I thought he found Jesus after he had a heart attack from all the steroids.

The uncanny valley, man. The best of intentions get bogged down there.

Aw, but he looked like a cuddly widdle snuggle woobie you want to put in your pocket. He doesn't count.

I think you've got it right. The protagonists had to look more human in order to stick in the imagination.

Maybe they waited too long between sequels to build up momentum?

If my tone was arrogant, I apologize. However I stand by my arguments.

Please maintain a civil tone or I will not respond to you further.

It is a trope that can be used to expand the characters and move the plot forward if done well. To dismiss it outright just shows that you don't like superhero films, which is a matter of taste only. That you cannot understand or appreciate the genre is your problem, not the problem of the film. It is a lack in your…

Remind me never to rent a room from you.

"As long as the hero's arc is the ultimate, overarching focus, and the character has sufficient agency, I've got no problem with other characters eating up pages or minutes on screen."

Like all other tropes, it depends on how it's used.

Certainly a movie villain can and should be interesting and dynamic, but only insofar as he provides a moral and physical foil for the hero, as you mention. The insistence on the primacy of the hero is not the least bit arbitrary—it is the entire point of a heroic narrative. Giving a villain primacy does not…

I believe the original point of this message board was to offer commentary on the trailer. And simple dismissal of a film based on a distaste for the genre is not interesting or amenable to discussion.

The original poster was making the claim that the superhero fight in the trailer is formulaic and will automatically render the film a waste of time. Not the trailer, the film. I argued that this claim betrayed a lack of appreciation or understanding of the genre. As several people have pointed out already, superhero…

Can you not comprehend the simple assertion that one cannot judge a film one hasn't seen? The OP is judging it on genre elements he doesn't like, without knowing whether or not those genre elements were justified within the film. I was asking the second poster to clarify what he was arguing about those specific genre…

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to argue. You certainly can't argue the merits or flaws of a film you haven't seen yet, and neither can the OP.

Eh, they probably could have used a bit more oomph. Ultron looks to be menacing, though.

As I said elsewhere, the relatively low profile of the villains serves to let the heroes shine. They are enough of a threat to make the heroes work for their victories, but not enough to upend the narrative. Contrast The Dark Knight, where the Joker upstages Batman in his own movie. And I thought the Red Skull was a…

Aw, come on. Cholera maybe, not dysentery, surely.

It won't be a waste of time to anyone who understands and appreciates the genre. Or, movies at all, in fact.