Poll: Which Avengers movie was better?
- Thread starter thejboy88
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Haven't watched the 2nd one as I refuse to spend money on it due to it's man hating director.
So option 4) I don't know.
So option 4) I don't know.
The first one was, without a doubt, a better movie. It had a tighter narrative, had much less going on in it, and accomplished exactly what it needed to do. All while still showcasing every member of the Avengers pretty well.
The second one, if I had to describe it with one word, was congested. There was just so much going on - Setting up the exits of multiple avengers, introducing new ones, bringing back SHIELD, setting up the antogonism between Stark and the team for Civil War, a romance subplot they needed to build from the ground up, multiple characters internal issues... its was just too much.
But I don't want to just dump on the Avengers 2. The entire cast performed excellently, and James Spader was, as usual, an absolute delight to watch, even if he was CGI the whole time. And there were definitely much cooler scenes in the second Avengers. And that marble statue at the end was sweet.
But I don't want to just dump on the Avengers 2. The entire cast performed excellently, and James Spader was, as usual, an absolute delight to watch, even if he was CGI the whole time. And there were definitely much cooler scenes in the second Avengers. And that marble statue at the end was sweet.
The first one, no competition.
It was much more simplier and without having several things going on at once. Also it was the first group film (I think?)as in bringing in the other characters from their film together without one of them being the main character only and it wasn't a crossover over per say (to me crossover it two characters together, not several).
It was much more simplier and without having several things going on at once. Also it was the first group film (I think?)as in bringing in the other characters from their film together without one of them being the main character only and it wasn't a crossover over per say (to me crossover it two characters together, not several).
The first one was better, but I enjoyed both. Neither are perfect, there's aspects of Ultron that were done better than the first Avengers but overall, the first one was more balanced. Also I preferred Loki as a villain, though Ultron is good fun too.
This is pretty much an inversion of the crazy feminists that think he's a misogynist because they interpreted certain scenes in a way that'd satisfy their paranoia. I hope you realise this. I mean, I don't think Joss Whedon is a superb director or writer and he does kinda write women in a very typical "girl power" kind of way that kinda irks me, but "man hating"? I've heard it all now.Metailurus said:
Age of Ultron
The first one was entertaining enough, but as an action movie I found it very lame. Besides a few sequences of Hulk doing his thing, I was completely unimpressed.
The second movie just had more... everything. Especially in the action department.
Hell, I would take the just the Hulk Vs Iron Man scene from AoU over every action sequence in the entire first movie.
I also found Ultron to be much more entertaining than Loki. Never got what was supposed to be so great about Loki, besides the actor apparently being ten kinds of hot.
On the downside, the "more everything" resulted in it being a bit bloated. Also, the sequence where Thor goes off and take a swim in a magic pond... somewhere (Earth? Asgard? It didn't explain shit) and gets a prophecy zapped into his head or somesuch felt incredibly rushed and more than a little contrived.
I am curious to see if I enjoy it on DVD as much as I did in the cinema. I suspect it may not hold up.
The first one was entertaining enough, but as an action movie I found it very lame. Besides a few sequences of Hulk doing his thing, I was completely unimpressed.
The second movie just had more... everything. Especially in the action department.
Hell, I would take the just the Hulk Vs Iron Man scene from AoU over every action sequence in the entire first movie.
I also found Ultron to be much more entertaining than Loki. Never got what was supposed to be so great about Loki, besides the actor apparently being ten kinds of hot.
On the downside, the "more everything" resulted in it being a bit bloated. Also, the sequence where Thor goes off and take a swim in a magic pond... somewhere (Earth? Asgard? It didn't explain shit) and gets a prophecy zapped into his head or somesuch felt incredibly rushed and more than a little contrived.
I am curious to see if I enjoy it on DVD as much as I did in the cinema. I suspect it may not hold up.
First one. Second one was pretty much a place holder movie. There was no dramatic tension involving the main plot at all. There were minor scenes of secondary plot threads that had some genuine drama and tension to them for me, but the stuff with Ultron, I just didn't care. He felt like a parody of a villain, instead of an actual villain. His evil plan felt cheezy as hell, and the cliche of the evil AI who will save the world by destroying it felt ripped right out of a Final Fantasy game.
There were gaping plot holes, and questions of how certain things were actually happening and why. Overall was just a meh movie.
capcha: question everything. Very wise capcha, skepticism rules.
There were gaping plot holes, and questions of how certain things were actually happening and why. Overall was just a meh movie.
capcha: question everything. Very wise capcha, skepticism rules.
apparently the DVD/Blu-Ray release is going to be an extended cut, with a possibility of being up to 3 hours long if they put all original footage back in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11564242/Avengers-Age-of-Ultron-will-have-different-ending-on-DVD.htmlZhukov said:
also the Thor magic pond scene was a result of cuts/bad test feedback http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/11/8585809/avengers-ultron-thor-cave-scene-explanation-cut-farmhouse
personally, i preferred AoU over the first one. I love the tension and team building in the first one, but to be honest after the airship segment, I usually get a bit bored . I think it's due to Loki taking a bit more of a backseat, he does his summoning shit, then kinda does very little apart from get beaten up, whereas Ultron remains a constant presence throughout. Not only that, but I loved the idea of Ultron existing in all of his bodies, as a collective rather than an individual. I think it comes off really well after
they kill one of his early bodies, after he steals things off of a South African Andy Serkis (Klaw).
First one. Even as I was watching Ultron I was thinking "Hmm, this isn't very memorable". The first one had the advantage of being the first of its kind, and some really awesome moments to boot. Also the fact that it was such a successful stab at an effort no one had previously attempted, there was the added factor of "Will this work?" With Ultron the assumption was already there, so there was little to be surprised about when it turned out good.
The first one had a better focus and the benefit of novelty.
The second had better action scenes, Spader (Ultron was an awesome character, kinda wish they hadn't axed him) was better than Loki (though I still really liked Tom. He was one of the best parts of the first film), and it was just cool to see all the strings weaving together.
Hell, all the cameo type stuff happening in the climax just made me giddy. War Machine, represent.
So...
Kind of a tie for me? The first one probably edges out the second, but, honestly, neither film is what I'd consider to be 'great' or anything. They're just fun to watch.
Hell, I enjoyed Guardians more than both.
The second had better action scenes, Spader (Ultron was an awesome character, kinda wish they hadn't axed him) was better than Loki (though I still really liked Tom. He was one of the best parts of the first film), and it was just cool to see all the strings weaving together.
Hell, all the cameo type stuff happening in the climax just made me giddy. War Machine, represent.
So...
Kind of a tie for me? The first one probably edges out the second, but, honestly, neither film is what I'd consider to be 'great' or anything. They're just fun to watch.
Hell, I enjoyed Guardians more than both.
I find the second one to be better. It's juggling more than the first certainly, but I think I'm in a minority in thinking that it manages to balance most things out well. I'm especially surprised that it manages to make a team of nine Avengers feel believable in a battle scenario, and robots > aliens that look and act like robots any day. The action is also a big improvement, the Twins being the highlight of the film for me.
Granted, Age of Ultron came after Guardians, so all it had to do was be better than "meh" to come off as good to me, maybe a revisit will change my mind once it's on DVD.
Granted, Age of Ultron came after Guardians, so all it had to do was be better than "meh" to come off as good to me, maybe a revisit will change my mind once it's on DVD.
Apparently about half an hour was cut from the films cinematic release.Zhukov said:
Undoubtedly that explains what happens to thor etc if we get an extended edition.
OT: AoU but the first isn't far off.
I chose AoU for a series of clips that had me, my mates and the whole screen pissing ourselves with laughter
Tony:*Punching Hulk in the face* Go to sleep, go to sleep go to sleep!
*After a bit of fighting tony drops an elevator on hulks head*
Hulk: *Spits out tooth*
Tony:...........i'm sorry * O.O *
*After a bit of fighting tony drops an elevator on hulks head*
Hulk: *Spits out tooth*
Tony:...........i'm sorry * O.O *
To be fair, Loki's plan completely fails as well, he takes control of a few people, steals a meteor, he manages to break the avengers down and piss them off and gets an alien army to invade, but all that is repelled by the avengers,Xeros said:
ultron convinces 2 kids to join him, steals Vibranium, Wanda uses her powers to break the avengers...which again pisses them off and has a robot army invade which again is repelled by the avengers xD
It's generally the same, Loki just seemed to do more cause of the invasion.
The second one, but only slightly... The biggest complaint I have for the second one is how much seemed like you had to be "in the know" on everything MCU-related up to this point in order to appreciate certain scenes that someone would probably say didn't need to be in there from a story perspective...
Other than that, I'll probably still [keep] watching them both multiple times, anyway...
Other than that, I'll probably still [keep] watching them both multiple times, anyway...
It's a tie. Each has strengths over the other, but both are great fun and almost make me giddy sometimes with how entertaining they are.
On a more interesting note, does it bother anyone else that Tony Stark has, through 5 movies, basically invented the future singlehandedly? There are technological geniuses, there are nigh-Mary-Sue technological wizards, there are just plain overpowered engineers who can make anything they want, and then there is Tony Stark.
He creates an apparently physically impossible technology by himself, in a cave, under guard, out of scrap metal. He improves on this technology so quickly that the one suit becomes dozens of automatic robots that can execute complex maneuvers on their own. He makes a suit-delivery system that can rearm him anywhere, anytime, preparing him for anything. He literally creates life in Ultron, and before you say that he had help doing that with an infinity stone, he had already made a nearly-sapient computer program in JARVIS. Tony Stark can solve every single problem on earth by building a robot to fix it. It's just a little game-breaking, and takes me out of the story sometimes.
On a more interesting note, does it bother anyone else that Tony Stark has, through 5 movies, basically invented the future singlehandedly? There are technological geniuses, there are nigh-Mary-Sue technological wizards, there are just plain overpowered engineers who can make anything they want, and then there is Tony Stark.
He creates an apparently physically impossible technology by himself, in a cave, under guard, out of scrap metal. He improves on this technology so quickly that the one suit becomes dozens of automatic robots that can execute complex maneuvers on their own. He makes a suit-delivery system that can rearm him anywhere, anytime, preparing him for anything. He literally creates life in Ultron, and before you say that he had help doing that with an infinity stone, he had already made a nearly-sapient computer program in JARVIS. Tony Stark can solve every single problem on earth by building a robot to fix it. It's just a little game-breaking, and takes me out of the story sometimes.
Obviously, you haven't watched the Black List.Xeros said:
Do so. Now.
This is part of Stark's thing. He's an Uber genius who pathologically thinks he has to fix everything, and fucks everything up in the process because he's too focused on the big picture.TheVampwizimp said:
Though...
He doesn't create Ultron by himself. Its heavily implied Thantos and the infinity stone did a lot of the heavy lifting in that regard.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply Spader is a bad villain; quite the contrary, Reddington is a beast. I just didn't think Ultron was a very good one. In fact Ultron just felt like a meandering, robotic Reddington. His banter was strikingly similar, especially his bit about how humans always create the things they dread. "People create ...little people? Children! I lost the word there."AccursedTheory said: