MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Marvel’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron” – Teaser Trailer (OFFICIAL)

Yes, I actually like this trailer a lot!

Be Sociable, Share!

53 Responses to “Marvel’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron” – Teaser Trailer (OFFICIAL)”

  1. Geoff says:

    Wow that is a kick-ass trailer!

  2. MarkVH says:

    Weirdly, it doesn’t do much for me at all. And I really dug the Avengers and am totally in the tank for Whedon. I’m sure the movie will be fine, but it just seems like we’ve seen all this before.

  3. Stella's Boy says:

    More of the same indeed. Slo-mo hero shots. Cities being destroyed. Explosions galore. Holy boring. I’d rather watch just about anything. Then again I hated The Avengers. Nothing puts me to sleep quicker than the thought of sitting through another comic book blockbuster.

  4. storymark says:

    The best bit from the SDCC preview, all the guys trying to lift Thor’s hammer, is the only bit not in the trailer. Disappointing.

  5. Christian says:

    Yeah, I wouldn’t want to be surprised by a scene in the film I didn’t see in the trailer:]

  6. storymark says:

    Surprised by a scene that was already detailed beat for beat….? And did you not get that my comment was a response to those commenting on the overly-familliar nature….

    But contrarian away.

  7. movieman says:

    Why am I supposed to be excited about this?
    I’m not 8 years old.

  8. Geoff says:

    I’ve been as critical of Marvel as any one on this blog recently, but I loved this trailer – the color palette is a bit strange but unlike the previous one, this LOOKS like a MOVIE….all of the main characters are given nice brushstrokes and I have to say I am impressed how the main villain looks scary and foreboding given how played out the whole “AI/Machine takes over the world” scenario is at this point. I haven’t watched him on any of his TV hits, but James Spader can pull this off as well as any one with just his voice…..the dude has had this eeriness about him going all the way back to Pretty in Pink for Christ sakes!

    And it’s easy to dismiss this as “just a trailer” but I honestly was not particularly impressed with any of the trailers for the first Avengers including that snarky post-credits stinger for the first Captain America.

    This just looks freaky cool.

  9. PcChongor says:

    The “seriousing up” of naturally silly tripe like “The Avengers” and the “Wahlbergering down” of more highbrow fare like “The Gambler” has become insanely infuriating.

    Both studios and filmmakers alike need to stop forcing their square IPs into round tonal holes just for the sake of not feeling like a complete and utter sellout or becoming a wart-faced commercial pariah.

  10. Geoff says:

    Lighten up Francis!

  11. PcChongor says:

    Alls I know is that this superhero arms race with Disney is the first real existential threat that the other studios have faced since the multinationals started playing hot potato with them back in the early 80s. A few megaflops lined up with an overall economic downturn would almost certainly be enough to bring on some intense consolidation within the industry (Murdoch is practically salivating at the thought of an “Aquaman” and “Shazam” film).

    And if the studios of the 70s had been run by modern day execs, today we’d have 27 “Buck Rogers” and “Zorro” films, but not a single “Star Wars” or “Indiana Jones” joint.

  12. leahnz says:

    if they have to keep making comicbook movies ad nauseam, why can’t it be more stuff like ‘dredd’, hardout R artsy action stuff, and less dorky shit (dredd and Anderson 4 eva – garland, dod mantle, the goods. i wonder what the deal with pete travis the director is, he has a bit of an unconventional filmography, seems more diverse than the average bear)

  13. brack says:

    Dredd sucked. Sorry, I just don’t get the love. Just generic bleakness. Why anyone loves that movie puzzles me.

    Age of Ultron looks incredible. This isn’t Transformers. This is a movie with some character study that happens to be about superheroes. That’s what I took from the trailer. I’m pumped.

  14. Stella's Boy says:

    I found Dredd infinitely more entertaining than The Avengers. Then again I find most movies more entertaining than The Avengers. How anyone watches the trailer here and sees something other than the same old, same old puzzles me.

