I'd definitely watch a longer version of the movie, because my one large gripe was that Ultron and the twins never got enough time to breathe as a characters - which I understand comprised a lot of the stuff Whedon had to cut for time.

I think the idea was that Ultron was constantly connected to the internet, so he could jump around if destroyed, but Vision severed that connection - leaving just him and his army of Ultron-bots.

They didn't think they left it running, remember? They didn't even think they had succeeded in making the Ultron AI work - the montage showed them failing over and over, then walking away because it was time for the party. JARVIS also mentions that he's not supposed to be functional in their conversation.

I think Ultron is technically a better overall film, but I think that a) it was a little bogged down with quick subplots to seed in future movies (Klaw, Thor's vision quest, etc.), and b) just lacked the circumstantial impact of the first one, when expectations were completely unknown.

I like the interpretation, and it also clears up one of the things that bugged me about the film - why the fuck was there an AI… inside a crystal… inside a scepter?

At this point, I'm interested to see where they possibly go after Infinity War, because the MCU has been exclusively building up to that event, and Thanos is essentially the infamous "big bad" of the Marvel universe (that Marvel has film rights for), so what possibly comes next?

I think the lightning was just intended to be a power source to finish the creation process, after Quicksilver unplugged all of the cables to the casket.

I don't think this movie intended to tackle the "daddy issues" angle to Ultron, from the comics. It would add another layer of complication to a film that was already overstuffed with things going on. They don't even emphasize the father vs. son angle in the final battle sequence.

As a fellow Canadian, it can't really be called bragging if it's just in response to a film diminishing our involvement. Haven't heard anything about the hostage crisis since Argo's moment passed (or before, really).

The problem wasn't that it made Taylor look BAD - the problem was that it grossly underplayed his actual contribution to the entire thing. Taylor (and Canada in general) were the true orchestrators of the entire thing, with some help from the CIA. "Argo" essentially reversed that, because (I guess) they assumed…

This is the same guy who was in Pacific Rim. I can't imagine he's that far up his own ass about the "importance" of his roles.

I love Idris as Heimdall, but I'm kind of disappointed that they gave him that part, because it means they can't give him a starring role as someone else.

I'm up for a Spiderman movie - they just have to sidestep all of the usual Spidey film tropes we've been bombarded with the past 15 years.

Was a little surprised they made no reference to him getting his arc reactor taken out, but it makes sense if this film takes place months or years after IM3 (long enough to build a new Avengers Tower, the Hulkbuster armor satellite thing, and so on)..

Best parts were the Titanic one at the end, and Michael Bay explaining the complex motivations of his protagonists.

And you managed not to mention the part where they've already tried this satire show thing before, and it failed miserably, despite having people with good ratings (!!!) like Rush Limbaugh on it.

It's funny how I went from "trust that the writers know what they are doing" after Sara's unceremonious death, to "maybe they need to cycle some new writers in to save this show", in the course of ONE SEASON.

"Also raising Clarey’s suspicions that something wasn’t Men’s Right " <—- Okay, this made me laugh out loud at work.

Good on her. Hope she does a good job with it.

Yes, this is precisely the kind of information I would have liked to have seen in the original post. Thank you.