If the embed doesn't work, go check it out here:
http://youtu.be/tmeOjFno6Do


Ultron looks pretty damn impressive!

I saw the reailer last night. It all looks good, so I was surprised to be slightly disappointed by it. I've been trying to work out why ever since.

The good: Steve Rogers in an almost proper Cap uniform; a quinjet; some lovely if gloomy cinematography, no shakicam; an unexpected but effective Ultron design; the skittering Ulton army; but... I still didn't get as excited as a brief Cap/Stark interchange made me for Avengers 1.

I think first off it was because this trailer seemed so generic, a series of disjointed shots of various battles interspersed with occasional contextless shots of other things, with an ominous voiceover and other random quotes, just like every other portentious disaster/action movie trailer we see today. No quippy one-liners, no indication of emotion other than deep depression and trauma. No sparkle.

Good trailers take the viewer on what these days is called "a journey". There's a story there, or at least a series of beats that leads the viewer through a set of cognitive or emotional responses, the last of which is supposed to be "I want to see that." This trailer was a confused clip show, as if someone had been given a tick-list of things it had to show "Make sure we see Samuel L. Jackson. Have the Hulk punch something. Show the heroes in conflict with each other. Show the city in ruins." etc.

Thus, what should have been a series of escalating "wow" moments all got crushed together into a confused "wha...?"

Secondly it heavily featured the Hulkbuster armour which I have always disliked; it's a given that Hulkbuster armour will always fail. And it showed an image of Cap's broken shield, and the first and last time that was an effective shocker was in the original Secret Wars.

Finally, the soundscape and colour palletes were all depressing and sepia (if a soundscape can be sepia this one was).

I was reminded of the deleted opening sequence from Avengers 1, presented on the BluRay, with Hill voice-overing a series of shots of the devastated city intercut with ominous clips of the conflict and the heroes devastated. That sequence was cut for good reason. This montage was assembled with considerably less skill and effect.

Now I don't expect the movie will be like that at all. Marvel movies and especially the creative team behind Avengers 1 have earned quite a lot of trust and respect from me. Just because the trailer was aimed at Transformers and Dark Knight fans doesn't mean the movie will follow in their footsteps. Some marketing expert has probably carefully harvested the two seccond clips montage to a demographically-tested playbook for a demographic that isn't me.

I don't want to be over-harsh. I didn't actively dislike the trailer. I just watched it again now having typed this far and ended up mentally composing a rebuttal to myself, because it's not that bad. The point is, given my absurdly-high expectations, and probably many other people's absurdly-high expectations, that that trailer did not meet them.

But if I came to the trailer with high expectations of the movie and came away with slightly diminished ones than that trailer hasn't done its job on me.

The next trailer had better have Hawkeye calling Cap "Winghead". Or else.

HH

From the sound of things, the footage shown at San Diego comic con would have been more to my tastes, starting with the scene directly before the first version of Ultron shambles into the room and reminding us why we want to spend time with these characters through fun interaction and playful banter, before going over much of the same ground as this Trailer.

I think this trailer also was colored by the announcement that the cinematic universe would be taking cues from the whole "Civil War" storyline following this film. It makes it seem like the turn towards grim and gritty will be all-encompassing and inescapable.

However, I need to remind myself that Avengers 2 is being bracketed by "Guardians of the Galaxy" and Paul Rudd's "Ant Man", so I can pull up some optimism. (Iron Man 3 also had a notoriously gritty trailer that didn't really match the tone of the film itself, much to some enraged fans' lasting ire... Considering that the film made well over a billion, I can't say that Marvel wouldn't repeat the strategy.)

If it is this much of a downer (it looks to be heavily influenced by genocide-based "Ultron Unlimited" more than anything), it is somewhat of a trilogy tradition after "The Empire Strikes Back". But then it was so effective in "Empire" because we didn't see the down ending coming... We weren't beat over the head with "this is going to be dark and tragic" for the entire build-up, let alone the runtime of the film itself.

One quick tangential note on the Hulkbuster Armor... I agree, but in consideration, an Ultron story might be the perfect place to showcase such inevitable results as a sign of hope.

Well...

Colour me unimpressed. If I was going to make a decision on whether to watch this film based on the trailer, then the answer would be a straight "NO!".