  15. leahnz says:

    wait dredd is ‘generic’, but ‘age of ultron’ looks incredible? one is for children, one is for adults. that about sums up the current action cinema, and why we keep getting movies for babies

    (i don’t understand this trailer, does it pick up with the same city destruction, or is this a whole new city destroyed that just looks exactly like that last city destroyed, and if so can’t anyone think of one single plot that doesn’t involve a city being destroyed? wtf, when did the movies go full retard, i must have been in the bathroom)

  16. KrazyEyes says:

    This looks so incredibly boring to me. You would think at some point people would get tired of the same old shit getting blown up one more time in the same old way — but oddly they don’t. Count me out unless it’s for free on Netflix.

    Whedon’s just gotta kill one of them off this time though. You know he wants to and with his newfound clout nobody at the studio is going to be able to tell him he can’t. Votes?

    Did I notice a mini Godzilla reunion? I’m amazed that Aaron Taylor Johnson continues to get roles in big films. I can’t think of another young actor who seems so flat and charisma-less.

  17. Bulldog68 says:

    People like seeing stuff getting blown up. And why deny people their childhood fantasies? I get tired of the over the top explosionfest too, but it doesn’t mean that because I enjoyed Avengers or Man of Steel that I’m not having a blast at Gone Girl, John Wick, or The Grand Budapest Hotel.

    I complained about Trannies 4, but I’ll take an X-Men Days of Future Past or Guardians of the Galaxy any day. When they get it right, they get it right. Will always remember that feeling of absolute euphoria I had after the first Jurassic Park, or Terminator 2. Man that was good blockbuster cinema. And that feeling is hard to recreate on demand. If it was, everyone would do it. But I hope they keep trying.

  18. Stella's Boy says:

    I agree Bulldog, it isn’t easy to hit the highs of Jurassic Park or T2, and it’s a blast to experience that in a theater. But I’d say the Marvel movies don’t even come close to being as good as those movies. I like a good action movie as much as anyone, but I’d line up for John Wick or The Guest before I’d pay to see another Avengers movie. In the trailer here it literally looks like the exact same explosions and mass destruction as the last one. You don’t feel like you’re seeing something for the 17th time in the past 3 years when you sit down and watch JP or T2 for the first time.

  19. Bulldog68 says:

    It’s just an amazingly hard job IMO for filmmakers to create that sense of wonder again. I remember my spirit soaring when the bicycles became airborne in ET. That simple, explosion free moment, left me feeling jubilation.

    So I do agree that explosion followed by bigger scale explosion leaves you feeling like somebody battered you with a ten pound hammer. Just once, can’t the aliens resort to chemical or biological warfare for a change in order to wipe us out. Lol

  20. YancySkancy says:

    It’s a problem inherent to the genre. Superheroes tend to go up against super-villains, who tend to want to take over the world or destroy it rather than just rob a bank or something.

  21. Stella's Boy says:

    I’d be all for a less ambitious supervillain, one more into armed robbery than world destruction.

  22. Jermsguy says:

    Supervillains never smash up Des Moines.

  23. Hallick says:

    “Supervillains never smash up Des Moines.”

    It wasn’t Des Moines, but what about that “Man of Steel” battle?

  24. Hallick says:

    “I’d be all for a less ambitious supervillain, one more into armed robbery than world destruction.”

    So far we’ve got The Joker in “The Dark Knight” for that.

  25. Geoff says:

    I really liked both The Avengers AND Dredd back in 2012, but Leah sorry one of those films made $1.5 billion and one…..didn’t.

    The whole comic book craze doesn’t bother me much…..we had a slew of lousy Star Wars-wannabes back in the ’80’s do you really forget??? 🙂

    I DO miss good R-rated action films and I don’t know why we can only see films like The Equalizer or Dredd in September nowadays.

    I really don’t get most of you folks issues with this trailer though….it’s got scale and atmosphere, a bunch of unforgettable images……it does what a teaser should do. And I’m not even a fan of the recent TRAILERS for most Marvel films…..I still do not get the appeal of all that “Hooked on a Feeling” adplay for ‘Guardians but it did seem to do the trick.

