2 years ago5,000+ Views

He's just so misunderstood...

Yup. Apparently when test audiences saw the full cut of the movie, they were confused about Loki's role. While he was there to set up Ragnarok, apparently viewers thought that he was somehow controlling Ultron. (Via).
“...Basically Kevin [Feige] said that in test screenings, audiences had overemphasized Loki’s role. They thought that because I was in it, I was controlling Ultron and that it was actually imbalancing people’s expectations. So Joss and Kevin were like, ‘Let’s cut it because it’s confusing people.’”

Sorry Loki!

"In a parallel universe... that's a great film!"

"But it's not the film they made."

View more comments
I wasn't meaning "Director's cut" specifically. I'd be satisfied with an extended or unrated version if it includes the Loki scene. I know Joss is not keen on director's cuts (I think its partly laziness--like he claims-- and partly that he doesn't like that it makes the director seem more like a sell-out, giving producers the product *they* want). I don't think there's been an actual "Director's cut" since Daredevil, though.
2 years ago·Reply
@BeannachtOraibh - no worries. and I wasn't trying to challenge anyone. I sincerely was asking because I don't know if there are director's cuts out there for recent marvel films. And you are totally right... the executive producers and distribution companies can sometimes force edits based on their agendas or if they feel the finished product isn't going to appeal to their target audience. Dune by David Lynch is a great example. he sued to have his name taken off the film. Alan Smithee was a name used by directors in the past who had great disputes over post director edits. these days studios know the long term value of franchise branding and they hire directors who are more technicians instead of artists. much less trouble with personalities that way. that's what I meant by marvel running a tight ship. if a director or actor jeopardizes the success of the film or risks damaging the brand... they'll replace them.
2 years ago·Reply
@JonPatrickHyde Oh, sorry if I seemed defensive or anything. I was just trying to clarify my intended meaning. (I apologize if I ever come off as abrasive, tone is difficult to express through print. I only ever intend to discuss, not seem like I'm trying to nitpick.) As to Marvel's DC movies, I looked at my shelf, and the most recent DC version is for Daredevil. I usually snatch up any DC versions of movies i like, when I see them, so I'd assume that's probably the last one made for any Marvel movies using that particular term.
2 years ago·Reply
@BeannachtOraibh - I know exactly what you mean about conveying tone. I totally agree. I didn't think you came across defensive at all. Actually I was concerned that I had come across wrong for the same reason above about tone. Thanks so much for being so understanding and willing to communicate. This is why I love Vingle. people are sincerely nice here!
2 years ago·Reply
@JonPatrickHyde @BeannachtOraibh You're both bringing up some really interesting points! I think with this movie in particular there were actually some asides which made AoU as a whole look... bad. Whedon in particular was extremely negative about the movie. You made a good point Jon about how studios are more apt to hire technicians than artists, and in some ways I think they *should* have done that with Ultron and didn't. It felt to me like the film they made was this tug-of-war between what the studio commissioned and what the director wanted to make. And while I don't think commissioning films like that is going to be the best thing for the industry, with films like this it might be necessary. If that makes sense?
2 years ago·Reply