AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON "Galactus-Sized Disappointment"

[Monterey Jack]

The "avoiding a catastrophe at the last minute" climax was rote, but it's always the character interactions that make these Marvel movies so enjoyable. This isn't nearly as flat and forgettable as Iron Man 2. My audience seemed to eat the movie up, laughing at all of the right moments (although irate that there wasn't a post-credit cookie).

[AndyDursin]

These are the kind of situations where I desperately want to root for these guys, but can't, because there's not enough substance on screen.

It's not only substance, it's the sheer predictability factor. I really felt like there must have been a whole slew of Disney suits who looked at the script or the film itself and literally timed certain characters' on-screen time or number of lines. "Make sure Thor gets to do something here, give Hawkeye a line here, make sure Black Widow does something there" -- that kind of thing. Funny thing is I never felt like any of the X-MEN films had that kind of hang-up where Bryan Singer or Matthew Vaughn were using a scorecard to make sure "everyone had something to do" or they were being restrained by "upholding the brand".

With Marvel, I get the impression these pictures are increasingly being made more on auto-pilot with every passing installment -- and when you see directors like Edgar Wright leave ANT-MAN, or Kenneth Branagh bow out of THOR sequels, you wonder if it really matters who's even making it. I thought the Russo brothers were all wrong for CAPTAIN AMERICA THE WINTER SOLDIER -- it turns out the film was solid (and certainly better than ULTRON), but in the end, perhaps they just did better working within the Marvel system than some more skilled filmmaker was able (or willing) to.

Now, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY was good -- I didn't love it (and I found the conclusion as bombastic and dull as most of these super-hero movies), but it had more life than several of the recent Marvel outings. Still, I almost get the sense Disney didn't care enough with that property to pay as much attention to it. They seemed to give Gunn more control over the project than usual, perhaps because the material was obscure and they didn't have the same financial expectations for it.

That's what worries me the most about STAR WARS with Disney. They're going to be hands-on enough that the films won't be bad -- they're not going to let them be anything less than serviceable -- but they're never going to be great. They're never going to let some director put enough individual vision on-screen or do something truly visionary with them to break out of a formula they're laying down -- the kind of formula all of these Marvel movies are now falling into.

What you'll get, at best, are disposable, fun, typical modern popcorn movies -- and for some, that'll be just fine, because they're designed to gobble up dollars around the globe, and they will. I can see the grosses from THE FORCE AWAKENS being out of the galaxy (and I'll be there, feeding their machine), and obviously Disney cares more about that, understandably, than anything else.

But they won't be great. None of the Marvel films are great (IMO none match the best elements of Sam Raimi's Spidey films, which were made outside their creative control) -- they all seem to waver between being very good/good to (at their worst) mediocre, adhering to formulas that are being more and more heavily implemented, seemingly, with each new installment.

I mean, go back and watch Ang Lee's THE HULK some time. That movie obviously has some problems, no question, but there are elements of it that are quite interesting and different. That movie would never get made in the Marvel system, because it bears too much of the distinct stamp of its director, and that's the depressing part.

[sprocket]

the films won't be bad -- they're not going to let them be anything less than serviceable -- but they're never going to be great. They're never going to let some director put enough individual vision on-screen or do something truly visionary with them to break out of a formula they're laying down

Substitute the word 'composer' for 'director' and you have the problem with film music today.

[AndyDursin]

That's most definitely part of it. On the other hand I'm pretty certain Giacchino, Team Zimmer and Desplat's work will never be that interesting even left to their own devices! Talent or lack thereof in regards to the composers who continually get work is another issue.

[DavidBanner]

For me, this endless line of sequels from Disney - both with Marvel and now impending with their attempt to do Star Wars movies - is the same kind of mentality that saw Fox inflict five Planet of the Apes movies and three Omen movies, that saw Universal inflict four Jaws movies and three Smokey and the Bandit movies, that saw UA continue to try to release new Pink Panther movies even after Peter Sellers had died, and saw UA continuing to inflict multiple Rocky movies even after the character had effectively died, etc.

It's just a craven effort to keep mining a formula they believe is working. When it works, you get a fun movie. When it doesn't, which is most of the time, you get a waste of everyone's time and money. For myself, I enjoyed the second Iron Man movie more than the first, but I found the third one to be a complete loss - the third one felt like a committee affair that should have been completely rethought rather than produced.

It sounds from the comments that this new Avengers movie is more of a perfunctory by-the-numbers routine rather than the event Disney has tried to hype it as being. Which is fine - I'm busy working and I don't have any time to see it anyway for another three months. By which time, I can watch it on home video and see whether it's worth even the time it will take in my home.

