, and Tony seduces him into being mad scientists together not once but twice, and if the result of the second time was good damage control, the result of the first was terrible havoc for so many, and if I were Bruce, I'd run for the hills, too, before Tony could seduce me a third time with us maybe exploding the universe as a result. Seriously though, I loved the two persuasion scenes, and the fact Tony actually says "we ARE mad scientists - embrace it!" in the second one. (Incidentally, as opposed to the Oppenheimer actor, see review of play, RDJ does have the neccessary charisma to pull off the "engage, engage, do morally questionable science with me despite knowing first hand what that can result in!")

The newbies: I found the twins oddly bland, though given Wanda's decades long history of being Marvel's other doomed girl (after Jean Grey), I appreciate that it's Pietro who dies tragically, not her, and that she's the one who gets to join the new team at the end. Also, said comics history made me assume she'd be the latest version of the Jossian killer Ophelia type, but no, this Wanda actually isn't crazy. Has mind messing powers (as opposed to actually altering reality, which I can understand, because I thought making Wanda powerful enough in the comics to alter reality on a scale she can - notoriously "no more Mutants", for example - was a big mistake) in addition to telekinesis, but she's not insane. Maybe that contributes to the blandness, though. (Though I appreciate that the moment Wanda realises Ultron isn't just after the Avengers in general and Tony in particular but wants humanity as a whole gone, she (and Pietro) immediately switch teams instead of needing one of the heroes to persuade them.) Another thing: since Marvel isn't allowed to use the m(utant) word in the MCU, the twins had to get a different backstory, so in this film their powers came through artificial enhancements courtesy of the easily dispatched Hydra villain from the start, and their backstory has a different trauma, to wit, a first hand exposure to Tony Stark's weapons from his arms dealer days. So far, so good (err, in a manner of speaking), but you'd think the eventual pay off for this set up would be some type of confrontation scene involving Tony Stark near the end, but no. He never finds out the reason why Wanda picked him first to mindmess with.

Then again: he has other things to angst about. Majorly the part where Wanda pushing his paranoia forward results in him seducing Bruce into inventing Skynet Ultron together. Which not only is a big disaster for obvious reasons but has JARVIS as Ultron's first victim, and here's the movie death which did make me mourn (as opposed to Pietro's). Though JARVIS doesn't die (I'm not bothering with quotes around "die" because AI JARVIS so is a character in these movies) in the sense of being entirely gone as much as he becomes part of something new after Tony and Bruce manage to download him, err, it, into what becomes Vision. However, Vision, played by Paul Bettany or not, immediately points out that he's not JARVIS in human form, he's himself. So for all intents and purposes, on both a Watsonian and Doylist level, there's no more JARVIS, which would have hit me hard in any case, but after meeting the human Tony originally modelled him on in the first place it hits me doubly hard. RDJ does a great thing with Tony's physical stillness and facial expression throughout the scene when no one else but him has realised yet what happened to JARVIS, and then when he says Ultron already did kill someone...triple ouch.

And yet: Vision is the new character who really gripped me, despite his existence meaning that JARVIS is irrevocably gone. Basically he's the John Henry to Ultron's Skynet, if you allow me the obvious Sarah Connor Chronicles comparison, including the assumed family relation. And the quiet dignity, the curious innocence (which howevver isn't naiveté) and the matter of fact determination to see things through are all compelling to me. Both he and Ultron are created by Tony and Bruce and yet also create themselves and make their own decisions about who they are and what they do with their power, which makes for a thematic balance re: invention, I thought. And what can I say: as someone who loved many of Asimov's robot stories and TNG (with Data) as a teenager, I just imprinted on good Artificial Intelligence, okay?

Rolled my eyes at: "Peace in our time". There's just no way I can see anyone with the slightest sense of history use that phrase unironically and without awareness of the context, and for one of the few times, Tony's really not supposed to speak ironically (on a Watsonian level, of course he is on a Doylist level) when he uses it. It's on a level with First Class letting Charles use the phrase "they were just following orders" to Erik in clunkiness, and there is really no excuse for it as a scriptwriting failure.

Appreciated deeply: all the emphasis on civilian evacuation. I like this in all the Marvel movies, but here it really becomes the main mission, and given I recently watched the latest Zack Snyder trailer and bear a lasting grudge for him not letting Clark Kent/Superman OF ALL THE CHARACTERS waste the second of a thought on getting the fight away from people in Man of Steel, I appreciated this all the more. Seriously, say what you want about the Avengers, but these are characters who understand that getting people to safety has to become before beating the bad guy and act on this understanding, consistently.

Cameo appearances by supporting characters from other movies: Rhodey, Sam Wilson and Erik S. are the most obvious ones. Sam's mainly there to provide that line about chasing dead ends on the Quest For Bucky, but Rhodey actually gets some character bits to do, though not many, not surprising this is an overcrowded movie as it is. Erik S. gets to be supportive of Thor and show off his knowledge of Norse legends. But still, the fact they're there makes for good continuity - it answers the "if Disaster X is so bad, wouldn't you also call X for help?" question posed in previous movies.

Changing relations between Avengers: Natasha and Bruce, see above; also, Tony and Steve actually progress to friendship, so I bought it when Steve told Tony he'll miss him at the end of the movie. Unfortunately, given what storyline the MCU wants to do next, I suspect said progress was mainly there for that. Anyway, while I couldn't see MCU Steve/Tony after the first movie (because it's so very different from their comics type of relationship), the second one provides some basis if you're so inclined, including Natasha teasing Steve about "when you and Tony are finished gazing into each other's eyes". Thor - well, that would be spoilery, but let's just say there's a great pay off to the gag about Thor's hammer set up in the early scene which was released months ago where the Avengers try to move it in vain (except for Steve making it at least a bit wobble). So I'm curious whether Thor will have more interactions with SPOILER in future movies.


In conclusion: somewhere in the middle of my personal rankling of MCU movies, which is based on liking and thus entirely subjective.

Comments

[ratcreature]

I really enjoyed Clint's family as well.

Are we sure Jarvis is dead though? I was uncertain whether he switched over to the organic body or was just copied there. I sort of hoped for the latter, and that we now have Vision and Jarvis.

[selenak]

As I understood it, Tony tracked down all of Jarvis which was left (and had hidden in cyberspace after Ultron shredded him/it) and downloaded it into Vision - didn't he say something to Bruce about how 97% of Jarvis' matrix was now in Vision just before the other Avengers arrived? I could be wrong, of course.

[ratcreature]

I don't remember the exact dialog. My hope is more that as long as there is space in whatever he uses as neural network he could copy himself rather than just do a suicide mission and would prefer that. I can understand why he normally would just keep one version of himself for personality integrity rather than juggling and synching backups, even if it has risks (maybe in analogy to risks for organic life too), but unless Jarvis saw overtaking that body and becoming Vision as the next step of his development like Ultron, I don't see why he would move rather than copy.

[lilacsigil]

"Peace in our time" was a terrible line - it would have worked said sarcastically *about* what Tony was trying to do, possibly by Bruce as he was talked into it, but the way it was done was just silly.

I was surprised how much I liked Vision, for his short but intense part in the story, especially his interaction with Thor.

The "protect the civilians" theme was a good one, starting from the first battle and the hated "Iron Legion" onto the more successful versions in South Korea and again in Sokovia, but it was rather undermined for me by the big Wanda-initiated Iron Man/Hulk fight in Johannesburg. Tony only once tried to get Hulk out of there, and once checked a building for people before hitting it. The really obvious strategy was to bait Hulk into running for those nice big unoccupied mudflats, and have the police handle the evacuation (or just evacuate people and leave Hulk alone to settle) but instead Tony shot him and hit him on the head! I like to think the end scene was them learning from that, but it very much seemed put there as a big exciting set piece with effects only on Bruce. And yeah, I refused to watch that Superman movie because anyone who has Superman carelessly endangering ordinary people doesn't understand the first thing about Superman.

ETA: I don't think the conversation about the baby passes Bechdel, but Natasha also speaks to the daughter and her scary instructor, which gives this movie a technical pass, beating the last Avengers and equalling Winter Soldier!)

spoilers

[endeni]

/but you'd think the eventual pay off for this set up would be some type of confrontation scene involving Tony Stark near the end, but no. He never finds out the reason why Wanda picked him first to mindmess wit./ - Ah, what I wouldn't do to actually see that confrontation scene! Hopefully fandom will indulge me.
/and here's the movie death which did make me mourn (as opposed to Pietro's)/ - Oh, I was so sad for both of them... Especially because Pietro being dead means he left Wanda alone... :(
/Vision is the new character who really gripped me, despite his existence meaning that JARVIS is irrevocably gone/ - Yes, Vision was fantastic! *_*
/as someone who loved many of Asimov's robot stories and TNG (with Data) as a teenager, I just imprinted on good Artificial Intelligence, okay?/ - LOL me too. Three Laws of Robotics FTW! :)
/Seriously, say what you want about the Avengers, but these are characters who understand that getting people to safety has to become before beating the bad guy and act on this understanding, consistently./ - Absolutely, take that DC! ;)
/Erik S. gets to be supportive of Thor and show off his knowledge of Norse legends/ - Actually, I found his presence a bit baffling. Why would Thor need someone to teach him about Norse legends when they were all inspired by his people in the first place? Also that pool scene felt a bit clunky and weird to me, like it was part of a bigger scene but something got cut off. For example, wasn't Selvig out of nowhere clutching some kind of box when he and Thor arrived at the pool? Also I distinctly remember a scene from one of the early trailers with a black lady standing on top of what seems like the very same pool, a scene which obviously didn't make the final cut.
/"when you and Tony are finished gazing into each other's eyes"/ - LOL, yeah, I loved that. :)
/there's a great pay off to the gag about Thor's hammer set up in the early scene/ - Oh, yes, a terrific pay off! And to think I was convinced that scene was there mostly for laughs, to see it take such an important place in the main plot was awesome. *_*
As for Natasha/Bruce, it weirdly reminds me of Buffy/Angel.
Like Angel, Bruce has a monster inside. Like Angel, he let it out once and it hurt the woman he loves. Like Angel, he tells the woman he loves that they can't be together because she won't have a future with him: he could never give her a normal life and children. (Which is just as irritating to hear now as it was then.)

Re: spoilers

[king_touchy]

As for Natasha/Bruce, it weirdly reminds me of Buffy/Angel.

Yeah, like that! I was trying to get my head around the relationship but your description hits the nail on the head. Thank you!

Re: spoilers

[endeni]

Eheh, thank you! It's so obvious in hindsight, right?

[nenya_kanadka]

Thanks for this writeup! It makes me quite interested in seeing the movie, even though (alas) it'll be a while before I can.

So sad about JARVIS, though, even though it makes a lot of sense.

[selenak]

You're welcome, and I was surprised I could squeeze it into my tight travelling schedule myself! Will rewatch eventually and maybe have second thoughts, but these were my first impressions.

[metanewsmods]

May we link this on metanews? We also post on LJ and Tumblr.

[selenak]

Yes, go ahead!

[kaffy_r]

I finally got the chance to see the movie last night, and I was impressed with how well the overloaded scow managed to sail - indeed, how many times it managed to appear (with suitable tricks of script-writing light) almost elegant.

My BB and I agreed that one of the biggest failings for us was technical; far too many action scenes were edited and paced in extreme close up with fast cuts. It made for a remarkably claustrophobic feel. If there had been some distancing and a slight slow-down on the cuts, each of the action scenes would have benefited greatly; cut 10 seconds off of each of the middle two or three battle scenes and they'd have benefited that much more.

That cinematographic style choice baffled us, but it was definitely a technical failing, a style stumble rather than a substance problem, or so it seemed to us, and certainly to me.

I'm one of those people who had enjoyed the thought of a Clint/Natasha romantic relationship of some sort; past or present - and yet, I was delighted to see Clint's family. With the exception of the "faithful wife is proud of her husband, is pregnant, and spends much of her time in the kitchen" trope - that was hard to get around, and thank heavens that the actress chosen to be Clint's wife sold herself with intelligence, and built herself as a real person. I very much liked that she and Natasha are friends; it neither negates any past sexual/romantic relationship between two very good friends who've been in intense places together, nor requires any retconning of the family out of existence. I'm afraid, however, that you're probably right; there are many fans who will be delighted to fridge the entire family, or demonize them. Natasha would disapprove. So would Phil.

Natasha's budding relationship with Bruce feels organic to me, because there were the seeds of friendship sown in the first movie. Once again, the only part where I rolled my eyes was when Natasha chose to illustrate her admittedly monstrous upbringing (so far, every dramatic presentation of the Red Room has been delightfully horrific, in Agent Carter and here) not by saying "I became willing as a child to kill people on orders," but to say, "they gave me a hysterectomy as a graduation present, so I can't be a baby-machine anymore, and of course, by implication, a woman who can't make babies is a monster." Gaaaaaaaaah! Everywhere else, however, Natasha - who is, perhaps, my favorite Avenger, was her awesome, thoughtful, vulnerable, dangerous self. She and River Song are the people I want around when my world needs saving.

I was more impressed by the twins than I thought I would be, and I may differ from you by saying that I found them less bland than I thought they would be. However, this being Marvel, and especially with the constant Chekov's gun of "The Cradle," I suspect we may find that Pietro was less than most sincerely dead.

All in all, I give it a B, and pop that up to a B+ when, as I said, I consider how overloaded the scow was.

[selenak]

Re: Natasha, by now I know a lot of people heard the relevant passage as "forced hysterectomy = monster", but I never did. She replied directly to Bruce saying he's a monster and that he can't ever have children to stating her horrible upbringing and the fact she can't have children, either. If he hadn't brought up the "can't have children" factor first, then the "was sterilized, can't either" info would have come out of nowhere for me, but since she was directly rebutting one of his points as to why he can't offer her a future together, it didn't.

re: Clint/Natasha - there's already at least one threesome story out there, and like you, I don't think Natasha being friends wiht Laura excludes Clint and Natasha having a past. It only excludes cheating, but we have no idea whether Laura and Clint define their relationship as monogamous or not, just that they're happily married and that Laura and Natasha are friends as well and regarded as a part of the family by the children. So there is certainly room for an interpretation where Natasha's and Clint's relationship at some point was/is sexual as well.

re: Pietro, in comicverse, anything is possible. With the cast already as big as it is, I doubt they'll resurrect him. I mean, now that Thanos decided to personally go after the infinity gems and we're getting the Infinity Wars next with the Avengers, you can bet at least some of the Guardians of the Galaxy characters will show up as well, what with Gamora and Nebula having the shared backstory of being Thanos' adopted daughters. So there would have to be room for them as well, and even if you assume the final line up of this movie will be the Avengers line up for Infinity Wars (i.e. no Tony, no Clint and no Bruce, instead Wanda, Vision and Sam Wilson in addition to Natasha and Steve), that's still a gazillian characters to give scenes to...

[kaffy_r]

She replied directly to Bruce saying he's a monster and that he can't ever have children

I can see that interpretation; I had listened to Bruce's end of the dialogue as an entire package that generally made the inability to have children an addendum to his list of why he can't be with someone, while I took Natasha's response as being written so that viewers would consider her inability to have children as central to her view of herself. I find myself preferring your interpretation - but it's worth noting that it obviously pushed many buttons.

Regarding Clint and Natasha, I think Natasha considers Clint and Laura close to "created family" and that friendship - the deep true love of pure friendship - is probably a far more intriguing relationship to explore. In fact, I tend to roll my eyes when I read fans who consider Natasha the fandom's bicycle." I think that she is one of the people on the team who understands best the value of friendship. Friendship may come with benefits; it may not. What's important is the friendship.

You're right about the challenge of writing the next Avengers' movie. Given that the Avengers always were the largest continuing soap opera-cum-long-term-anti-villain-riot in the Marvel!verse, they will probably have to develop one of the most challenging flow-charts in Popcorn Movie history. Still, I'll live in hope for Pietro. Heh.

[likeadeuce]

I thought there was some irony in Tony's 'peace in our time' but that might just be Downey's normal line reading. It was a weird reference to pull up for no discernable reason though, I can see that.

I found the whole movie kind of anodyne, I think - it was fun to watch but I feel like I'll forget the plot in a few days. The character moments felt mostly on point though, and I enjoyed seeing them.

[selenak]

I think the sole Doylist reason for the line was to signal that Tony is about to do something disastrous that's going to cause more havoc instead of stopping war, which, well, is obvious for the genre wise anyway. And still doesn't explain on a Watsonian level why Tony Stark would suddenly quote Neville Chamberlain's candidate for "most famous political miscalculation of the 20th century summed up in one line".

Still liked the movie, though - on a middle between most and least favourite Marvelverse movies level, like I said - and am going to rewatch it today with local friends, so who knows what I'm going to get out of it the second time.

[likeadeuce]

Oh yes, I meant 'no Watsonian reason', certainly.

It's still better than the 'following orders' line in XMFC, but that's not saying much.