    But I can’t wait to see how snippy a lot of you folks get over the next couple of months when we start seeing ENDLESS cavalcade of sequel hype for next summer…’ll have tons of ’90’s nostalgia/relaunches (Jurassic World, Terminator, Fantastic Four, Peter Pan) plus a sequel to seemingly EVERY mid-range to blockbuster hit from 2012, whether it warranted a sequel or not! (Ted, Magic Mike, Pitch Perfect) And with the exception of The Avengers, all those films COMBINED will not match the worldwide maelstrom of The Minions. 😛

  26. Stella's Boy says:

    True that Hallick, and what a great villain.

    I’m far more excited about Jurassic World and the sequels to Pitch Perfect and Magic Mike than I am about another Marvel movie. I don’t lose any sleep over the comic book movie craze, I just don’t care about seeing them anymore. I’m over them. This trailer just cements that. It looks exactly like every comic book movie I’ve seen in the last 5 or so years.

  27. Monco says:

    The Dredd reboot was horrible. I’m no fan of Marvel movies but you are citing shit to criticize other shit. And when you use the “it’s made for 8 year olds” argument you sound eerily like LexG talking about Pixar movies.

  28. leahnz says:

    are you talking to me monco? (She Who Shall Not Be Named, hahahaha – SCARY!!! poor wee boys)

    i’d bet a beer neither monco nor brack has actually seen ‘dredd’ (fairly well reviewed even, esp for R18 violence). ‘generic’ it ain’t. and ‘horrible’? really, HORRIBLE? not even just not very good, or a bit silly, or too OTT, or too techno-beat, or too loud and violent, but HORRIBLE? alex garland is a horrible writer? dod mantle is a horrible photographer? yeah right. tell me something about ‘dredd’, i dare you

  29. KrazyEyes says:

    I quite liked Dredd. It was a little too similar to The Raid but improved upon it in many ways.

  30. EtGuild2 says:

    I’m liking this thread and the debate over “adult vs kiddie” superhero entertainment, since I just got back from my favorite superhero film in years….”Big Hero 6.”

  31. movieman says:

    Really, Et?
    I liked “Feast” (a lot) more than “BH6” which isn’t (not by a long shot) the second coming of “The Incredibles” I’d been wishing for.

  32. EtGuild2 says:

    I thought the visuals were seamless. The most successful blend of CGI animation with traditional hand drawing yet. Not just visually, but stylistically. The final blowout is somewhat generic, but Acts 1 and 2 are fantastic. “The Incredibles” is one of the greatest animated movies ever made, superheroes or not, so I don’t expect something like it to roll around every year or two. Don Hall brings heart to his Disney features that just seems more genuine to me than most of their recent stuff.

    “Feast” was cute too.

  33. movieman says:

    I’m starting to feel like we’re on the verge of a bromance break-up, Et, lol.
    We seem to disagree on just about everything these days.
    I certainly liked “BH6” more than “Wreck-it-Ralph” (which gave me a pounding migraine headache two years ago).
    But “The Incredibles”–or even “Frozen”–it ain’t.
    Disney serves up enough live-action cartoons each year with their Marvel Hit Parade.
    I was hoping the Mouse House’s animation unit would aim a little higher than just more of the same old same old.

  34. EtGuild2 says:

    I gave up on Disney Animation so long ago that this one hit me out of nowhere. Nearly everything they’ve done this century smacks of desperately trying to emulate Dreamworks, with groan inducing pop culture references that date themselves before you leave the feature and smarmy animal sidekicks seemingly on rent from Blue Sky productions. They’re definitely in a bit of a resurgence lately, (re: “Frozen” I can’t get past the wild overacting and deranged screeching of Idina Menzel no matter how hard people try to shove her down my throat but that’s a personal issue) but this was squarely the most pleasurable experience I’ve had at a Disney movie in 12 years (“Pooh” doesn’t really count, as it’s more brand extension at its best). If it comes from Marvel, so be it. With a touch of Studio Ghibli.

    But don’t worry, we’ll be back to cynical pop-culture spouting animals soon! “Zootopia,” their next feature is “about a fast-talking fox, named Nick Wilde, who lives in an animal city of Zootopia, “goes on the run when he’s framed for a crime he didn’t commit.” Stuff like that is what makes me run for the hills from 21st century CGI animated features.

    Forgot to add, “Dredd” and “The Avengers” are both fine. Both passably entertaining, this just made me feel good and I refuse to feel guilty whether one is labeled kiddie or not haha.