The trailer did show some clever things, and the slow "I've got no strings" in the soundtrack was really creepy. However the trailer failed to do something fairly important.

It failed to tell me what the film was all about.

Now, I could guess a good part of it as I did read the original Ultron stories, and have a reasonable idea of what the character is all about. However, if I didn't have this background, then the trailer is just a load of random, fast-changing clips.

Let's compare this with the MLP trailers for Equestria Girls and Rainbow Rocks (if only because they are the last two trailers I have seen):

• Both trailers hinted at the story ("Crown stolen, thief escapes to another world, Twilight at slight disadvantage getting on her feet", "New magic revealed to someone, they are going to use it to get what they want"). Not a complete precis of the story, but enough to know what I am going to watch.
• Both trailers had a scene that sold the film to me. Ironically Spike - not my favourite character - was the hook both times ("What? A talking dog is the Weird part of this?" and "Uh..You really need to do that whole 'Magic of Friendship' thing now...")

Yes, there were some fast-changing clips. However they were in addition to the bits that have you the information, not instead of.

Showcasing all the nice CGI and all the fight scenes mean nothing. I'm not going to waste several pounds and a significant chunk of my day watching a movie based on seeing some pretty CGI and a load of fights. It's coming to something when a trailer for a My Little Pony franchise ultimately aimed at children shows more depth than a film supposedly aimed at adults.

Or perhaps I'm just a grumpy old git. That's a possibility too.

I'd actually have gone for something entirely different, with some non-film footage as a framework and little clips of the actual film.

If, as rumoured, the storyline is promoted by Stark, not Pym, bringing Ultron-1 to life, then I'd have shelled-out (no pun intended) for some actual new Downey footage of him developing/updating J.A.R.V.I.S., with some initial dialogue between the two, and use the future-disaster flashforwards to contrast. The trailer would be "Pride before the fall" or "good intentions go bad". If Downey Jr is too expensive for that, then Paul Bettany coming to life and asking his robotic progentor "Who am I?" would have worked as a framing vehic le too.

Quote:
From the sound of things, the footage shown at San Diego comic con would have been more to my tastes, starting with the scene directly before the first version of Ultron shambles into the room and reminding us why we want to spend time with these characters through fun interaction and playful banter, before going over much of the same ground as this Trailer.

I'm desperately hoping that, having been pushed to launch their trailer early by a leak, Marvel still finds something new to put out on TV during the next SHIELD episode. Restoring the footage you mention would fit the bill nicely.

Quote:
I think this trailer also was colored by the announcement that the cinematic universe would be taking cues from the whole "Civil War" storyline following this film. It makes it seem like the turn towards grim and gritty will be all-encompassing and inescapable.

The whole Civil War direction leaves me entirely cold. I have no interest in Winter Soldier really; Bucky is best dead; there is no adequate substitute-Cap.

Quote:
However, I need to remind myself that Avengers 2 is being bracketed by "Guardians of the Galaxy" and Paul Rudd's "Ant Man", so I can pull up some optimism. (Iron Man 3 also had a notoriously gritty trailer that didn't really match the tone of the film itself, much to some enraged fans' lasting ire... Considering that the film made well over a billion, I can't say that Marvel wouldn't repeat the strategy.)

Ant-Man is the Marvel movie that most worries me. It seems to have been plagued with production issues and it's the one that most diverges from its source material. If Marvel stumbles, that'll be the one. I never really had doubts about Guardians of the Galaxy. I do about Ant-Man. And if Ant-Man's not done right then we can't have the Wasp done right.

Quote:
If it is this much of a downer (it looks to be heavily influenced by genocide-based "Ultron Unlimited" more than anything), it is somewhat of a trilogy tradition after "The Empire Strikes Back". But then it was so effective in "Empire" because we didn't see the down ending coming... We weren't beat over the head with "this is going to be dark and tragic" for the entire build-up, let alone the runtime of the film itself.

I really liked the last Busiek Ultron story, but that worked because it played the character cards so well in juxtaposition with the devastation. I hope Whedon sticks to that match-up, whatever the marketing cutting-room boys put out beforehand.

Quote:
One quick tangential note on the Hulkbuster Armor... I agree, but in consideration, an Ultron story might be the perfect place to showcase such inevitable results as a sign of hope.

As another example of Tony over-reaching it's a fine thing to include.

I think both of those would have worked nicely.





My understanding is that they are showing an "exlusive" scene to make up for the trailer leaking. My money would be on that one, (and then maybe show the trailer again afterwards) but perhaps they have something else entirely ready.

As I understand the way film marketing works these days, despite its length, this is a "teaser" trailer... This far out from the release, the main point of it is just to alert people to the fact that this film is coming next year (or, for a film as high profile as this, to start the buzz off and build from there.) A "story" trailer will likely come next year as they try to sell undecided people on going to see it by actually highlighting the plot and trying to make you care about how it all turns out.

I'm not defending the practice, mind you... Just stating the goals that I believe with which they went into creating this first trailer. I personally still feel like reminding people that these characters were fun should have been among the important bits they should have conveyed.




Man, Equestria Girls was such an odd, marketing-department-driven concept. I give the show creators credit for running with the whole alternate-universe-travel premise to make it work as best they could. I think that they pretty much had to jump into full-explanation mode in the trailers to give the slightest clue what was going on.

Regardless, Spike really should be allowed to share more dry observations.

I've been having this discussion on Giant in the Playground. Several people made the same point. Still seems like a waste of a trailer to me.






My copy of Rainbow Rocks has just shipped - due to land next wednesday. I'm actually looking forward to it - the thread on Giant in the Playground is very positive about it.

I wouldn't really argue with that. I suppose I can defend this practice on the grounds that it's better than trailers that give away too much and remove all surprise from a film, but that's pretty faint praise.




I enjoyed it for what it was... The songs were catchy, the characters are always fun, and there were some clever bits and fun nods to fan favorites. Sunset Shimmer gained a legion of new fans thanks to it, understandably.

I've heard there's an error with the (American, at least) version of the DVD which causes some chapters to play out of order depending on whether you start the film from the main menu or the chapter menu or something. I watched it on television, so I'm not really sure personally. Just a head's up if it's an issue for you over there.

I'm curious to hear more about the announced 2017 theatical pony film... I know it's Mane Six based, but that's all I've heard so far.

I've seen the updated trailer with the clip you mention. I thought it was better balanced, although still not perfect. I think they upped the spooky Pinocchio soundtrack too, and that did help to unify the clips part.

This trailer coincided with Marvel's big movie slate reveal, which didn;t have many surprises on it (at least not for those keeping up with rumour) but its nice to have it all confirmed. I'm especially keen to see the Dr Strange film, especially of they can sign Cumberbach.

I'm also interested in how they handle T'Challa, who is apperently playing a "substantial role" in Cap 3. The Priest version would do me fine.

I was mildly disappointed not to see a Hawkeye/Widow/Fury offering.

One rumour that mildly intrigued me was that Agent Carter might have an appearance by the human Jarvis. Maybe we'll see Howard Stark's 5th Avenue mansion too?

All in all, it's a good time to have been a fan of Marvel Comics 25 years ago.

Oh indeed. I don't expect the next silver screen epic by any means. A little enjoyment is all that I ask. And the film not completely sucking, of course COUGHduneCOUGH.




Thanks for the warning - I am getting the US DVD (the UK one probably won't be out for years...)




Well, based on the experience so far it is unlikely to suck.

No true shockers, certainly, but I am surprised that they nailed down as much of it as they did. I would have thought something as far off as "The Inhumans" could have waited to be announced, although I understand why they wanted to announce "Captain Marvel" and answer the calls for a female-lead film.

What's really interesting is that the slate is so jam-packed with films already and they haven't really left room for sequels to something like "Ant-Man" should reaction demand one.




That's the film that most interests me, aside of course from the big Avengers entries.




One assumes they would all be heavily involved in the Civil War Cap sequel, but who knows? I've heard that Avengers 2 will end with a new line-up, so perhaps the time has come for Cap's Kooky Quartet?




My understanding is that it's more than a rumor, and more than an appearance... From the official synopsis that Marvel released for the show, it sounds like he'll be a main character, possibly the co-lead:

"Years before Agent Coulson and his S.H.I.E.L.D. team swore to protect those who cannot protect themselves from threats they cannot conceive, there was Agent Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell, Marvel’s “Captain America: The First Avenger,” Marvel’s “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”), who pledged the same oath but lived in a different time when women weren’t recognized as being as smart or as tough as their male counterparts.

But no one should ever underestimate Peggy.