The Star Wars movies are a mildly greater concern to me, as it sounds like Disney and Kathleen Kennedy are trying to generate an instant cookie cutter franchise reboot from something that was never intended to function in that way. Lucas made Star Wars as a modern fairy tale and touched a major nerve in doing so. His initial sequels to it kept that idea alive, although even ROTJ had a significant feeling of perfunctory-ness to it. His prequels may have annoyed many people for their issues - wooden acting, directing and writing most of the time, obvious sops to kids, obvious sops to marketing, horrifying reliance on bluescreen and on now-primitive HD technologies - but they were still Lucas' personal projects. Now that the idea has been eaten by the Disney machine, I agree that we'll be seeing impersonal, machine-made pressings of "Instant Star Wars", designed to punch as many familiar buttons as possible while actually telling as little story as possible.

The hiring of a television writer/producer like Abrams who has shown so little ability to generate anything interesting on movie screens, and then the hiring of folks like Rian Johnson is extremely telling. It's clear that Disney does not want to bring anyone in with the quirkiness (good or bad) of Lucas. They want hired guns, much as Lucas himself did when he didn't feel like directing two movies, but without the overall guidance of anyone like Lucas. Meaning that we're looking at a fairly obvious cash grab - from older Star Wars fans who want to see the original characters again, and from kids who Disney can pull in with their parents. If Disney can generate a good movie from this kind of situation, I'll be happy to see that movie. So far, they have not shown any indication that they have that capability. And for that reason, I'm not likely to spend coin to see the result of their machinations. I'm happy to stay with what I already have, and to look for NEW movies that don't just retread or remake what we've already seen, not just once but over and over again.

(As a sidenote, it really does not look like Lucasfilm or Disney have much impetus toward releasing the theatrical versions of the original Star Wars trilogy. Given how much money they continue to mine from consumers for the existing home video editions, which do have Lucas' stamp of approval, it's looking increasingly unlikely that they will invest unnecessary funds for something that would appeal to an increasingly smaller portion of the wide audience they're trying to reach. Particularly given that in spite of all the comments about how they want the movies to look closer to the original trilogy, they're still clearly reliant on heavy CGI tech and the same bombastic approach they've used with the Marvel movies. While I'd thought we might see the originals get quick HD scans for new individual Blu-ray sales of each movie, it now appears that we'll just see repackagings of what we've already bought, albeit with a couple of new extras, as we've seen with the new digital release.)

As for the Marvel movies, there have been ups and downs - but mostly a crushing sameness to all the movies where it does feel like these are being ground out by a giant sausage machine. I did enjoy the first Whedon Avengers movie - and was surprised about how entertaining it was. The reactions we see to the new movie sound like the sequel was more in line with what I expected from the 2012 movie. It may well be that we've seen what Disney was able to come up with, and the well is running dry now. I have a feeling we'll see something similar with the new X Men movies from Bryan Singer, now that he's pretty much run out of major Claremont story arcs to mine.

[John Johnson]

My audience seemed to eat the movie up, laughing at all of the right moments (although irate that there wasn't a post-credit cookie).

There was a scene in the end titles. I'm guessing it's related to Guardians of the Guardians.

[AndyDursin]

There was a scene in the end titles. I'm guessing it's related to Guardians of the Guardians.

It's another Thanos bit...basically the same thing they did in the first Avengers as well.

I read all kinds of Marvel Comics -- Avengers, West Coast Avengers, Amazing Spider-Man, Marvel Team-Up, ROM, etc. -- growing up. Don't ever remember "Thanos" or his significance, yet he keeps appearing in these sequences as if we're all supposed to know who he is. Most of the time I can hear people going "who is THAT supposed to be?" walking out of the theater, so I guess I'm not alone.

I know I sound grumpy but I've also gotten tired of all these "post-credits bits". It used to be fresh and novel but, as Ed mentioned earlier, it's become a torturous way to make viewers sit through godawful "film music" for some dumb throwaway joke. There used to be a time I'd sit there and gladly watch credits -- but that day has come and gone.

[mkaroly]

I will probably go see it in the theaters this week - my expectations are extremely low based on some of the discussion in this thread. It's too bad as they really had something with the first one. Oh well!

[TomServo]

Well, I saw it this weekend with my girlfriend and we both really enjoyed this installment, more than either of us expected I think. On further reflection, I enjoyed it a bit more than the first movie, surprisingly. Sure, there are some aspects that went over my head, probably because I missed the last few Marvel movies, but overall it all clicked with me. I agree that the Thor/cave material seemed like it got cut the most, as my girlfriend and I weren't really sure what was happening there. But overall, I mostly just really like how the cast plays off each other. Also, the score had a number of moments I found great, at times I was able to discern Tyler from Elfman, but for the most part it seemed pretty seamless.

[AndyDursin]

When the whole score is as exhaustive and unmemorable as it is, it's pretty easy for it to be seamless.

[TomServo]

When the whole score is as exhaustive and unmemorable as it is, it's pretty easy for it to be seamless.

Fair point, the score certainly is no "Superman" or "Batman", but in revisiting the tracks on iTunes there are really nice cues by Elfman, pretty darn memorable by current standards.