  35. leahnz says:

    “I quite liked Dredd. It was a little too similar to The Raid but improved upon it in many ways.”

    i’ve heard this before and there are obvious similarities, but people might want to flip the script on the assumption about dredd and ‘the raid’, as production/principal photog for dredd began in late 2010 and finished in march 2011, which is when ‘the raid’ began production – so who’s riffing on who is debatable, but there’s no arguing dredd was made first.

    (fwiw i dig lots of innocuous movies made to be suitable for kids, but when they become the default mainstream action cinema, we have a problem)

  36. movieman says:

    The two most poisonous influences on 21st century Hollywood moviemaking
    remain “Star Wars” and “Shrek.”

    It pains me to say that because I love(d?) both films.
    But the myriad sins committed while trying to duplicate the success of those movies over the past 35+ years has been soul-deadening.

  37. cadavra says:

    THE RAID is just a tiresome knock-off of Johnnie To’s BREAKING NEWS, minus the plot and satire.

  38. amblinman says:

    Star Wars isn’t responsible for all the crappy retreads that have come after it. It’s guys my age and a generation older in Hollywood who won’t let go of their favorite childhood toys. Hell, they won’t even let new people into their party, which is why we have Harrison Ford still walking around Star Wars sets in 2014.

  39. JS Partisan says:

    The complaining about Comic Book Movies, is funny. If you don’t like them, then good for you. The problem is: these stances against Marvel are nonsensical, or come from this place of disingenuousness. If you think Marvel movies are for children, then you are missing the point. The Prequels were for children, but you missed that point as well. These movies are as four quadrant as you can get, and they are made by people who give a fuck.

    If you want movies from people who don’t give a fuck about the films that came before, then enjoy the new Star Wars franchise. The MCU is a rather magical, once in a lifetime thing, that is doing fine with the likes of Boy… disliking it.

    Oh yeah. I love Dredd. I love the Raid movies. It’s fucking possible.

  40. movieman says:

    “Star Wars” was really the first movie that made H’wood begin aiming for “all-ages-friendly” movies (and potential sequels/franchises, toy spin-offs, etc.) seemingly every time at bat.
    The chickens really came home to roost when H’wood climbed into bed w/ Marvel Corp.

  41. PcChongor says:

    “they are made by people who give a fuck”

    About what exactly? Harmonious cross-brand synchronization? Further opening up China as an international market? Getting Wolverine and Spider-Man in the same film by the end of fiscal year 2019?

    Disney doesn’t make films for children or adults, they make them for investors.

  42. movieman says:

    What I should have said was that AFTER “Star Wars” H’wood began aiming for four-quadrant movies nearly every time at bat.
    Lest we forget, “SW” was a modestly-budgeted, “one from the heart” film by an auteur director that received a typically New Hollywood-style platform release in May 1977.

    It was only after becoming a worldwide, all-ages-friendly phenomenon that the rules changed.

  43. thespirithunter says:

    For a non-world domination super villain, let’s go back to Goldfinger. That was a classy plot dreamt up by screenwriters (and an author) who realized that stumbling onto a smaller scheme (launch an atomic bomb inside Fort Knox to increase one’s own wealth) could be just as effective a storytelling device. After Goldfinger, a number of Bond movies suffered from the same world-domination seeking villains, but they were not as memorable as Goldfinger.

  44. doug r says:

    What? No love for Andy Serkis?

  45. Ryan says:

    Movieman-calling Lucas an ‘auteur’ for having made ‘American Graffiti’ and then ‘Star Wars’ is disingenuous at best, and a laughable misunderstanding of the term at worst. I don’t think Truffaut would agree with your usage. And to think that Lucas didn’t have any idea of what he was doing as far as the ‘four quadrants’ with Star Wars is also something that he would probably dispute himself.