It’s 1946 and peace has dealt Peggy a serious blow as she finds herself marginalized when the men return home from fighting abroad. Working for the covert SSR (Strategic Scientific Reserve), Peggy finds herself stuck doing administrative work when she would rather be back out in the field; putting her vast skills into play and taking down the bad guys. But she is also trying to navigate life as a single woman in America, in the wake of losing the love of her life, Steve Rogers – aka Captain America.

When old acquaintance Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper, Marvel’s “Captain America: The First Avenger”) finds himself being framed for unleashing his deadliest weapons to anyone willing to pony up the cash, he contacts Peggy – the only person he can trust – to track down those responsible, dispose of the weapons and clear his name. He empowers his butler, Edwin Jarvis (James D’Arcy, “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World”), to be at her beck and call when needed to help assist her as she investigates and tracks down those responsible for releasing these weapons of mass destruction. But Jarvis, who is a creature of habit and sticks to a rigid daily routine, is going to have to make some major life changes if he’s going to be able to keep up with Peggy.

If caught going on these secret missions for Stark, Peggy could be targeted as a traitor and spend the rest of her days in prison – or worse. And as she delves deeper into her investigation, she may find that those she works for are not who they seem, and she might even begin to question whether Stark is as innocent as he claims."

Here's the notice from the manufacturer's page:
Product Note

There was an error in the first run of My Little Pony Equestria Girls Rainbow Rocks that affected the playback. Product sold from this page is from a new, corrected production and is error-free. This product will ship by 11/7/14 or earlier.

The error affects all DVD product initially shipped and on store shelves beginning 10/28/14 in the U.S. and Canada. The error causes chapters 5 and 6 to play in reverse when the DVD is played from the main menu ‘Play’ listing. Customers who navigate to the chapters menu and begin playback from the first chapter do not experience the same error and will see the story sequenced as it was meant to be seen. The Blu-rays and the digital copies for sale or included in the Combo pack are not affected, but the DVD inside the Combo pack will also have the outlined error.

This is a very unfortunate error and we are deeply sorry for any inconvenience it may cause. If you have purchased a DVD with the error, please visit http://bit.ly/1tdBGZE. Shout! Factory will be shipping replacement DVDs directly to customers, and replacement product to stores, as soon as possible.





I'm optimistic, although it's tempered a bit by not knowing how involved the show's production staff is going to be with it. I know it's being written by someone new who apparently did uncredited work on the "Ice Age" films.

I'd have preferred Monica Rambeau, who at least has a unique powerset and isn't a female version of a previous male superhero.




Another reason I'm approaching Ant-Man with caution.







I'm automatically prejudiced against something called Civil War but I'll hold out hope for something better written this time.







That would require Cap, though, and the actor seems reluctant to reprise his role beyond his existing obligations.







That certainly sounds like something I would watch.

I think Monica's powers are a bit too hard to really do well... She's rather massively powered in some respects, and would require a fair amount of exposition to explain what's she's doing in others.

I think the film has a real chance to carve out the title as Carol Danver's own, first and foremost to the vast majority of audiences. I'll be curious to see if there even is a Mar-Vell.

Of course, with it falling inbetween the two parts of "Avengers: Infinity War" one wonders how involved it will be in that. I'm also curious as to how soon Carol herself will be introduced.





Ant-Man is actually the reason I'm surprised they went and announced as much as they did. It feels like a film that was compromised and compromised and then should have been cancelled but they couldn't back out of it at that point. I'm surprised that something like "The Inhumans" would be announced so early, boxing them in somewhat when certainly nobody would have missed it had it not been mentioned.




I actually meant the Black Panther film itself, and not Cap: Civil War. Count me amount those who grew less interested in the sequel when that angle came out. Honestly, I feel the truckloads of money they spent to get Robert Downey Jr. to costar in that one weren't really well spent. But I still suspect it could be quite good based on the last Cap film.




I've seen him go back and forth... he seemed to be rather reenergized by the reception of Cap 2 and certainly walked back prior comments, and has just been speaking of the role enthusiastically now.

Of course, I suspect he'll be gunned down in "Civil War", only to be restored via the Infinity Gauntlet in either part 1 or 2 of that film anyway.


As for Agent Carter, I really like the premise, the time period, the cast... Here's hoping the show lives up to all of it!

True.

