Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Being merged with Mis Blamed. Must explain how the blame is unfair.
Changed line(s) 2,3 (click to see context) from:
''Age of Ultron'' is a good movie with a great DirectorsCut [[ExecutiveMeddling we will never see]]. The film is full of interesting tidbits on the theme of parenthood, legacy, evolution, and extinction, but they're so undercooked they never get baked into the sumptuous feast they should be. It's clear that the moment Creator/JossWhedon screened the film for the studio, somebody--perhaps Creative Committee head and [[ScapegoatCreator notorious hate sink]] Isaac Perlmutter, perhaps not--told him to cut it down to the bone, which likely prompted Whedon's departure from Marvel Studios.
to:
''Age of Ultron'' is a good movie with a great DirectorsCut [[ExecutiveMeddling we will never see]]. The film is full of interesting tidbits on the theme of parenthood, legacy, evolution, and extinction, but they're so undercooked they never get baked into the sumptuous feast they should be. It's clear that the moment Creator/JossWhedon screened the film for the studio, somebody--perhaps Creative Committee head and [[ScapegoatCreator notorious hate sink]] Isaac Perlmutter, perhaps not--told him to cut it down to the bone, which likely prompted Whedon's departure from Marvel Studios.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 14 (click to see context) from:
But these issues, which should be the centerpiece of the film, are curiously underserved by the theatrical cut of the film. Tony Stark has no real resolution with his robotic progeny, and Steve Rogers is largely the StandardizedLeader to a tee and his stoicness is never really challenged by events. The character arcs of the two leads are present in the film, but exist largely as throwaway lines and random graffiti of the Avengers with dollar signs painted over their faces, existing only to the extent they advance the relentless grind of the plot on a purely mechanical level. Instead of a gripping propulsive drive to the film, the two lead characters' characters exist as dangling threads you desperately want the film to pull on while it marches towards the climax with the robotic determination of Ultron himself.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10,11 (click to see context) from:
But Ultron insinuates a darker motivation for the Captain: that he cannot live in a world without war. His stated belief in the importance of acting as a peacekeeper may not be idealism, but the subconscious desire to make sure the war never ends. Ultron's function as a global peacekeeper would strip Captain America of his reason for existing, analogous to the military-industrial complex that keeps so many Americans employed and able to enforce American policy abroad. It's no coincidence the confrontation takes place in the bowels of a ship owned by Ulysses Klaw, a man who became rich by plundering natural resources from third-world nations. It's an accusation leveled at the United States itself many times. The military-industrial complex's patron saint, Tony Stark, has his own sordid history in Sokovia, manufacturing the bombs that killed the Maximoffs. After the events of ''Iron Man'', Stark has begun moving away from being a warmonger and towards being a peacekeeper. But Steve may be doing the opposite, sliding from a peacekeeper into a warmonger hiding under a mask of nobility.
to:
But Ultron insinuates a darker motivation for the Captain: that he cannot live in a world without war. His stated belief in the importance of acting as a peacekeeper may not be idealism, but the subconscious desire to make sure the war never ends. Ultron's function as a global peacekeeper would strip Captain America of his reason for existing, analogous to the military-industrial complex that keeps so many Americans employed and able to enforce American policy abroad. It's no coincidence the confrontation takes place in the bowels of a ship owned by Ulysses Klaw, a man who became rich by plundering natural resources from third-world nations. It's an accusation leveled at the United States itself many times. The military-industrial complex's patron saint, Tony Stark, has his own sordid history in Sokovia, manufacturing the bombs that killed the Maximoffs. After the events of ''Iron Man'', Stark has begun moving away from being a warmonger and towards being a peacekeeper. peacekeeper when confronted first-hand with the impact of his reckless and careless behavior. But Steve may be doing the opposite, sliding from a peacekeeper into a warmonger warmonger, who is hiding under a mask of nobility.
nobility to feel complete. Both heroic men believe in their ideologies, but both men also need those ideologies to believe they are heroes.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10,14 (click to see context) from:
But Ultron insinuates a darker motivation for the Captain: that he cannot live in a world without war. His stated belief in the importance of acting as a peacekeeper may not be idealism, but the subconscious desire to make sure the war never ends. Ultron's function as a global peacekeeper would strip Captain America of his reason for existing, analogous to the military-industrial complex that keeps so many Americans employed and able to enforce American policy abroad. It's no coincidence the confrontation takes place in the bowels of a ship owned by Ulysses Klaw, a man who became rich by plundering natural resources from third-world nations. It's an accusation leveled at the United States itself many times.
The military-industrial complex's patron saint, Tony Stark, has his own sordid history in Sokovia, manufacturing the bombs that killed the Maximoffs. After the events of ''Iron Man'', Stark has begun moving away from being a warmonger and towards being a peacekeeper. But Steve may be doing the opposite, sliding from a peacekeeper into a warmonger hiding under a mask of nobility. These two men are circling each other like an ouroboros over what they think is best for the world and what they want to leave behind. Two men, with two visions of global peace--one through a surveillance state, the other through anarchy--that are mutually exclusive. Both men carry the events of their past films with them--Tony's premonition of a threat from the stars, Steve's past as a tool of a nefarious [=AI=] peacekeeper--and these same issues would explosively come to a head in the next film to feature the two characters.
But these issues, which should be the centerpiece of the film, are curiously underserved by the theatrical cut of the film. Tony Stark has no real resolution with his robotic progeny, and Steve Rogers is largely the StandardizedLeader to a tee and his stoic visage is never really challenged by events. The character arcs of the two leads are present in the film, but exist largely as throwaway lines and random graffiti of the Avengers with dollar signs painted over their faces, existing only to the extent they advance the relentless grind of the plot on a purely mechanical level. Instead of a gripping propulsive drive to the film, the two lead characters' characters exist as dangling threads you desperately want the film to pull on while it marches towards the climax with the robotic determination of Ultron himself.
The military-industrial complex's patron saint, Tony Stark, has his own sordid history in Sokovia, manufacturing the bombs that killed the Maximoffs. After the events of ''Iron Man'', Stark has begun moving away from being a warmonger and towards being a peacekeeper. But Steve may be doing the opposite, sliding from a peacekeeper into a warmonger hiding under a mask of nobility. These two men are circling each other like an ouroboros over what they think is best for the world and what they want to leave behind. Two men, with two visions of global peace--one through a surveillance state, the other through anarchy--that are mutually exclusive. Both men carry the events of their past films with them--Tony's premonition of a threat from the stars, Steve's past as a tool of a nefarious [=AI=] peacekeeper--and these same issues would explosively come to a head in the next film to feature the two characters.
But these issues, which should be the centerpiece of the film, are curiously underserved by the theatrical cut of the film. Tony Stark has no real resolution with his robotic progeny, and Steve Rogers is largely the StandardizedLeader to a tee and his stoic visage is never really challenged by events. The character arcs of the two leads are present in the film, but exist largely as throwaway lines and random graffiti of the Avengers with dollar signs painted over their faces, existing only to the extent they advance the relentless grind of the plot on a purely mechanical level. Instead of a gripping propulsive drive to the film, the two lead characters' characters exist as dangling threads you desperately want the film to pull on while it marches towards the climax with the robotic determination of Ultron himself.
to:
But Ultron insinuates a darker motivation for the Captain: that he cannot live in a world without war. His stated belief in the importance of acting as a peacekeeper may not be idealism, but the subconscious desire to make sure the war never ends. Ultron's function as a global peacekeeper would strip Captain America of his reason for existing, analogous to the military-industrial complex that keeps so many Americans employed and able to enforce American policy abroad. It's no coincidence the confrontation takes place in the bowels of a ship owned by Ulysses Klaw, a man who became rich by plundering natural resources from third-world nations. It's an accusation leveled at the United States itself many times.
