They say he is a monster, dear old Mr. Green

[sovay]

So I wanted to write about Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) when I got home tonight.

Slightly past the 2000-word mark, my arms hit a brick wall.

I will finish the post and put it up tomorrow. Expect discussion of structure, voice, and Bruce Banner. I am going to put an ice pack on my elbows and go to bed.

Comments

[kore]

the first solo mission of "Captain America" sounds, when summarized, as pulpily over-the-top as any of his heretofore fictitious adventures—disobeying orders to rescue nearly four hundred men and return with enemy secrets, leaving a German base in flames behind him—because it's merely that same outsize courage given a chance at the Bernhardt Line instead of the streets of Brooklyn.

AWW YEAH THAT'S MY GUY

I fucking loved that movie, it had so much heart and wit. I only saw it because everyone was agog over TWS and I wanted the backstory, and both T and I were surprised at how great it was. It was even enough to make up for Hugo Weaving's makeup and the Not!Nazis, which would have had me noping out if not for Steve, Peggy, Bucky, and stuff like "I've punched out Hitler over two hundred times."

I feel like in a better world we would've gotten a series of movies about Steve and heroism in the 21st century rather than Tony Stark and his endless manpain. (I like Stark okay. Just not how MCU has him taking over the movies.) Or even a PEGGY CARTER MOVIE, HOW ABOUT THAT (I know we did get a series...).

[sovay]

I fucking loved that movie, it had so much heart and wit.

Yes. It's just a really great movie. It earns all its historical shout-outs, it's an adventure film about the Second World War where the heroes are mostly all marginalized people (or people who until quite recently were marginalized and are still figuring out what to do with all this privilege science just dropped in their lap) and Chris Evans is amazing. I really wish the powers that MCU would give Joe Johnston another movie.

I feel like in a better world we would've gotten a series of movies about Steve and heroism in the 21st century rather than Tony Stark and his endless manpain. (I like Stark okay. Just not how MCU has him taking over the movies.)

No, that's fair. I enjoyed Iron Man (2008) because of engineering and Iron Man 3 (2013) because I can't think of that many genre movies where the hero has actual PTSD instead of attractive dramatic movie PTSD and I really appreciated that nothing is miraculously fixed by the end of the story, but he is at least trying to cope healthily rather than building a million literal defense mechanisms and not understanding why Pepper very sensibly moved out. I feel like the movies as a whole are inclined to give him way more of a pass than he—deserves is not the right word, because I don't mean it in a moral sense, but he seems to dodge consequences like nobody's business and I can't tell if this is a realistic reflection of the privileges of being a charismatic billionaire superhero or a kind of endemic soft spot for the character on the writers' part. I don't see Tony Stark as the center of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I'm not sure that the franchise agrees with me.

Definitely and always want more Steve. There are so many stories in his staunch time-slipped steadfastness that is not naivete and we've had one. It was quite good. So what, MCU? What have you done for me lately?

(Bruce. I know. Nonetheless.)

Or even a PEGGY CARTER MOVIE, HOW ABOUT THAT (I know we did get a series...).

I really enjoyed Agent Carter. That does not mean I would not pay down money for a Peggy Carter movie in a heartbeat.

[kore]

I feel like the movies as a whole are inclined to give him way more of a pass than he—deserves is not the right word, because I don't mean it in a moral sense, but he seems to dodge consequences like nobody's business and I can't tell if this is a realistic reflection of the privileges of being a charismatic billionaire superhero or a kind of endemic soft spot for the character on the writers' part.

SERIOUSLY

(I think....it might be reflecting some of Whedon's worldview? Since he said the film was so dark and painfully personal and so on? I don't know.)

I don't see Tony Stark as the center of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I'm not sure that the franchise agrees with me.

EVEN MORE SERIOUSLY. I am now so confused about Civil War, whether it's a Tony-centric Avengers (ensemble) or a Tony-centric Cap (solo flick). I am not wild about either of those possibilities.

Definitely and always want more Steve. There are so many stories in his staunch time-slipped steadfastness that is not naivete and we've had one.

ALL I WANT IS MORE STEVE. AND A NATASHA MOVIE. AND A PEGGY MOVIE. That does not sound so hard! Thor has FOUR movies!

[sovay]

Since he said the film was so dark and painfully personal and so on?