  46. YancySkancy says:

    Ryan: You don’t think AMERICAN GRAFFITI and STAR WARS reflect Lucas’ personal vision? He co-wrote the first, inspired by his own upbringing, and wrote the latter (and of course there was THX1138 before those). I’ve given up trying to figure out what constitutes strict auteurism — the term is rarely used with much precision. I suppose if it can only be applied to studio system directors who imposed a style even when they didn’t control the writing or the means of production, then Lucas may not fit. But not even Sarris seemed to insist on that definition. At any rate, I don’t find anything “laughable” about the idea of considering a writer/director like Lucas to be an auteur. He seems to get auteurist consideration even for the films he produced but didn’t direct, because of his involvement in other aspects of production. I certainly can’t imagine that even Truffaut would have considered Lucas to be a metteur en scene!

  47. storymark says:

    “wait dredd is ‘generic’, but ‘age of ultron’ looks incredible? one is for children, one is for adults. that about sums up the current action cinema, and why we keep getting movies for babies”

    Well, one seems to be about the unintended consequences of pre-emtive action, and pushing one’s responsibilities off onto technology, the other is about killing drug dealers.

    So Im genuinely curious, aside from the visceral blood, which is geared more towards adults?

  48. leahnz says:

    this is hilarious, not sure i should even engage this comment, comparing the themes in a movie no-one’s seen to a movie that i very much doubt you’ve seen storymark, if you think thematically dredd has nothing to say and is simply ‘killing drug dealers’, pretty silly (i think people need to stop reading idbm or whatever and then pretending they’ve seen a movie and commenting on it on movie blogs when they clearly know nothing about the actual movie itself).
    maybe you should actually watch dredd and get back to me, and we can discuss the prevailing themes of a populace living in poverty/overcrowding and violence as a means of control by both the criminal underbelly and the fascist police state, anderson as representational of humanity and empathy (and her subtle effect on the rigid – to put it mildly – judge dredd in their arc together as partners over one night, which is really lovely in such an incredibly hard-core violent movie), i could go on but why bother, which one is geared towards adults? if you can’t tell, then i’m sorry for ya. but you go on and champion those adorable avengers with your bad self, hooray for movies

  49. Pete B. says:

    You never did outline how the characters in Guardians matched up with the characters in Firefly (or I missed that post). I’m still curious. And no, I’m not being snarky.

    GotG is on its last week in my town, and I plan on catching it one more time.

    And Dredd was an underrated and under-viewed film.

  50. leahnz says:

    i think i did Pete B (didn’t i? i thought so – or maybe i did in my head and didn’t post it, i honestly can’t remember)

    mal – quill
    zoe – gamora
    cobb – drax (and rocket, sort of a split/combo with a bit washburn in rocket too, rocket’s not such a direct match)
    book – groot

    fwiw i liked GotG better the second time i saw it with a different group, more fun, maybe because i wasn’t so hung up on the firefly thing or just in a different mood, looser, not sure that happens sometimes

  51. leahnz says:

    forgot to say above if you want to get pumped up, focused and hard-out grooving for some occasion – or just rave around your living room to stay fit and trim, or if you’re having a party for sure – you can’t go past leonard-morgan’s awesome thumping techno-beat score for dredd, if it doesn’t get your head bobbin then you might need a hearing check

  52. storymark says:

    ” to a movie that i very much doubt you’ve seen storymark”


    Well, that’s a serious assumption fail from you. Cute that you’ll ignore what is already very clearly stated about a movie than none of us has seen (but are not in complete ignorance of, ya know), and then assume that I haven’t seen a movie that’s been out for years (which I saw theatrically, and bought on Blu, and quite like just for your edification), because he voiced a different opinion of it.


  53. leahnz says:

    haha yeah right, storymark, nice one with the faux outrage! you saw it in the cinema (where was that exactly?) and own it, and yet you STILL having nothing to say about the actual movie? and don’t even get the basic premise of the film right, which you describe as ‘killing drug dealers’ – not even remotely correct or what occurs in the story (– SPOILERS — the whole point of which is 99% of the people killed in peachtrees are civilians – either during the ma ma clan’s shoot em up or by dredd and anderson, who kill the civvies coerced by ma ma’s lockdown to kill the judges or remained imprisoned in the mega structure). yes clearly you’ve seen the movie. what is it about movie blogs and people acting like they’ve seen stuff they haven’t, is it some ego thing or to earn snark points, who gives a shit? but you should see it, a nice counter-balance to the endless fucking fluffy bunny cinema of nowadays, this cotton puffball era is truly special

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon