Why didn't Whedon deliver?

Why didn't Whedon deliver?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tmeOjFno6Do
youtube.com/watch?v=FhGPvE43aAM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

When has he ever?

cause he is a worthless hack

Couldn't use Hank Pym because of the Antman movie. What are ya gonna do?

...

But that was shit
Serenity was the last good thing Whedon did

He did. Avengers 2 was great.
Fuck you. Avengers 1 is the fucking best.

That was garbage.

>Avengers 1 is the fucking best
God damn, that's some shit taste you've got there.
But I respect it.

Serenity was terrible, though.

Really makes you think.

He did. EMH Ultron was generic and boring and not accurate to source either.

Said it was the last good thing he made, not that it was great

Why is nobody capable of writing Ultron? He's not terribly compkex.

Frankly I didn't even think Firefly was all that great

Whoever wrote Rage of Ultron was pretty damned good at handling the character.

I like Avengers 1. So did the rest of Sup Forums once upon a time. Stop being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

The first Avengers movie worked because the plot wrote itself. "There's these aliens so the superheroes have to come together to stop them", so it had lots of time to focus on making sure each Avenger had an equal amount of screentime.

Avengers 2 didn't have that luxury. He had to come up with new shit for every character to do, try to develop a villain, and introduce new characters, all while trying to avoid rehashing the first movie. Everything ended up suffering as a result. Even Ultron could have been fine with more time to flesh him out beyond "he makes quips like Tony Stark and gives villain monologues about evolution or something".

Because he is a TV director with an enormous ego.

Neither of those things should ever be placed in charge of a movie.

Ultron is a character that would've benefited GREATLY by being developed over the course of more than..... 2 hours

>mfw Capcom will have a better Ultron in MVCI than AOU

There's also the fact that he's a bit of a whiner and a little annoying.

He totally lacked the menace of proper Ultron, which was a real shame because in the trailers they managed to make him pretty spooky. Seriously, you have James Spader voicing a killer robot. How do you fuck that up?

>Serenity
>not Doctor Horrible or Cabin in the Woods

It was mediocre and overrated on the internet.

This was.... Okay. Would have been better if it wasn't basically a comedy though.

Both of those were fucking awful.

I earnestly can't understand why Joss Whedon has such a huge nerd following.

Ultron was always a whiner.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer was good for its time, if you were a teenager. Not really impressed with anything else he's done though.

Remember Dollhouse?

Your shit taste is irredeemable. You need to kill yourself immediately to purify the world of your garbage taste in movies before it kills everyone else with good taste

that doesnt mean ultron should suck

I've always felt like movie Ultron was a very complex character. The problem was that he was the kind of villain that you need an entire season of a TV show to really explore, not a character that you should be trying to do in an already packed movie.

What we ended up getting in the movie feel like a youtube collection of "best Ultron moments" from a 24 episode series. Ultron has funny, menacing, pathetic, dramatic and hammy scenes. But when he only has like one or two of each without much bridging them, it just feels like a mess.

Dollhouse really suffered from having no idea how they wanted to develop the series until after the first season. Angel was far better than Buffy.

Buffy was that big a success.

Ultron's daddy issues are an essential part of his character, and the movie barely touched them because for Tony, Ultron was just a 2-5 weeks project that went wrong. For Pymp Ultron was a project of passion that was suppose to put his life on track, remember Hank was in a very dark place when he made Ultron and this was reflected in Ultron's character, as both regarded each other as disappointments, all of that is lost in the movie, with Tony acting like it wasn't his fault and Ultron hating Tony's guts more on the basis of how similar is he to him rather than actual daddy issues.

Angel hasn't aged well. Besides, I actually would've preferred if they stuck with the vampire detective agency thing they were doing earlier.

The Darla stuff in season 2 was often kinda bad.

By writing him like Jerry Seingfield. "What's the deal with human airline food?"

You could see the little bits of good characterization throughout the movie. Unfortunately, they just make the rest of his screen time even worse by comparison.

I personally disliked Avengers since I saw it in theaters. It wasnt compelling at all and really unfunny. It's completely mediocre.

Ultron is actually a crappy villain except for his psychodrama with his creator. To properly execute an Ultron movie, his creator (in this case Tony Stark) would have to have been the focal character like how Cap was the focus in Civil War. But they wanted another true ensemble movie and so Ultron got diluted into a vague general Avengers foe with a touch more anger at Stark in particular.

