Despite the fact Captain
America Civil War has started filming (with a huge and hugely impressive cast),
I wanted to talk Avengers Age of Ultron spoilers this month. However I've changed tack slightly; there has
already been loads written about the spoilers and easter-eggs in this film -
what I wanted to talk about specifically though is the reaction to the
film. From some quarters there has been
the beginning of a backlash forming, and I want to discuss that - firstly, how
in many ways it's unjustified, and secondly what it means for the movies of
Marvel Studios going forward. There are
SPOILERS for Age of Ultron, so if you haven't seen it yet proceed with caution!
MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS
Analysing the response to 'Age
of Ultron'
The film industry is
peculiar - the one thing it loves just as much, sometimes more, than a great
success is an abject failure. You'll
see industry insiders and critics getting their knives out for a film, setting
it up for failure, even before it has even been released Sometimes it's justified, others it's not
entirely (this is worthy of a discussion on it's own, but as an example check
out how critic reactions to 'The Lone Ranger' varied from those in the US to the
rest of the world, after it was already considered a 'flop' there; the
consensus internationally was that it wasn't as bad a film as the US critics
said). There's been more than a little
bit of this schadenfreud creeping in to a handful of reviews of Age of Ultron;
whilst I'd agree that it does have it's flaws, and isn't as good a film as it's
predecessor, a few critics have jumped beyond those and tried to make out that
it is an out and out disappointment and failure of a film. And for my life, I can't see why.
Yes, the plot has some
issues, and the film suffers in a few places because of how many character arcs
are in play, including some that - even director Joss Whedon admits - were cut
down more than they needed to be. It is
worth pointing out that repeat viewings of the film clarifies some of the
issues with the various character arcs; a number of critics have acknowledged this, and I would go further and say that (with the exception of Thor's
savagely cut arc) repeat viewings do make everything make sense. For example, some have argued that Tony
Stark's arc is kind of a non-arc; he doesn't seem to bear any consequences for
creating Ultron, or that he doesn't have a reason to leave the Avengers. It's worth bearing in mind that this film continues
the character development that has been happening in the previous MCU films; At
the end of 'Iron Man 3' Tony Stark hasn't 'quit' being Iron Man ( as some
people have interpreted it), rather he has become comfortable with his
capabilities as someone who can engineer and science a solution to overcome
problems and adversity. These inform his
motivations to create Ultron, as well as the PTSD you can see he is dealing
with in 'Iron Man 3'. In that film you
can see how his obsessive suit-building behaviour has been informed by taking
on an Alien army, but by being alongside people whose actual physical powers
exceed his own; but his ego exceeds that, and his experiences have given him a
saviour complex. Of course, Ultron goes
totally wrong, and he has to deal with the consequences of that, and the guilt
that's left. There's hints of the guilt
he still feels over his pre-Iron Man life as an arms manufacturer as well. And if 'Iron Man 3' sees him coming to accept
his limitations, I think that informs his decision to leave the Avengers:
Ultron has been dealt with, so he has made amends in that respect, the Avengers
are still going under Captain America alongside the newly re-established SHIELD
- he can move on.
 |
| There are that many character arcs woven through this film, it really does take more than one viewing to fully grasp and appreciate them... |
I'll admit though that whilst multiple viewings of this
film will help you get to grips with the numerous character arcs, there's two
issues that also underpin the negative reactions to the film that can't be
addressed that easily, so they deserve further investigation. I'd say that these can be summed up by a lack
of surprise, and a growing familiarity with the Marvel Studios 'formula'.
Careful what you wish for...
There's a saying that there are two tragedies in this
world: the first is not getting what you want.
The second is getting what you want.
I think that applies to Avengers Age of Ultron, in both respects. Remember, it was almost a miracle that 'Avengers Assemble' worked as well as it did, but it is an euphoric, punch-the-air triumph. I've talked
previously about why it is so great - the witty script, the excitement of
seeing this team working together and fighting alongside each other. Well, we all hoped that we would get this
from the sequel - if not, even more so.
And Age of Ultron does give us that - numerous thrilling scenes of The
Avengers together, fighting, rescuing people, being awesome - and having some
really funny interactions with each other in their downtime. But for some people, this wasn't enough. Why?
I think this film should mark a turning point for Marvel
Studios - because it is the point where, despite their success, there is
familiarity beginning to creep in, and familiarity breeds contempt, as the
saying goes. What has worked for Marvel
Studios is an emphasis on character, 'levity', and action. Whilst all of these were handled well in Age
of Ultron, the formula is becoming amply clear - especially in the final act
which is the sixth Marvel Studios movie to feature something falling from the
sky; not to mention that scenes of The Avengers fighting hordes of faceless
minions felt a lot like the finale of 'Avengers Assemble'. I get that there's a part of that you're
always going to see with The Avengers - they're the only team powerful enough
to deal with villainous hordes, in whatever form they take. But there are other sides to their team-work
and powers which could be emphasised in future films - in the final act of AoU
it was more exciting seeing them work to protect and rescue civilians, for the
most part, than punching Ultron Drones.
