I've been pretty vocal on my belief of the first Avengers movie being superior to the second lastest installment in the MCU, and now below I lay it all out why. I'd like to point out that this is in no way an AOU hate article or anything like that, it will point out honest criticisms...I don't mind one bit people disagreeing with me, it's actually welcome. Just keep it respectful and mature. Here we go
Loki > Ultron
Prime reason that stuck out for me was the villains in each of the films. First and foremost, you aren't about to see me blurting the typical "Ultron was a comedian" or "too many jokes" nonsense. I believe those flaps are exaggerated anyway. But it is true I did not love Ultron in the movie, and I could write en entire editorial about that alone. In general, I just sum it down to his power nerfing, rushed development and motives (which kinda ties into my next points) and un-aesthetically pleasing design. Frankly, I found it hard to take Ultron for good portions of the movie.
It's not the fact that he was laying out wise cracks, but rather more that they were jarring when they were said and were hardly funny at all. Combined with the actuality that Ultron got manhandled by several characters in AOU, when he's supposed to be formidable enough to take on ALL the Avengers himself (which is what makes him a lethal/dangerous Avengers villain in the first place) Add in the poor execution of his upgrading concept, factor the pure lack of identity for the character...and you have essentially a mess of an antagonist. Weirdly, I'm not of the belief Ultron's an AWFUL villain, but he certainly wasn't a good one. Maybe on paper, not on screen.
Loki on the other hand brought such an enigmatic and ambiguous charisma to Avengers Assemble, and he's not like Ultron. He isn't supposed to be an overly physical or hulking (no pun intended) threat. He's crafty, he plays mind games, toys with your emotions, he is enjoyfully condescending...with relentless ambition. When you think about it, he never really challenged the Avengers much at all physically (hell Thor can pretty much take him by himself in a straight up fight) yet he still managed to create so much chaos, maybe even more so than Ultron did in AOU, and he's supposed to be the greater physical threat.
Pacing Woes
The subject of pacing has been amongst the most talked about topics when it comes to AOU. Of course it's no secret how much was cut out of the movie in the editing room, and it showed...it was APPARENT in the final product.
AOU was anything but steady, it was quite choppy for huge chunks, somewhat slow in the middle, rapid fast at parts, I mean, it was a mess. And it without a doubt hurt the movie in my view. But I guess that's what happens when you feel the necessity to remove an hour out of a movie with THIS many characters for the sake of cash. It's even worse since the two highest grossing movies ever are considerably long but ya know...."worries" kick in and take over.
ANYWAY, other than a bit of a bogged down pace in the middle, Avengers Assemble didn't have this issue. I'm sure things were cut out, but not to this degree. For the most part, Marvel's crowning achievement flowed pretty smoothly
Character Work/Continuity
One of the most peculiar differences between the first movie and the sequel to me, is how Joss managed to mold character continuity so well in Avengers Assemble, and seemingly ignore what the heroes did in previous movies with AOU.
In Avengers Assemble it was nearly flawless. It actually felt like Cap had just been unthawed not too long ago, and was gradually adjusting to circumstances. Tony seemed like a seasoned vet hero who had went through the events of two Iron Man movies. Thor gave off the vibe that he had learned his lesson from his solo outing, Coulson was Coulson, etc etc. The only characters that felt discernibly different were Widow and Banner. Widow this being a positive since it was an upgrade over the generic sexy assassin she was in Iron Man 2. Banner well, for very obvious reasons. And this is all the while perfectly molding the heroes together with engaging, building, and sometimes deep interactions with one another.
Age of Ultron character-wise was acting as if the Phase 2 solo movies didn't happen. Tony's flying around in suits again and making a bunch even though he seemingly wanted to scale back on them in Iron Man 3 (for the record I understand he did not "retire"). Thor is on Earth raiding Hydra bases for Odin knows why; none of the movies have given Thor much of any reason to start living on Earth other than Jane (who isn't even in AOU). I honestly don't get at all why he was on Earth in AOU, shouldn't he be hammer bitch-slapping evil garden gnomes in Yoglutenheim or something?? Widow is all the sudden in love with Banner, not remotely sure where that came from. She seemed nothing but terrified of him in the first movie. Banner apparently can't control his Hulk state now? Cap barely mentions anything about the best friend he recently discovered to have been a Hydra assassin for half a dozen DECADES, and didn't really get the feel of the one organization he trusted in the modern world being strikingly corrupt really had an effect on him. You see what I mean? It's like hardly anything in the previous movies happened to these characters.
Overall, the normally brilliant character work from Joss simply wasn't as compelling. And he really went full throttle with the whole "giving every character the same personality" thing. In Avengers Assemble on the contrary it felt like a bunch of conflicting personalities clashing and eventually having to put differences aside for a greater cause, which is one of the things that's so beautiful about the first movie.
Avengers Was The Culmination Of A Phase, Age of Ultron Was A Preview/Commercial For A Future Phase
One of the biggest issues with the MCU, and one of the prime factors that hurt AOU, is the continuous need to SET-UP so many things in one movie, it almost ALWAYS hinders the product because usually it either diverts or is in no way related to the story, or it is forced in an attempt to mold it into the likely already jammed plot. And when you're giving up screentime that could've been used for more important aspects like development...there lies a problem. Sometimes you just gotta let your films stand on their own more.
AOU was literally planting seeds for half of the Phase 3 movies. Civil War, Ragnarok, Black Panther, the Infinity Wars, and hell...Joss still wanted to throw in Captain Marvel! How on Earth can a movie be great when you're juggling so many characters, while simultaneously planting seeds for another Phase, and still attempt to tell its own story? All in a chopped down movie mind you. It's just a recipe for disaster.
Continuity, references, tie-ins, etc....you know, one of the main attractions of this Marvel Cinematic Universe...works best for the MCU, when the storyline is REACTING to previous events, rather than setting the stage for future events. Why? Because we haven't seen these future evens yet, we're not yet invested in them. We're trying to focus on the now. But it's much easier to tie-in other events, characters, etc in a cinematic universe when the story is BUILDING off of what previous movies established. And it's always great to see the narrative progress as each movie goes along. Take Captain America: The Winter Soldier as the standard example, other than the Strucker mid-credit scene, TWS wasn't trying to set up a bunch of stuff (mid-credit scenes are really the only time MCU movies should be planting seeds/setting up)
No, TWS stood on its own as its own story while geniously building off the events of "Avengers". Aliens invade in Avengers, so you have Project Insight in TWS. BUILD, expand, further develop if you have to the content you already have! THIS is what makes the MCU beautiful, THIS is what makes it so gleefully exciting. After every installment we want to be astonished by the ever-increasing cinematic narrative, not slowly waiting for things to actually unfold in 2019 or 2020.
Avengers Assemble understood this, it was literally the prime appeal of it and will probably be the exact same with the Infinity Wars. It is the culmination of a series of events, capped off with an epic climax that defines an era. It didn't need to plant seeds, it was what the seeds were planted for.
Age Of Ultron Does Not Have THIS Shot
It really doesn't. Or the long "going around the city" tie-in shot in the final battle.
In general I felt the action overall in the first movie grabbed me tighter...
But more than that, my overarching point here is really that "it" factor, that nerdgasm/omg this is really happening/cinematic GLORY factor...that AOU simply lacks. Sure you may say that's unfair, because Avengers 1 was the first time we'd ever seen these characters together, a crossover to this magnitude, etc etc. But the fact that the first movie nailed it and nailed it all all so well is just precisely why it's superior. And there are simply too many fist-pumping moments for AOU to compare. The feeling I got watching AOU wasn't even in the same GALAXY as the one I had with Avengers 1. Avengers Assemble was all you ever wanted, it was like a dream come true. And we can't lie to ourselves and say..."sequels can't top the original"
Welp, there ya have it folks. My 5 reasons I view Avengers Assemble to be a superior movie to Age of Ultron. Again, feel more than free to disagree so we can discuss, LIKE, comment, do what you gotta do below. Let me know what you think!