If it's to be Carol, though, I hope they go with the USAF angle rather than the Cosmo-style magazine editor version (they can't use the Bugle anyway, I presume). I also hope they play up the energy absorbing and redirecting aspects of her abilities, since those are at least more distinctive than flies-and-hits-things-but-not-as-well-as-Wonder Woman-of-Superman. Maybe even use her seldom-remembered sixth sense.

I would surely like to see a big budget CGI of the Supreme Intelligence in all his spuddy tentacleness.




I'm interested to see what niche they decide to slot Carol into. The Guardians of the Galaxy have the outer-space beat for now, SHIELD has the spy/agent angle sewn up, and Rhodey has the military operative background. What does that leave?




I'm not clear enough on the running order of the movies to speculate. However, I think it might be good to debut her in her own movie rather than seeding her into someone else's. I suspect DC might have run that into the ground by then.







I'm intrigued as to how Agents of SHIELD might fit in. Right now Skye's father certainly seems to have debuted somewhere in eastern China near Tibet - and Atillan. The Kree did genetically experiment there to create the Inhumans. Kyle McLachlen would be a good casting choice for Maximus. If one was looking for the Great Refuge one might need a Diviner.







I applaud the ambition of packing so much in while worrying about the execution. I just saw Spider-Man (version 2) 2 and it seemed horribly cluttered while still being horribly predictable. Everything I'm hearing about Superman vs Batman reeks of "world-building" over good story so far. With Cap, Falcon, Winter Soldier, rumoured Hawkeye, and now Black Panther in there, plus a "substantial" role for Tony Stark, it's starting to look a bit crowded.







I'd welcome him in more movies. I'd actually prefer the role to be recast than for somebody other than Steve Rogers to be in the suit or for Cap to be absent from the Avengers.




It is a possibility, but if we can see that coming this far off it'll have remarlably little shick value impact in an actual film.




Seconded.

Go here if the embed doesn't work: http://youtu.be/V13W9gQ_1GA

I really enjoy the little snippet of Jarvis we get in that.




Honestly, it might be interesting to use her as their "Superman" analog... the straight-up, shining, majorly-super-powered hero. Especially if Captain America and Thor are on their way out via "Civil War" and "Ragnarok".

Carol has always had too much baggage and competition to really be the preeminent hero of the Marvel Universe before... That might not be a problem in the cinematic universe.

I hate that Sentry guy... way too tortured a premise.





I do expect there to be a tie-in origin for Skye... the tease that seeds for the Inhuman film will be seen relatively soon suggests you may be right.





I still haven't seen Spidey 2.2 myself. I'm sure myself from 10 years ago would never believe it would be possible that a major Spider-man film would be released and I'd not really have much interest in checking it out. I'm sure I'll see it when it hits cable though.

Hopefully, Marvel knows what it's doing with that Cap sequel, although it's certainly sounding more like "Avengers: Civil War" than "Captain America 3".




I honestly could see them changing it up and killing off Stark instead...

I don't remember where I read it, but someone posted the amusing idea of killing off Stark but preserving his brain patterns as an A.I. that talked to the Vision... Effectively reversing the Tony/Jarvis dynamic and allowing Marvel to keep Downey Jr.'s involvement and snarky line delivery at a substantially discounted rate, with Paul Bettany now being the physical hero.

So far so good.







They'd still need to do a l;ot of work to find a unique tone and content to Carol's story. Really her most interesting characteristics are her flaws, like her alcoholism and obsessive work ethic, and her Kree/Great Intelligence links.

Unless the new post-Thanos uber-baddie is Kang.




The problem with a Superman-type is why he or she isn's always there to save the day in every other story.




Reasonable self-contained mini-series but with poor retcons; horribly mangled revival doomed to disaster.







I'd really like to see the movies trying harder to respect the SHIELD series.







The Peter/Gwen bits are very strong. Spidey's battles with Rhino are great fun. And then there's the rest of the movie.




According to "the internet", Downey Jr. insisted on a musch larger part (and therefore fee) in Cap 3 than had originally been envisaged.







Possible, contracts willing.




Nice gimmick but it would only work if Vision was the point-of-view character really, and he seldom is.

I am intrigued at hints that Vision, Quicksilver, and the Scarlet Witch might already be Ultron's team. That initial Vizh-Wanda link is interesting.