Really? I think I found it less dark than either The Winter Soldier or Iron Man 3, both of which were about profound destabilization and potential loss of identity. I don't know, maybe that just scares me.

I am now so confused about Civil War, whether it's a Tony-centric Avengers (ensemble) or a Tony-centric Cap (solo flick). I am not wild about either of those possibilities.

I'd settle for "Steve-centric," thank you.

[kore]

Really? I think I found it less dark than either The Winter Soldier or Iron Man 3, both of which were about profound destabilization and potential loss of identity. I don't know, maybe that just scares me.

Oh man, the "Who the hell is Bucky" moment and how Steve just crumples. Right then for him everything's just truly gone.

He didn't say "dark" in the interview I was thinking of but a lot of critics are saying it was darker than the first movie, etc. He said elsewhere he modeled it on Godfather II (what): I need to give people an exciting ride about heroic people, and that’s certainly part of why I signed on, but at the same time a richer, deeper, darker movie is not a bad thing.

“Is it perfect? It is not,” said Whedon. “Is it me? It's so baldly, nakedly me. To do something that is as personal as this movie is — on that budget, for a studio that needs a summer tentpole — is an extraordinary privilege.”

In particular, Whedon says he poured himself into the movie’s big villain, Ultron. A peacekeeping robot gone wrong, Ultron seeks to destroy his creator Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) and regularly rants about humanity’s feeble failings. That sort of comic-book motivation could come off as one-note in another filmmaker’s hands, but “Ultron's pain is very, very real to me,” said Whedon. “He can't control the way his pain makes him behave.” Whedon paused, his soft voice grown even softer. “And I can relate to that.”

http://www.vulture.com/2015/04/how-age-of-ultron-nearly-broke-joss-whedon.html

I'd settle for "Steve-centric," thank you.

SERIOUSLY

I think RDJ's basically become the linchpin, tentpole, whatever, for the MCU flicks now, and that just makes me pretty unhappy.

[sovay]

“Ultron's pain is very, very real to me,” said Whedon. “He can't control the way his pain makes him behave.” Whedon paused, his soft voice grown even softer. “And I can relate to that.”

I sympathize with closeness to the material—I do not say that at all snarkily; I am still trying to figure out how to write about trees—but I'm wondering if maybe a co-writer should have killed some of his darlings for him.

I think RDJ's basically become the linchpin, tentpole, whatever, for the MCU flicks now, and that just makes me pretty unhappy.

I suppose he's been in the most movies to date, but even so. He is not the character whose story most compels me. More importantly, I am not sure he's the character who is most emblematic of the philosophical questions of the Marvel universe. I'm not sure there is one. That's sort of the point of a team.

[kore]

I know he wanted to start out in media res and then split the team up (I think he was all "I want to DESTROY them and give them pain mwahaha," sigh) but a dear friend of mine who's an excellent writer pointed out, the first movie worked because there was an external conflict, Loki, and then the space centipedes (I don't remember their name). Loki kicked up their internal conflicts, they had to resolve the internal conflict to overcome the second external conflict, boom, you had plot, or at least the mechanism. But if they're all Team the Best Team right at the start and then it's just internal conflict then you get "plot" like Tony being stupid and Bruce going "Your idea is dumb!....let's go for it."

I suppose Whedon might've been going for Wanda being the Loki figure and fucking them all up the way the sceptre did, but I personally truly didn't get from the movie the narrative that Wanda messed with them to the extent that she tripped Tony's PTSD and Nat's wanting a family? (what) and so on. I know other people did, but it didn't seem as clear to me. I think maybe that's what Whedon was really aiming for -- the internal stuff gets tripped and overpowers them and drives the plot (again) -- but this time I, personally, just didn't see it. (I might have just been too dumb and/or annoyed to see it! This is entirely possible.)

Maybe part of the problem was Wanda's powers were so undefined....she could mess with brains AND zap people AND throw Bat Bogey hexes and so on. You know if Loki shows up in a movie, the trickster is going to mess with people and gleefully use their own weak spots against them.

....Also I gotta say, I love me some reformed assassin/criminal stories (Faith, Natasha, Bucky) but I would be SO WARY of letting someone like that on the team, because she seems like such a complete fucking loose cannon. It does seem like a nice setup for some Natasha/Wanda mentoring, but I doubt MCU is going to go there. (The people already writing fic about Daddy Clint and Auntie Nat taking Wanda to Clint's farm for R&R knock me out.)