Yeah. He's actually emotionally needy towards the twins and implied to be in love with Wanda, but there's only like 10 seconds of characterization on it.

>hating your creator superior because of the flaws you both share
>not daddy issues

You can't show a dark genocidal Ultron in a Disney children's film

And that's not Whedon's fault

Whedon chose a villain that required a lot of set up and instead just killed too much time on other things.

What he should have done is
>>Not have Iron Man in the first Hydra fight. Continue the idea of Tony being retired and trying to build Ultron to do their job for them.
>>Not tease the future films so much.
>>Maybe condense the action scenes.

Because what happened was that we got an Ultron who didn't win a single fight.

And at the same time people complained that the movie was too Tiny centric as is.

>Because what happened was that we got an Ultron who didn't win a single fight.

Same thing happened with Loki, effectively.

But he did attempt genocide and had the corresponding discourse. Granted in a somewhat cartoony way but still.

Punching good guys into submission was never those guys' MO though. They're schemers.

Ultron frequently kicks the entire Avengers' asses at once. The only shade of that here was the "Thor, you're bothering me," sequence.

>Ultron frequently kicks the entire Avengers' asses at once
Not really.

All he had to do was make Ultron so serious a villain that the Avengers would have to stop joking around. The movie lacked the gravitas and sense of dread that the trailers portrayed it to have. Watch this again.

youtube.com/watch?v=tmeOjFno6Do

Doesn't it seem completely different than the movie we got? Whedon siad he was looking to Empire Strikes Back and Godfather 2 for inspiration. But the movie was more the bad parts of Return of the Jedi. His hands were tied with Marvel wanting so much shit in the movie but his additions were garbage too. Hulk/Black Widow romance? Hawkeye with a family? Vision for ten minutes?

All he had to do was make Ultron a big bad guy enraged at humanity for their failings and at Tony for creating him. But he tried to get cute with all this shit. We didn't need to introduce Vision, and Wanda, and Quicksilver. That hurt the movie.

Ultron himself was fine, both in look/characterization, but the real issue was the script. Whedon didnt really give him the time to grow, and he could barely juggle the cast as is. I cant help but wonder how the Russos would have handled it

>the movie was more the bad parts of Return of the Jedi.
C'mon now, hate quips as much as you want but don't compare them to Ewoks.
>Hawkeye with a family
Was good, it's nice to have one normie hero and he's the only one who could fit the bill.
>We didn't need to introduce Vision, and Wanda, and Quicksilver. That hurt the movie.
Viz was the best part of the movie.

>Viz was the best part of the movie

You talking Civil War or Age of Ultron? He was a non-character in Ultron.

That's just dumb user, don't say dumb things.

Are you another one of those people that just watched EMH and thought that Ultron was always a cold and emotionless terminator? Because isn't.

EMH was great, but its Ultron was far from accurate. Whedon DID deliver, the only difference was Ultrons dad.

As someone who had 0 knowledge of vision as a character before seeing the movie, no, he wasn't. He was handled awfully. His appearance is so last second and inexplicable, that he feels like a massive deus ex machina pulled out to shut down a villain that at that point was laughably incompetent. We got 0 sense for who he was as a character or why he was a good guy when ultron wasn't. They might as well have had the silver surfer pop in and kill ultron in the last 5 minutes and it would have had the same impact.

You're complaining about the script, which definitely has issues, not the character.
>His appearance is so last second and inexplicable
He's in the movie as an idea for like an hour before he actually appears.
>We got 0 sense for who he was as a character or why he was a good guy when ultron wasn't.
We sort of did, we see the ingredients being handled differently and Thor's lightning being an addition to the recipe.

You're treating the character as the amalgamation of all the things you know about him. I'm talking about what was presented in the movie, which was shit all nothing. Civil war did way more with him as a character, even with all of what, a minute of screen time?

>he feels like a massive deus ex machina

that is literally what he is

Shut the fuck up
youtube.com/watch?v=FhGPvE43aAM

This scene was trying so hard to be deep. Complete trash

>mfw people claim this is the epitome of capeshit

>Beep beep!

I can't wait for the weekend to be over and all the underaged anons will go back to school.

I feel like Tonydad Ultron could still have worked if they acted more similar, or Ultron was acting more like "Tony if he went off the deep end." Then there's better believability with some of the hate Ultron had for Tony, and vice versa without the whole "gonna kill all humans lel" thing.