times. The military-industrial complex's patron saint, Tony Stark, has his own sordid history in Sokovia, manufacturing the bombs that killed the Maximoffs. After the events of ''Iron Man'', Stark has begun moving away from being a warmonger and towards being a peacekeeper. But Steve may be doing the opposite, sliding from a peacekeeper into a warmonger hiding under a mask of nobility. These
Throughout the film, these two men are circling each other like an ouroboros over what they think is best for the world and what they want to leave behind. Two men, with two visions of global peace--one through a surveillance state, the other throughanarchy--that individualism--that are mutually exclusive. Both men carry exclusive, while both carrying the events of their past films with them--Tony's premonition of a threat from the stars, Steve's past as a tool of a nefarious [=AI=] peacekeeper--and [=AI=]--and these same issues would explosively come to a head in the next film to feature the two characters.
But these issues, which should be the centerpiece of the film, are curiously underserved by the theatrical cut of the film. Tony Stark has no real resolution with his robotic progeny, and Steve Rogers is largely the StandardizedLeader to a tee and hisstoic visage stoicness is never really challenged by events. The character arcs of the two leads are present in the film, but exist largely as throwaway lines and random graffiti of the Avengers with dollar signs painted over their faces, existing only to the extent they advance the relentless grind of the plot on a purely mechanical level. Instead of a gripping propulsive drive to the film, the two lead characters' characters exist as dangling threads you desperately want the film to pull on while it marches towards the climax with the robotic determination of Ultron himself.
Throughout the film, these two men are circling each other like an ouroboros over what they think is best for the world and what they want to leave behind. Two men, with two visions of global peace--one through a surveillance state, the other through
But these issues, which should be the centerpiece of the film, are curiously underserved by the theatrical cut of the film. Tony Stark has no real resolution with his robotic progeny, and Steve Rogers is largely the StandardizedLeader to a tee and his
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 14 (click to see context) from:
But these issues, which should be the centerpiece of the film, are curiously underserved by the theatrical cut of the film. Tony Stark has no real resolution with his robotic progeny, and Steve Rogers is largely the StandardizedLeader to a tee and completely unfazed by events. The character arcs of the two leads are present in the film, but exist largely as throwaway lines and random graffiti of the Avengers with dollar signs painted over their faces, existing only to the extent they advance the relentless grind of the plot on a purely mechanical level. Instead of a gripping propulsive drive to the film, the two lead characters' characters exist as dangling threads you desperately want the film to pull on while it marches towards the climax with the robotic determination of Ultron himself.
to:
But these issues, which should be the centerpiece of the film, are curiously underserved by the theatrical cut of the film. Tony Stark has no real resolution with his robotic progeny, and Steve Rogers is largely the StandardizedLeader to a tee and completely unfazed his stoic visage is never really challenged by events. The character arcs of the two leads are present in the film, but exist largely as throwaway lines and random graffiti of the Avengers with dollar signs painted over their faces, existing only to the extent they advance the relentless grind of the plot on a purely mechanical level. Instead of a gripping propulsive drive to the film, the two lead characters' characters exist as dangling threads you desperately want the film to pull on while it marches towards the climax with the robotic determination of Ultron himself.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
!WhatCouldHaveBeen: Character Arcs with Miscalculated Trajectories
''Age of Ultron'' is a good movie with a great DirectorsCut [[ExecutiveMeddling we will never see]]. The film is full of interesting tidbits on the theme of parenthood, legacy, evolution, and extinction, but they're so undercooked they never get baked into the sumptuous feast they should be. It's clear that the moment Creator/JossWhedon screened the film for the studio, somebody--perhaps Creative Committee head and [[ScapegoatCreator notorious hate sink]] Isaac Perlmutter, perhaps not--told him to cut it down to the bone, which likely prompted Whedon's departure from Marvel Studios.
