Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Avengers: Age of Ultron Review


Jeremy Igo

Recommended Posts

Well, they did what I feared. They introduced new characters at such a pace there was almost zero character development therefore I didn't give a crap about them.

The movie just got too big and lost site of the most important part.... The story.

It isn't a bad movie, but it isn't a good movie either. I loved the first avengers and loved captain America 2 even more.

This movie wasn't up to those levels. I'd put it on the same level as the first Thor movie. Watchable for the action and effects which is fun for a summer movie, but not much else.

Spoilers

The Vision fell flat. Yawn.

It's hard not to picture James Spader when Ultron is talking.

X-men version of quicksilver was much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of my problem, I think, is that I just never really liked any of the Avengers... even in the comics... Hulk was okay, but:

Thor - some god from another realm with a dumb outfit and a magic hammer

Iron Man - a cocky rich prick

Captain America - kinda jingoistic tbqh

Hawkeye - okay, he is pretty cool but his outfit is stupid and the movie kinda made him irrelevant, plus his weaponry is a little dated

Black Widow - meh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of my problem, I think, is that I just never really liked any of the Avengers... even in the comics... Hulk was okay, but:

Thor - some god from another realm with a dumb outfit and a magic hammer

Iron Man - a cocky rich prick

Captain America - kinda jingoistic tbqh

Hawkeye - okay, he is pretty cool but his outfit is stupid and the movie kinda made him irrelevant, plus his weaponry is a little dated

Black Widow - meh

Hawkeye has a more prominent role in this movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always found Thor a strange choice for a super hero. He's a major figure in Norse religion. To me it's kind of like making a comic book super hero out of Jesus Christ, that walks on water, has a healing factor, can multiply food and turn water into wine. 

 

Wouldn't it be kind of sweet if they made a super hero that could kill bad guys by turning all of the water in their bodies to wine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always found Thor a strange choice for a super hero. He's a major figure in Norse religion. To me it's kind of like making a comic book super hero out of Jesus Christ, that walks on water, has a healing factor, can multiply food and turn water into wine. 

 

Wouldn't it be kind of sweet if they made a super hero that could kill bad guys by turning all of the water in their bodies to wine?

 

Sounds like my new best friend.

 

Just be glad they're not bringing Hercules to the screen. But way back when they announced they were making an Iron Man movie they released it before Hulk because they thought it wouldn't do as well. Oops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...