Connect with us

Geek Culture

The bad parts of Age of Ultron





Age of Ultron has hit the cinemas and people are naturally going crazy for it. Whether it’s the high-octane action, the funny writing, the great acting or just being able to see your favourite characters hang out in a room together, there are many reasons to enjoy this movie. That’s why I’m going to be a massive contrarian and write about what I didn’t like about the film, thus drawing ire and hate from the masses. Naturally, spoilers abound for the film so watch out.

1. Vision shouldn’t have been advertised


Excuse me while I squeal in delight like a little girl

I like Vision so when I found out he was going to show up, I got excited. But when he did appear, I couldn’t help but think how hyped I would have been if I didn’t know. His appearance was clearly presented as a surprise to the audience; a sudden new character born from Tony’s butler A.I. Jarvis to give them an advantage over Ultron. But instead of being surprised, the audience is just like “Oh here he is. I was wondering when he was going to show up.” You could argue it was to help with advertising the movie but… it’s an Avengers sequel. People were going to see it, with or without Vision. It’s a little thing but seeing a character you weren’t expecting appear on the big screen is a greater memory than being told that a character you weren’t expecting will appear on the big screen.

2. The Natasha/Bruce romance kind of came out of nowhere


I’m sure those babies they can’t have would be smart and beautiful)

There’s technically nothing wrong with the romance between these two characters. I mean, it’s certainly unique. I can’t recall a romantic relationship between these two characters ever being explored in the comics or other media. But it feels like it was very spur of the moment; like the writers came up with it during the writing process and loved it so much that they put it in despite the lack of build-up. In the last movie, Natasha was the one sent to find and bring Bruce to S.H.I.E.L.D so he could join the Avengers but is that enough foundation for a romance to start up? It didn’t seem like it.

3. Where DID Nick Fury get that Helicarrier?


Funnily enough, if the Avengers did ask him, he wouldn’t tell them anyway

At this point, Nick Fury is considered dead, with only a select few knowing that he’s still alive. He’s no longer in charge of S.H.I.E.L.D and seems to be pretty much bumming around, occasionally popping in to inspire the heroes. So where did he find that Helicarrier for the finale? S.H.I.E.L.D was kind of left in a funny place after the events of The Winter Soldier; they still had some good tech afterwards but a Helicarrier?And even if they did have it, how did Fury get it? Unless Fury himself kept one stowed away somewhere but how do you hide something like that? This is a point that’s left a lot of people very confused and for a good reason.

4. Quicksilver’s death was kind of pointless


May you live on in the X-Men movie franchise

While the Quicksilver of Days of Future Past was ten times better, I didn’t mind this film’s iteration of the character. He was likable enough and his acting was good. So why did he die? True, he went out like a hero (which is the best way to go out) but his death felt like a contractual obligation, as if the writers were told that they had to kill off at least one of the main heroes so they picked the one that didn’t have his own movie franchise and hadn’t been around long enough to cause too much anger. It’s possible that his death will greatly affect Scarlet Witch in the future movies but if that was the reason, it’s a pretty poor one. Creating a character for the sole purpose of killing them in order to affect another means that the character isn’t a character; they’re a prop. And that’s insulting to both the character and their fans.

5. Ultron didn’t feel like Ultron


There are no strings on me. Get it? It’s a theme. It’s a theme for the movie. Do you get it?

This is going to get me so much hate. James Spader was brilliant. I loved his performance, I enjoyed Ultron’s presence and he had some great lines… but he didn’t feel like Ultron to me. Ultron is a cold, calculating machine. He isn’t effected or dictated by emotions because he has none. He tries to wipe out the human race because he genuinely believes that to be the best course of action for world peace (which is what he was programmed for.) The Ultron in this movie does have emotions – he has a sense of humour, takes joy in dicking about with the Avengers, gets angry when compared to Tony, makes eloquent speeches; he even has a more human face as opposed to the blank, unmoving stare he has in the comics. It didn’t feel like he was trying to wipe out humanity out of a warped sense of following his program but because he was a supervillain and that’s what supervillains do. Granted, a soulless Ultron that was a direct lift from the comics probably wouldn’t have been as fun to watch for the general audience or hold a movie that runs over two hours, but it meant that I didn’t feel like I was watching Age of Ultron; it was Age of some other Ultron.

6. It felt like filler


Sad part is I’m still super hyped for this


What was so great about the first Avengers film was that it was a culmination of all the Marvel films that came before it. It was the result of all that build-up while at the same time setting the stage for future events. This film, though, wasn’t like that. It was more of its own standalone thing, which is a good thing in a sense since it means you don’t need to watch five other films to enjoy it, but it didn’t have the ‘grand finale’ feel of the first Avengers. Instead, it ends up joining all the other films as just more build-up for the Infinity War; it’s just a filler arc to keep us entertained until we get to the big one. By the time Thanos does show up, though, I’ll probably be less “Oh my God, he’s here! We’re all doomed” and more “About freaking time. What kept you? Was traffic bad?” With some rewriting, Age of Ultron could probably have been a TV movie or even a TV series and have the same effect. It’s not the final chapter of Phase 2. It’s that awkward bit before a mid-season hiatus that tries to be grander than it really is.

Michael is a graduate from Brunel University, where he studied Computer Games Design and Creative Writing. He denies claims that he did it just to give him an excuse to play videogames. He usually has something to say on the latest news in gaming, film and TV, even if no one wants to hear it.


Ten million people play The First Descendant in its first week





The free-to-play shooter The First Descendant has gotten a lot of attention in its first week. The game’s publisher, Nexon, says that 10 million people have already tried it out.

Insider Gaming pointed out that since there is no cost up front, it’s still too early to tell how many of those players will stick around, but it’s still a big number for a new IP. On Steam alone, it peaked at 264,860 concurrents right after launch and has still managed to break 200,000 in the last 24 hours, so it looks like a lot of people are still really into the game.

It was a “mindless and repetitive grind,” and we gave The First Descendant a 3/10 in our review. Of course, that’s just one opinion; other experts have had different ones. Most people, though, say that the game’s annoying free-to-play model is the worst thing about it.

Are you one of the millions of people who played The First Descendant last week? Are you going to come back for more? Leave a comment below and let us know.


Continue Reading

Geek Culture

The trailer for Gladiator II looks great, but is any of it true? What Did The Experts Say?





The trailer for Gladiator II by Ridley Scott is now out, and it looks like it will be the best movie ever. If you liked the first movie, you’ll probably love the new one, which has a lot of big names in it and shows epic duels, scary Colosseum battles, and hints of political intrigue. But, as with all Hollywood historical epics, you might wonder how much of what is shown is based on real events and how much is just made up for fun.

When we had questions, we asked the Bad Ancient team what they thought about the fun, the fantasy, and the facts.

What’s the movie about?
The new Gladiator movie picks up 25 years after the first one. Paul Mescal plays Lucius Verus II, the boy from the original story and Lucilla’s son. The trailer starts with him talking about the deadly duel between Emperor Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) and Maximus Decimus Meridius, a gladiator and fallen general.

It looks like Lucius is living in exile in Numidia, which is in northwest Africa. A few years after this incident, the Roman army captures him and forces him to compete as a gladiator. Lucius wants to overthrow the Roman government and end all forms of slavery, of course.

Later, Lucius fights the made-up General Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal), who also seems to have doubts about the Roman Empire’s needless killing. In the trailer, we learn more about characters like Macrinus (Denzel Washington), a power broker who likes gladiators, and Geta and Caracalla, two brother emperors who look cruel and spoiled and are played by Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger, respectively.

There are hints of exciting scenes in the trailer, like a gladiator riding a rhino and a fake naval battle in a flooded Colosseum with boats and sharks that eat people. There are also hints of politics and mystery.

A lot of it. It’s fun, but is it really true?

First, what did you think of the trailer?
Dr. Jo Ball (JB), an archaeologist who studies Roman war and conflict: I was really looking forward to seeing the trailer for the new Gladiator II movie, and it did not let me down. It looked like it would be a great visual feast, with hopefully some good history thrown in. I’m especially interested in seeing how Pedro Pascal’s character, Marcus Acacius, fits into the story. From the trailer, he seems to be coming to protest the endless conquests of Rome and the lives it took, and he seems to be getting in trouble for his views. I think this could be an interesting way to connect this to the main gladiator theme.























Alex Sills (AS), a graduate student at the University of Leicester: The sheer spectacle of it looks like it will be even better than the first movie. I can’t wait to see what 24 years of CGI progress can do for a Roman arena. Also, I’m interested to see how the movie handles the fact that the Republic hasn’t been brought back. Maximus gave up his life for that reason in the first movie. Will Lucius finish the job? We know that emperors ruled for hundreds of years, so it’s not likely. However, it will be interesting to see if the political aspect is kept up or dropped in favor of a story about revenge between two people.

This is Dr. Owen Rees (OR), founder and chief editor of Bad Ancient: I love the first Gladiator movie so much that my first thought was, “Why?!?” Why is there a second part? But when I saw the cityscape of Rome on the screen, that reaction went away, and I became interested in what I was seeing. The glory of Rome, the desire for a quiet life away from the center of power, and the idea of “the Republic” are all themes that were introduced in the first movie. I can’t wait to see how they connect these to the second one.

Did anything stand out right away as being right or wrong or not making sense?
JB: Paul Mescal’s Lucius seems to have become a gladiator after being captured during a violent conquest of Numidia in northwest Africa. However, this area had been a part of the Roman world for hundreds of years by the time the movie takes place, and it’s hard to imagine scenes like the ones in the trailer happening during the time of the movie’s setting, when Severus reorganized the region’s government.

Some parts of the dress don’t seem right, like the wristbands that everyone with a sword seems to have to wear! The accents are an interesting mix, but I actually quite like this, as it is a useful reminder that the “Romans” were not a homogenous population but came from an empire that stretched from Britain across Europe, the Near East, and northern Africa—why people would be expected to have the same accents is beyond me (and even if they did, a modern American accent is no less accurate a representation than a classic British one!).

AS: No one is without a top! They didn’t wear anything to protect their torsos because that would have been too easy of a fight. Also, Pedro and Paul should have shields with them, since that’s what gladiators did instead of chest armor. It’s cool that the shield could be used offensively, almost like a second weapon. Having both arms in the fight makes it more interesting. Of course, movie stars shouldn’t have to wear helmets that cover their faces, but these guys should be able to show a lot of chest. I’m sure a lot of people in the theater would also not mind…

Is there something wrong with how the two emperors are portrayed?
Basically, Caracalla and Geta are portrayed in a rather odd way. They seem to fit the stereotypes of Nero and Caligula more than they do the real Severans. Also, they stand out because they are so pale. Both brothers were born in Syria and Libya.

In Roman times, there were a lot of people of color. It’s not fair to make emperors with darker skin look lighter. I’m happy to see Denzel Washington in the cast, though, because his character sounds really interesting.



















OR: They look like a cliché of many “bad emperors” rolled into one. It’s interesting that they chose to cast actors who are so pale these days. But we’ll see how their characters are developed when the movie comes out. You can’t judge it based on a few seconds in an ad!

When it was full of water, did the Colosseum ever host battles on the water?
JB: Yes, naumachiae were popular and spectacular shows put on to entertain the people of Rome on special occasions. They were very expensive and hard to set up. Early Roman emperors put on Naumachiae, but until Nero’s time, they didn’t happen in amphitheaters. Instead, they happened on lakes or in specially built basins. The Colosseum was a special place for naumachiae, and one was even held at its opening in 80 AD, during the reign of Titus the Great. But we don’t know how they filled the arena with water for the battle; it was probably done to the lowest level possible so the ships could float!

But Paul Mescal’s character wouldn’t have fought in Naumachiae. The Romans didn’t use trained (read: expensive) gladiators. Instead, they used prisoners of war and criminals who had been sentenced to death. This suggests that very few, if any, were expected to survive. It’s also important to note that the naumachia of Claudius on the Fucine Lake was the only time that people were heard saying, “We who are about to die salute you.” The gladiators didn’t need to say this.

What if gladiators had fought rhinos or sharks instead?
JB: Roman audiences liked new things in their beast shows, and there weren’t many animals that they wouldn’t put in the arena. In fact, it was a big business to get animals for these kinds of shows, and the more exotic the animals, the better. The animals didn’t even have to be very dangerous; as long as they were different, they were included. Giraffes were shown with “classic” wild animals like lions and bears.




















: Gladiators always fought other gladiators. On the other hand, there were people in the arena who fought animals or hunted them. These people were called devas and bestiarii.

Rhinos were shown off in Rome—that much we know. I think Pompey Magnus was the first person to bring one in. One was brought in so that the emperor Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix in the first movie) could kill it himself in the Colosseum. He did this by shooting it with arrows from a platform, so he was never in any danger.

When it comes to sharks, we’re getting into fantasy land. The Romans got very good at catching and moving all kinds of wild animals, especially from Africa. But they couldn’t catch sharks, bring them to Rome, or put them somewhere safe before the Games. But if they had been able to, they would have thought it would have been awesome, so maybe this is dead guys’ movie wish fulfillment.

OR: There were animals in the arena, but the gladiators who fought were not the same ones. We use the word “gladiator” to describe too few of the people the Romans had in the arena.

Continue Reading


Raiden, the famous shmup series, will come back as a twin-stick shooter on PS5, PS4, and PC





Raiden has a long and interesting history as a vertical shooter in arcades. However, the series is going to get a Super Stardust HD makeover, which means it will switch to a twin-stick format. It comes out in Japan on October 31. There’s no word yet on when it will come out in the West, but we wouldn’t be surprised if it did.

A Gematsu translation of the game’s website says that the full version will have an arcade mode with up to six stages. There will also be an “Unlimited” option for people who want to be at the top of the rankings. It sounds like a pretty straightforward package in terms of what’s inside, but we think the action will be what makes it worth it.

There’s a trailer up top that should help you figure out what to expect. There are, however, different versions of Raiden 3, Raiden 4, and Raiden 5 that you can play right now on the PS5 and PS4, if you can’t wait for this game to come out in the West.

Continue Reading