But the film's biggest fumble is its two leads, Steve Rogers and Tony Stark. If the film's central theme could be summed up as "what we leave behind", then surely what the two lead characters leave behind should be the focus, right? Yet they're curiously buried in the mix, providing sweet ghost notes to the symphony of destruction without ever bursting out into a nice, juicy melody.
Iron Man carries the heavy burden of this near-death experience in space, and his foreboding feeling that a greater threat (Thanos) is coming. So, like every tinkerer with [=PTSD=], he builds things. Specifically, he builds an advanced [=AI=] capable of shielding the world from the dangers that lurk in the vast void, so he can retire and leave his baby--his legacy, Ultron--behind to guard the planet.
Captain America, however, has had as much as much as he can stand of presumptive [=AI=] guardians. After dismantling Project Insight, he has come to believe neutralizing threats through preemptive action is the first step to tyranny. As he states in ''Civil War'', he knows that good-hearted individuals stepping up when they're needed are the safest champions of liberty. This neatly aligns with [[UsefulNotes/BillClinton Clinton-era]] foreign policy, that the United States should not be a heavy-handed [[UsefulNotes/RonaldReagan Reaganite]] bully, but a peacekeeper that steps into conflicts only as a last resort. "This is what [=SHIELD=] is supposed to be," he states at the end, as the Helicarrier arrives in Kosovo--Sorry, ''Sokovia''--to rescue the civilians caught in the conflict. To Captain America, Clintonesque foreign policy is seen as [=SHIELD=]'s redemption for its infiltration by Hydra. It's his own legacy, what he leaves behind after cleansing the agency of Hydra influence, and what he ''will'' leave behind after he cleanses Sokovia of its own Hydra influence.
But Ultron insinuates a darker motivation for the Captain: that he cannot live in a world without war. His stated belief in the importance of acting as a peacekeeper may not be idealism, but the subconscious desire to make sure the war never ends. Ultron's function as a global peacekeeper would strip Captain America of his reason for existing, analogous to the military-industrial complex that keeps so many Americans employed and able to enforce American policy abroad. It's no coincidence the confrontation takes place in the bowels of a ship owned by Ulysses Klaw, a man who became rich by plundering natural resources from third-world nations. It's an accusation leveled at the United States itself many times.
The military-industrial complex's patron saint, Tony Stark, has his own sordid history in Sokovia, manufacturing the bombs that killed the Maximoffs. After the events of ''Iron Man'', Stark has begun moving away from being a warmonger and towards being a peacekeeper. But Steve may be doing the opposite, sliding from a peacekeeper into a warmonger hiding under a mask of nobility. These two men are circling each other like an ouroboros over what they think is best for the world and what they want to leave behind. Two men, with two visions of global peace--one through a surveillance state, the other through anarchy--that are mutually exclusive. Both men carry the events of their past films with them--Tony's premonition of a threat from the stars, Steve's past as a tool of a nefarious [=AI=] peacekeeper--and these same issues would explosively come to a head in the next film to feature the two characters.
But these issues, which should be the centerpiece of the film, are curiously underserved by the theatrical cut of the film. Tony Stark has no real resolution with his robotic progeny, and Steve Rogers is largely the StandardizedLeader to a tee and completely unfazed by events. The character arcs of the two leads are present in the film, but exist largely as throwaway lines and random graffiti of the Avengers with dollar signs painted over their faces, existing only to the extent they advance the relentless grind of the plot on a purely mechanical level. Instead of a gripping propulsive drive to the film, the two lead characters' characters exist as dangling threads you desperately want the film to pull on while it marches towards the climax with the robotic determination of Ultron himself.
''Age of Ultron'' is a good movie with a great DirectorsCut [[ExecutiveMeddling we will never see]]. The film is full of interesting tidbits on the theme of parenthood, legacy, evolution, and extinction, but they're so undercooked they never get baked into the sumptuous feast they should be. It's clear that the moment Creator/JossWhedon screened the film for the studio, somebody--perhaps Creative Committee head and [[ScapegoatCreator notorious hate sink]] Isaac Perlmutter, perhaps not--told him to cut it down to the bone, which likely prompted Whedon's departure from Marvel Studios.
But the film's biggest fumble is its two leads, Steve Rogers and Tony Stark. If the film's central theme could be summed up as "what we leave behind", then surely what the two lead characters leave behind should be the focus, right? Yet they're curiously buried in the mix, providing sweet ghost notes to the symphony of destruction without ever bursting out into a nice, juicy melody.
Iron Man carries the heavy burden of this near-death experience in space, and his foreboding feeling that a greater threat (Thanos) is coming. So, like every tinkerer with [=PTSD=], he builds things. Specifically, he builds an advanced [=AI=] capable of shielding the world from the dangers that lurk in the vast void, so he can retire and leave his baby--his legacy, Ultron--behind to guard the planet.
Captain America, however, has had as much as much as he can stand of presumptive [=AI=] guardians. After dismantling Project Insight, he has come to believe neutralizing threats through preemptive action is the first step to tyranny. As he states in ''Civil War'', he knows that good-hearted individuals stepping up when they're needed are the safest champions of liberty. This neatly aligns with [[UsefulNotes/BillClinton Clinton-era]] foreign policy, that the United States should not be a heavy-handed [[UsefulNotes/RonaldReagan Reaganite]] bully, but a peacekeeper that steps into conflicts only as a last resort. "This is what [=SHIELD=] is supposed to be," he states at the end, as the Helicarrier arrives in Kosovo--Sorry, ''Sokovia''--to rescue the civilians caught in the conflict. To Captain America, Clintonesque foreign policy is seen as [=SHIELD=]'s redemption for its infiltration by Hydra. It's his own legacy, what he leaves behind after cleansing the agency of Hydra influence, and what he ''will'' leave behind after he cleanses Sokovia of its own Hydra influence.
But Ultron insinuates a darker motivation for the Captain: that he cannot live in a world without war. His stated belief in the importance of acting as a peacekeeper may not be idealism, but the subconscious desire to make sure the war never ends. Ultron's function as a global peacekeeper would strip Captain America of his reason for existing, analogous to the military-industrial complex that keeps so many Americans employed and able to enforce American policy abroad. It's no coincidence the confrontation takes place in the bowels of a ship owned by Ulysses Klaw, a man who became rich by plundering natural resources from third-world nations. It's an accusation leveled at the United States itself many times.
The military-industrial complex's patron saint, Tony Stark, has his own sordid history in Sokovia, manufacturing the bombs that killed the Maximoffs. After the events of ''Iron Man'', Stark has begun moving away from being a warmonger and towards being a peacekeeper. But Steve may be doing the opposite, sliding from a peacekeeper into a warmonger hiding under a mask of nobility. These two men are circling each other like an ouroboros over what they think is best for the world and what they want to leave behind. Two men, with two visions of global peace--one through a surveillance state, the other through anarchy--that are mutually exclusive. Both men carry the events of their past films with them--Tony's premonition of a threat from the stars, Steve's past as a tool of a nefarious [=AI=] peacekeeper--and these same issues would explosively come to a head in the next film to feature the two characters.
But these issues, which should be the centerpiece of the film, are curiously underserved by the theatrical cut of the film. Tony Stark has no real resolution with his robotic progeny, and Steve Rogers is largely the StandardizedLeader to a tee and completely unfazed by events. The character arcs of the two leads are present in the film, but exist largely as throwaway lines and random graffiti of the Avengers with dollar signs painted over their faces, existing only to the extent they advance the relentless grind of the plot on a purely mechanical level. Instead of a gripping propulsive drive to the film, the two lead characters' characters exist as dangling threads you desperately want the film to pull on while it marches towards the climax with the robotic determination of Ultron himself.
