History Headscratchers / TheAvengers

** Maybe you ''need'' to be point blank to hurt the Hulk.

** You can always assume that there were billions of them waiting, but that seems extremely unlikely. Tony and Thor both seemed to think that the Chitauri would lose hard if they actually tried to conquer the planet "Do you really think this will end with your rule!?" / "There's no scenario here where you come out on top", and Loki looked to agree a bit with that brief pause. They're tech is extremely unimpressive; their flyers are slow, lightly armed, and fragile, and don't even armor the pilots. The Leviathans have no weapons and are vulnerable to explosives. Their infantry have no tactical sense and weapons that appear to only be on par with human rifles. And yet, the Other considered humanity's defeat of this force to be something that essentially marks them as a superpower. As was said, it would be costly (New York is arguably the most important city in the world right now, one you definitely don't want to be fighting a war in), but we could do it. "We" as in the United States, or hell, the New York National Guard if Loki's "send the rest" line means anything. But then we wouldn't have a movie... oh, and New York would be a ruin and millions would be dead, with millions more displaced. And Loki surviving a nuclear weapon is completely laughable, given that bullets at least sting when they hit bare flesh, and simply being slammed into a floor at somewhat slow speeds took him right out of the fight. A MOAB would be enough to obliterate him.

**** Thank you for editing my post; I really needed it. One of the diffrences between the film Asgardians and the comic Asgardians is that the film Asgardians are not PhysicalGods, but instead are SufficientlyAdvancedAliens. Any magic we see them perform is really just very advanced technology. What is the trope for that? They might not survive the wormhole by themselves, but just have the technology necessary for it. Seeing as we have technology that can withstand nukes, but not wormholes, I imagine they are very different. Even if we can’t beat the Chitauri air support and Leviathans by shooting them, all the Chitauri seem to be at least part technological, so EMP’s could solve a lot of our problems.

** Would this even have been a question if it had been, say, Cap he was threatening? However, Loki's threat works all the better because it is inclusive of rape without being specifc: he'll learn every possible degradation for her, then do them in order reverse survivability, whether rape is included or not.

* A certain part of the exchange between Black Widow and Loki bothers me. Most people have taken a a specific line from there and declared it a threat of rape. I definitely think that the line, "No, I won't touch Barton. Not until I make him kill you! Slowly, intimately, in every way he knows you fear!" was meant to be evocative of something more than just a death threat, but I think it cheapens a villain when he has to be written as a rapist to show that he's just that evil. I remember a similar issue arising from a piece of Loki's dialogue in the ''Thor'' film about Jane, and I feel conflicted about the matter. Did Whedon really intend for "rapist" to become a facet of Loki's character?

**** Actually just after he loses all power in his Suit parts of his armour are ejected and it pushes him back. It can be argued that the recoil from those bits was what pushed Tony back into the portal.

*** OP again. Remember, the only reason Hitler was made Chancellor was because the Nazis were sweeping elections. And even if [[BlackShirt]]s for Loki's hypothetical regime are few compared to Germans who eagerly supported fascism, there will always be ''plenty'' of [[LesCollaborateurs opportunists and cowards]] who won't be making a stink.[[/folder]]

*** OP again. Remember, the only reason Hitler was made Chancellor was because the Nazis were sweeping elections. And even if BlackShirts for Loki's hypothetical regime are few compared to Germans who eagerly supported fascism, there will always be ''plenty'' of [[LesCollaborateurs opportunists and cowards]] who won't be making a stink.[[/folder]]

** Just throwing this out there: Creator/VincentPrice draft-dodged enlisting in WWII by lying about being colour-blind. When the Red Scare flared up in the fifties he risked black-listing by refusing to testify against some of his fellow actors since ''"I was afraid to stand up against injustice abroad, now I must have the courage to stand up against it in my own country!"'' [[TheAtoner People can change.]] Frankly, if anything, it make a more interesting story if the man was a former Nazi.[[/folder]]
*** OP again. Remember, the only reason Hitler was made Chancellor was because the Nazis were sweeping elections. And even if BlackShirts for Loki's hypothetical regime are few compared to Germans who eagerly supported fascism, there will always be ''plenty'' of [[LesCollaborateurs opportunists and cowards]] who won't be making a stink.

[[folder:"Power at 400% capacity." (And a bit of "performance issues".)]]

** The film seemed to suggest that there was a connection between Tony's reactor and the energy put out by Mjolnir and the Tesseract. Not only through the "400%" scene, but also when Loki is unable to brainwash Tony as he did Hawkeye. Tony seemed just as surprised as Loki when that happened. And given that nobody but Tony would have knowledge of the power-surge it'd be on him to make that connection and then act on it. Hence why Thor didn't think to use Mjolnir [[spoiler:to revive Tony after he delivered the missle]]. It's entirely plausible this connection will be further explored as the Iron Man and Avengers films continue.
*** Loki being unable to brainwash Tony has nothing to do with the arc reactor being compatible with the Tesseract's energy, and everything to do with it being a solid metal plate that was blocking the scepter's path to his heart.
*** Except there's no reason a metal plate over Tony's heart should make the slightest bit of difference to a Magitech scepter like Loki has. That's a pretty glaring vulnerability for a piece of technology as advanced as this. For that matter, there's no reason why the energy should have to pass through a person's heart in the first place since the heart has nothing to do with thinking.\\
While I wouldn't say the connection between Tony's arc reactor and the tesseract energy is 100% established, there's enough circumstantial evidence that it can't be ruled out right away.
*** The scepter works by stabbing into a person's chest. If it can't stab into a person's chest (because, say, there's a solid bit of metal in the way), it's not going to work. How is that not clear?
*** Indeed, it's very clear. The tip of the spear even makes a very noticeable ''clink'' when it touches the ''metal frame'' of the arc reactor. If the film had intended us to interpret that it was the reactor itself interacting with the tesseract energy, it would have glowed, or shone, or let out a spark, or ''something'' to indicate their relationship. It didn't. It just bounced metal off metal.
*** Well hold on; Loki never pokes anyone in the chest: he pokes their clothing and/or body armor; he never makes spear-to-flesh contact with anyone. And there's no logical reason why a BRAIN-WASHING device would have to connect to a CHEST to work. Since Tony's new Arc reactor is based on Howard Stark's notes on the Tesseract, that would seem to be the reason why Thor AND Loki's powers don't work against him.
**** Actually, going by way of the heart to brainwash someone makes perfect sense, ''if'' you're taking a symbolic/magical approach to the brainwash. I'm something of a mythology buff, and I can't count the number of traditions that equate the heart with the soul/personality. Loki's not a 21st century doctor, he's a sorcerer from another dimension, and when he's going to take over a new human slave he acts like one. Now, I suspect Loki could have put Stark under control despite the arc reactor, if he'd known about it. To me, he looks surprised at the "tink". But Loki doesn't have time to adjust his spell, because Stark forgot to mention "smartass" when he was running down what he is outside the Iron Man suit.
*** Yes, he pokes everyone in the chest. The end of the scepter is pointy. ''It goes through clothes''. But not through metal, at least with the amount of force Loki was putting on it at the time.\\\
Seriously, people, if it had anything to do with the Tesseract's energy, it would have glowed or something. It wouldn't have just been a 'tink' sound.
*** And to make it clearer: you want to know why he would brainwash people by poking their chest? Because ''the thorax is the center of mass of the human body.'' It's easier and instinctive for two human beings standing face to face to poke in the chest than to poke them anywhere else. For instance, when a person is annoyed and pushes someone back, or jabs them with a finger, they do it by pushing or jabbing right in the center of their chest, not their stomach, not their shoulder, not the side of their head. It's a very natural action. Touching someone's head is harder because you need to raise your arm (or in this case, the tool in your hand) higher, which takes longer, and if the person is facing you you need to "aim" (even if just a fraction of a second) because there's all sorts of stuff on the face that you don't want to touch, making the forehead or the skull a more awkward point of contact. And since all the scepter needs is to make physical contact with the person's ''body'', it doesn't matter ''where'' it touches --and apparently clothes are not enough of a barrier, or the sharp tip penetrates those clothes, but the metal of the reactor is alien enough to the body ("alien" as in "foreign object") to prevent such contact. Loki could've very well spent the movie poking people in the forehead, but that's a more delicate, deliberate action than just poking them in the chest (and it would have prevented the "Performance Issues" scene later on.) The "poke people in chest, take control of them" plot device has a very simple, natural explanation and we're all being forced to overthink it because of a ''more'' convoluted theory (that the arc technology responded to the scepter's energy despite ''the scene itself'' showing zero evidence of this.) But hey, maybe if Loki hadn't gone furious over the failure, he would've poked an unprotected part of Tony, like his head (or his back, or his ''ass'') and taken control of him that way!
**** It didn't just have to be the chest; it had to be the ''heart''. Loki mentions it implicitly when he hijacks Hawkeye at the start of the film. Stark's heart is physically inaccessible.
**** I'm sorry, but Loki said to Hawkeye "you have heart. I'll need that." In no way did he say that he has to access the heart - which also would make very little sense unless mind control works by pumping mind control stuff into the blood stream. And while the arc reactor doesn't glow when Loki pokes it with his Blowstick of Destiny, there is no evidence that it should glow if it DID prevent. Of course, if it did glow, we could be certain that the technologies were interacting, but at the present time, we have no evidence as to what the exact explanation is. But you can't just dismiss the theory that the Arc Reactor COULD be preventing the mind control shenanigans with [[NewPowersAsThePlotDemands technology-protectiveness]]. After all, the theory makes sense because it works as a [[ChekhovsGun Chekhov's Gun]] for further movies. Hey... no one ever said that a Chekhov's Gun isn't allowed to be blatantly obvious.