Ultron hates Tony because he doesn't want to be compared to him(touched on when Klaw pointed out Ultron sounded like a Stark and triggered Ultron something fierce) while thinking Tony's not going far enough to save the world.

Drop the "gonna kill all humans lol" and go with Ultron building a robot army and trying to take over the world, with the extremism "I will save this world by ruling it" ideal, then have a reveal after all's said and done that Ultron knows Thanos is coming, and the robot army was to stop him from destroying the world and getting his hands on the Infinity Stones.

it had good atmosphere

it was literally a rip of outlaw star tho

That'd be better to be honest, it'd fit the continuity more.

Whedon has too big an ego and it clashed with what the studio wanted. So we ended up with a movie that felt like it had two parents fighting over it. You can see the stuff Whedon put in himself and had passion for(Vision, the twins, Hawkeye's family, etc) and you can see the studio mandates he didn't care for(Hulkbuster, everything with Wakanda, etc).

The Russos and their writing team found a way to work with the studio's demands but turn those into something of their own. Studio says Black Panther and Spider Man need to be in the movie? The Russos go ahead and do it on their own terms.

They should have to do something like pic related with Abomination instead of hulk and Scarlet Witch instead of Khan.

I find Avengers is a 5 or 6/10 movie once you get past the novelty. I thought Age of Ultron was better, so it's a 6 or 7 by default. No, Ultron wasn't exactly like the comics, but I thought the movie version was compelling, especially how his initial plan was to be a Messiah but Tony and the Avengers kept pissing him off so he settled for an extinction event.

I learned to stop expecting comic accuracy from these movies a long time ago. Now they're just another alternate universe to me, like MC2, Earth X, or Ultimate. And I enjoy them way more.

I can't take anyone serious who thinks Age of Ultron is better than Avengers. Avengers is better executed on almost every level and Whedon himself knows it's the better film.

Whedon's weak point has always been story structure. He saved Avengers 1 after the first drafts were rejected, but he had a simple story ready-made and his job was to add good jokes and character interaction. His TV experience stood him in good stead (as it does for the Russos) because he knows how to make a big cast work together.

Ultron was his story and it was probably too ambitious for this kind of movie, given how little time he had to set up the villains and the twins and Vision.

Probably if he'd left out the twins he could have spent more time setting up Ultron and still have time to show the original 6 Avengers (which is what most people came to see). Since he killed off Quicksilver instantly it seems like the whole point of having them in the movie was just to set up that one shot where Vision saves Scarlet Witch.

Then they should've waited on Ultron.

I actually do like "Avengers" a lot. It's got flaws, but it's still enjoyable and surprisingly accurate to the comics in general.

2 was way better. That was mediocre.

It doesn't hold my interest. I got about 3 episodes in before I stopped.

I actually really appreciated AoU Ultron's daddy issues and attempts at communing with humanity. I mean, his character in the comics isn't just some generic evil robot... he's Hank Pym's murderous, ego-maniacal estranged son. Changing it to Tony actually worked with the universe we were given.

Making him a bit more physically imposing would have been nice, but they were determined to use the Hulk and there isn't much of a way around that.

I agree that the movie was far from great, decent at best, but Ultron was not the problem.

Ultron as a concept isn't all that special, which is why Whedon failed, because he didn't use the comics at all as reference for him. Ultron only works well when you hit home the idea that in a world of heroes stopping villains, one of the worst villains of all is a psychotic, temperamental death machine built by one of earth's protectors.

Cabin in the Woods is good. I don't like Whedon but don't be a hipster.

>So did the rest of Sup Forums once upon a time
Bizarro Sup Forums, right?

I know shit-all about comics Vision so that's wrong.

>Since he killed off Quicksilver instantly it seems like the whole point of having them in the movie was just to set up that one shot where Vision saves Scarlet Witch.
Killing Quicksilver was also its own point
>Didn't see that comink?

Next Avengers: Heroes of Tomorrow even did Ultron better than the flick

Nah, Avengers 1, 2, Deadpool, and Guardians of the Galaxy are those movies that Sup Forums loved and were ready to anme movie of the year.

Then reddit liked them, so now we have to hate them because we're a bunch of Sup Forumsntrarians who let reddit determine what we like and don't like.

>Sup Forums
>liking age of ultron

Yeah, right

Memender IS Pymfag, after all.

I think Disney wanted a watered down Ultron, it wasn't total Whedons fault.