As well as this, I believe there is a sense that the
film, in delivering exactly what audiences were hoping and expecting in terms
of humour and spectacle, actually feels like the first Marvel Studios film in a
while that DIDN'T exceed expectations.
Looking back at the films that have come before it, they either
contained a killer twist that no one would have seen coming (The Mandarin in
IM3, Loki on the Throne of Asgard, SHIELD being infiltrated by Hydra), or by
the sheer fact that they were so good that no one could have anticipated it
(Captain America The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy). When I walked out of my first viewing of AoU,
the thing that struck me as the only REAL surprise was that there were no BIG
surprises. Sure, we learnt about
Hawkeye's family (spoiled for me before seeing it by the IMDB cast listings,
thank you!) and Banner & Romanov's relationship, but there were no massive
shocks, no revelations, no plot twists.
With the talk of the team's line up changing at the end of the film, and
Hulk's absence from the next few films, many fans were anticipating his exile
to space (like the Planet Hulk comic arc), or (given that it's a Whedon
trademark) the death of a major character (while we got one, it wasn't as
impactful as others might have been).
Then there was anticipation this would set up Civil War, either through
some calamitous event or growing tensions in the team - but at the end Thor and
Stark's departure is with friendly banter and a hand shake - no signs of
conflict. On top of that, we know we're
getting The Infinity War in a few years' time, so setting up the Infinity Stones
feels like a tick-box exercise to set things in motion - even though, yes, it
is cool that this is where the MCU is headed.
So if AoU is a disappointment at all it's not because
it's a failure as a film - it's just that it is a well-made and entertaining
blockbuster that didn't exceed expectations, unlike its predecessors. Yeah, I get that unlike 'Avengers Assemble'
it doesn't feel like the culmination of something, but it is what it is -
another part in an ongoing series. It
could have set things up more for the next films, but Whedon made it clear that
he didn't want to make a film that had a cliff-hanger or unsatisfying ending;
you can't argue that AoU ties up its story
whilst providing a starting point for the ones to follow. If people think that's disappointing, how
much more so would a more open conclusion have been?
Don't Feed the Trolls
As I've said, AoU is not a perfect film, it has many
flaws, but it's still an entertaining, witty and spectacular blockbuster. I can't understand that it's not okay for
this film to do what people expect, when a film like 'Fast & Furious 7' can
similarly deliver more of the same, effectively, and that's accepted
uncritically. It comes back to what I
was saying - people in the film industry love setting things up to fail after
they've been successful. Joss Whedon
made the most successful super-hero film of all time with 'Avengers Assemble',
so it's sad that people have been, in some respects, clutching at straws to
tear him and Marvel Studios down. I've responded to the (at best) questionable criticisms of misogyny levelled at the film (which I think are missing the point spectacularly), but there are some people so
desperate to claim the film a failure they've even tried to use the Box Office
as an indicator of this. Okay, the film didn't
open higher than its predecessor (as many had anticipated), but $185 million is still the second highest opening of all time (that's right, only the first
Avengers is higher). It broke records in
most international territories when it opened (in the UK it was the biggest Superhero movie opening of all time), and is set to be one of the top-five highest
grossing movies of all time (it's currently the highest grossing film of the year in the US - and it's still got a while to run). It is not
unusual for sequels to see their box office drop from their predecessors - especially
if they open bigger (for example, 'Spider-man 2' had a much lower opening and final gross than'Spider-man' - you wouldn't see anyone using that as an argument to suggest
it's a weaker film, when the opposite is largely held to be true); bearing in
mind that (as unlikely as it sounds!) there are people who say 'Avengers
Assemble' and didn't want to see a sequel.
I don’t think you'll see a film beat the first Avenger's box office
until 'Infinity War Part 2', so using a slightly decreased gross as 'proof' of
AoU being a 'failure' is an incredibly flawed argument.
 |
| Don't worry team, the Trolls are a minority - everyone else still loves ya! |
By and large though it is pleasing that the overwhelming
majority of the audience, and of course MCU & comic fans, thoroughly
enjoyed AoU. So does that mean no one
should take heed of the naysayers? Far
from it - I believe Marvel Studios needs to listen, and put everything they can
in to their upcoming slate to ensure that each film does more than fulfil the
MCU formula; they should aim to surprise the audience as much as possible with
each film.
That's it for this month - this column will be back in
June with more discussion about the upcoming MCU slate, possibly including a
new Spiderman, some Ant-Man, and maybe some Doctor Strange...
No comments:
Post a Comment