![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Avengers : Age of Ultron
May. 4th, 2015 06:24 pmI quite liked it. However, judging by Tumblr, a lot of other people didn't.
It seems that the criticisms fall into three basic categories:
1) The film wasn't true to the source material
2) The film wasn't very good
3) Elements of the film were problematic
I'm not terribly concerned about #1. No, Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch aren't quite the same as the comic versions. Nor are Ultron and Vision. But I really don't see this as a problem. In particular, the comics have already spent decades arguing about what Wanda's powers can actually do, so...
As for #2... it wasn't (IMO) as good as the first one. But that's a pretty high benchmark. The middle film in a trilogy is traditionally an odd one. The Marvel films also have a growing cast - in this case we had all of the Avengers from the first film, plus various supporting cast (and plot elements) from their own film. So, no, the Winter Soldier doesn't get more than a quick reference. Jane and Pepper don't appear at all.
But I'm largely ok with that. Aside from the time/plot limitations, there may well be contractual or availability issues that mean not every actor can appear in every film.
Yes, it's crowded and noisier than the first one - more battles, less quiet moments (or at least it feels that way). But the quiet moments still make an impact and the battles are still spectacular. In the villain stakes, I don't think Ultron's quite up there with Hiddlestone's Loki - but James Spader's voice acting is still top notch.
As for that third point - the 'problematic' elements - I think one is a fair criticism and I'm not sure about the others. They may justify a post of their own later, though...
It seems that the criticisms fall into three basic categories:
1) The film wasn't true to the source material
2) The film wasn't very good
3) Elements of the film were problematic
I'm not terribly concerned about #1. No, Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch aren't quite the same as the comic versions. Nor are Ultron and Vision. But I really don't see this as a problem. In particular, the comics have already spent decades arguing about what Wanda's powers can actually do, so...
As for #2... it wasn't (IMO) as good as the first one. But that's a pretty high benchmark. The middle film in a trilogy is traditionally an odd one. The Marvel films also have a growing cast - in this case we had all of the Avengers from the first film, plus various supporting cast (and plot elements) from their own film. So, no, the Winter Soldier doesn't get more than a quick reference. Jane and Pepper don't appear at all.
But I'm largely ok with that. Aside from the time/plot limitations, there may well be contractual or availability issues that mean not every actor can appear in every film.
Yes, it's crowded and noisier than the first one - more battles, less quiet moments (or at least it feels that way). But the quiet moments still make an impact and the battles are still spectacular. In the villain stakes, I don't think Ultron's quite up there with Hiddlestone's Loki - but James Spader's voice acting is still top notch.
As for that third point - the 'problematic' elements - I think one is a fair criticism and I'm not sure about the others. They may justify a post of their own later, though...
