 |
|
| Tales of the Parodyverse >> View Post |
|
| ||||||
Subj: Re: My own thoughts on these two having now seen it as well [spoilers in general, although I'll try not to give too much away.] Posted: Thu May 07, 2015 at 03:41:11 am EDT | Reply Subj: Re: My own thoughts on these two having now seen it as well [spoilers in general, although I'll try not to give too much away.] Posted: Tue May 05, 2015 at 12:33:40 am EDT | ||||||
Quote: Quote: Whedon has already mentioned that his original cut of the film was 3.30, and that 1.10 ended up excised for the cinema version. This one really will come out on DVD with an extended Director's Cut so maybe some of that material will slip back in.Quote: Well, I've seen at least one interview where Whedon stressed that there *won't* be a "Director's Cut", that the film is what was released, but that they'd be including a lot of extra scenes and people would see why they weren't used even though Whedon was proud of many of them.Whedon certainly seems "Avengered out" at the moment, but if any of the Marvel movies requires additional runtime to correct the bleeding cuts for timing purposes it is this one. Quote: But then I also know that one of the overseas Amazon sites started listing an extended Age of Ultron to be released... and then had to retract it at Disney's insistence. Whether that was because they weren't really planning on releasing one, or whether that was because they thought that people might wait to see that on video instead of going to the theaters now, I'm not sure.Marvel's releases have now reached the magnitude that makes spoiler control bery difficult. Quote: Regardless of whether it's spliced into the film or just included in special features, that's a lot of extra material. Marvel has never done an alternate to the theatrical cuts of one of their films, have they? I know editing was the point of contention between Edward Norton and Marvel Studios... He wanted a longer, more character centered "Incredible Hulk" cut, and they wanted a faster-paced, action oriented Hulk film... and when he didn't get his way, he refused to do any promotion for the film beyond what he was absolutely contractually obligated to do.Sorry to hear that, since Norton brings a lot to the mix. Hopefully addressing his chagrin about being cut (of a similar nature to Saruman/Lee's in LOTR 3) will be an additional incentive for the studio to consider an extended version. It is also more likely to get me to part with my money than a "vanilla" release. Rhiannnon expecially is a massive extra ferature junkie, and since she tends to watch them while ironing my laundry I see it as win-win. Quote: Quote: Other scenes we saw in the trailers have been removed from the cinema release too, notably one of a molten Ultron hand rising from a vat of metal and of Thor in that mystic pond with a young woman in the background. There was also a Loki scene removed.Quote: Yes... Thor's little side quest seemed cut down to the bare minimum. I can understand, as it really is a bit too tangential to the story here.It still felt like we had missed an important development there. We didn't get a real sense of any danger that Thor mentioned to Selvig, or even proper context for why Thor was taking a bath. It was a strange unbalanced cutaway from Cap and Stark chopping logs and Widow and Banner discussing bathroom arrangements. Quote: I really wanted an Ultron that could take the combined beating from the team and keep coming... That molten scene suggested such a thing, but never really happened. Ah well.I wanted Ultron Unlimited, but I was content with them borrowing Graviton's plot. Quote: I did hear that the lady in the pool was part of Thor's vision, and wasn't anyone important (much like all of the random folks surrounding Heimdal). I find it amusing that so many people spent so much internet time theorizing who she was, when it was added to the trailer simply because the marketing team thought it was a cool shot.There's a conversation to be had at some point regarding the use of trailers as a way of preparing audiences for major movie releases. Rhiannon pointed out the setup of lifting Mjolnir via the main trailer release. The Red Room material was likewise flagged so that internet-gossip-savvy viewers would know what they were seeing in the film proper. Given the significance of those elements of trailers it's no surprise that people spent some time chasing down bits that were less significant. Quote: Quote: I enjoyed the introduction of Vision's cape.Quote: I loved that too. Lots of people online (likely influenced by "the Incredibles") argue that there's no reason for anyone to wear a cape. I keep pointing out that's not true for the Vision... his can be quite useful (assuming he can density shift, that is...) Besides, it's quite stylish! Who can blame him for taking one look at Thor's and accessorizing likewise?I was intrested by how "Superman" they shot him. We also had an immediate movie answer to the knotty comics debate as to whether Vision has to be intangible to fly. Quote: Quote: Intriguingly, the Vision/Thor relationship was the most interesting on show here. There was more connection between these two characters in this movie than in nearly 50 years of comics. In fct I don't recall there everbeing a substantial scene between those two.Quote: It's true, and they play off of each other surprisingly well. I think movie Thor was happy to have another non-human on the team.It's a fairlly logical friendship given the SF version of Asgardians from the movieverse, but it was nice to see it laid out like that. Quote: I was a bit surprised that, with the Jarvis origin, the Vision barely had any interaction with Stark following his 'birth'. I'm not even sure that they spoke to each other beyond the "It's true, he hates you most" line. I've heard that Vizh will be in Civil War, and an early rumor of the breakdown had him side with Stark (which seems odd considering his stance in this film.) If so, it'll be interesting to see their interaction. Those same rumours place Wanda on Cap's side, with the potential for some clash between the Scarlet Witch and Vision. Quote: On a side note, Stark's new armor A.I. "Friday" was a bit out of nowhere... although apparently she was in some comics sometime. I saw in a video going through the Easter Eggs in the film that one of the A.I. options he considers loading was labeled "Jocasta".I spotted the Jocasta program on my first viewing of the film. I took it as being a bit of fun rather than a major plot point since there's really no logical reason for such an AI being in STark's collection. Quote: Quote: I thought her best moment was her scared-and-hiding scene with Hawkeye. She certainly needs a lot more work to be properly defined.Quote: That was indeed a great scene, and I really enjoyed Hawkeye's honest assessment of the situation. I was pleased to see the cooky quartet getting some time together, though a group shot of the four would have made me even happier. Quote: Quote: If the rumours are true and Cap, Thor, and Iron Man are not in the next Avengers movie (Infinity War 1) then that opens the door for a whole lot more character work on the current B-listers. One reason in the comics that Vizh and Wanda got so much plot attention was that they weren't tied in to books of their own like the big three. That might work to their advantage here too, where neither blockbuster solo films nor prohibitive actor fees would restrain their use.Quote: I know that there was the argument against a Hulk solo film based on keeping the chance to see him special to "Avengers" films. (Of course, apparently Universal would still hold the distribution rights to any solo Hulk movie as well, so that puts a damper on the idea too.) I though that maybe Vizh and the twins would add to that "only in the Avengers" list, but then they decided to throw everyone into next year's "Civil War" anyway.I still can't get that excited about the Civil War idea. The whole concept is tainted for me by its comics execution. Quote: I do wonder how much development time the Vision can get in "Infinity War" when it seems like Thanos will be ripping a chunk of his head out to assemble the gauntlet.That's development right there! Quote: Quote: It assumed familiarity, but seemed confident in its assumption, requiring audiences to catch up fast. I'm reminded of current Doctor Who, which has stopped making any apologies for what it is and is unafraid to mine 52 years of continuity when it wants to. I'm actually pleased - and shocked - that the Avengers have reached that level of public awareness to be able to pull off the same.Quote: It's a bit weird because the Marvel stuff can mine things in both directions... past and future. Not only do they drop plenty of references to the past batch of films, but we get a really enjoyable set-up for the Black Panther film as well. I thought that Andy Serkis was great as Klaw, and I loved the little accident that befell him.Serkis did very well indeed. A very strong start for the Panther mythos. Quote: I had it pointed out to me that Marvel intentionally had someone lose an arm in every "Phase 2" film as a nod to Luke getting his hand chopped off in "The Empire Strikes Back". (The villian in "Iron Man 3", Thor (via Loki's illusions) in "The Dark World", The Winter Soldier, and Groot, respectively.)What a strange thing to tribute. Quote: Quote: I was disappointed that Thor didn't get to say, "Ultron, we would have words with thee!"Quote: I was surprised they skipped it as well, but I suppose this Thor doesn't break out the "thee's" too often.If they can toss in Howard the Duck they can toss in that quote. | |||||||
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 4.0; on Windows XP
| |||||||
| |||||||
| On Topic™ © 2003-2024 Powermad Software |