*** You can't "just dismiss" it, no. But there's no evidence for it. When the arc reactor does stuff of any kind, it glows, or there's a sound, or ''something'' to indicate that there's some kind of reaction happening. This is all wild speculation that flies in the face of the very, very simple and obvious explanation that we see in the film. ''That'' is the objection. That it turns a quick gag into this needlessly complicated connection that isn't necessary or hinted at.
*** Also, narrative doesn't work that way. An author's ultimate goal is to get information across to the audience, so the audience can understand the events --whether it is a novel, a film, a play, or even a video game. How do they get information across? By ''showing'' or even ''telling'' the audience what is happening. The act of show or tell ''draws attention'' to an element in the narrative, however minor, however throwaway, however unimportant it may be to the primary plotline. Even if it's there just for worldbuilding or character setting, and even if it's just a throwaway line or interaction for fans to speculate upon, ''it must be there to begin with.'' In the first ''Film/IronMan'' movie, Tony is injured in the convoy assault, and he rips his shirt to show a rather impressive vest --pointless in the grand scheme of things, but it was shown because the script wanted us to know he's a cautious man. Was it a ChekhovsGun? Nope! The movie could've gone through just the same without that scene. In the second one, we find out that the new and improved arc reactor core makes Tony's tongue taste like coconut. Important? No. Funny? Hell yes, and that's why he stated it. Maybe a later movie will say that the coconut taste will have serious repercussions, but so far, it's just a quirky quip. In the ''IncredibleHulk'' movie, we find out that the Army has been trying to replicate the Super Soldier serum and tested it on Blonsky. For all the movie cares, they could've just called it Chemical X and nothing would have happened, but they DID make the connection to Captain America because the author ''specifically intended it'' in order to build a greater universe. In ''{{Film/Thor}}'', we're shown that the Bifrost pathways have a very specific look and effect. During the movie itself? Neat eye candy. Within ''Film/CaptainAmericaTheFirstAvenger''? Flashy eye candy. Between the two movies? Immediate ContinuityNod. Hell, during the latter movie, ''every single scene'' involving the Tesseract or a Tesseract-related object shows unusual reactions, cosmic effects, and even an "audible glow" whenever the cube is perfectly idle but out of its container, because they want us to know that, even when it's not doing anything, the thing is power given form. And also in this movie, we're given a shot of Bucky strapped to an experimentation table so we can speculate that something was done to him, even if it's not important for this particular movie. So, see? Everything above, from the tiny and almost pointless detail of the taste of coconut to the huge connection between the Bifrost and the Tesseract, is ''stated'' by the narrative, and ''then'' people are free to speculate. It doesn't need giant flashing signs saying "Getcher ChekhovsGun here!" It just needs to ''be there in the first place''. Otherwise, people could be free to speculate about ''nonexistent'' things. Maybe Hulk is green and has dark green blood because he's part plant --there's no evidence for it, no, but there's no evidence against it either. Maybe Hawkeye's not that good an archer, and his arrows have tiny little air flaps and engines that guide them to their target, we just don't realize it because the camera never zooms into the other end of the arrow. Maybe, maybe, maybe. And we would never end speculating about things that were never, however vaguely, stated in the story. And that's ''exactly'' what, since the term was first coined, the role and purpose of ChekhovsGun is: to ''specifically, and explicitly, draw attention to some seemingly unimportant aspect of the plot so that its importance comes to light when it is revisited later.'' The very item that coined the term shows this: it's a rifle above a mantelpiece shown in the first act, and which must be used by the third act. What you're saying about the arc reactor interacting with the Tesseract energy in the staff is akin to Chekhov showing the rifle in the third act without ever showing it in the first. But again, the scepter failed for a very simple, very concise explanation that ''also works as a joke''. And what did the creators draw attention to, after an entire movie (Captain America's) of showing the specific ways Tesseract energy reveals itself? ''A metallic clink.'' Just like a [[PocketProtector Bible stops a bullet]] not because of divine intervention, but because it's a hella thick. And until a new movie comes out and retcons it, then yes, we CAN dismiss the theory because there's no evidence to support it, and some evidence that directly contradicts it. Like I said before, this theory is forcing us to overthink everything when the movie just wants us to focus on the concise and witty.
*** I think this theory just makes the movie better. If the performance issues are just due to the Loki Pokey-Stick happening to hit metal, it kind of makes Loki look like a buffoon. I agree that it would be more explicit if the arc reactor glowed when this happened, but I hardly think that a lack of glowing-ness disproves the whole theory. It would be nice to hear some confirmation one way or another, though...hopefully by the sequel we'll know more about the connection between Asgardian magitech and Tony's arc reactor technology.
*** It's not just "lack of glowing-ness". It's the lack of anything at any point even vaguely implying that anything of the sort had ever even been considered by anyone who had anything to do with conceiving, writing, directing, or acting in the film. If there's meant to be a connection, '''there would have been something indicating the connection'''. There isn't.
*** Everybody's missing a key point here: Tony and Bruce were in the Helicarrier lab with the sceptre for several hours unsupervised. Given Tony's complete inability NOT to mess with everything within reach (how long was he in the Helicarrier before he started hacking its server? Twenty minutes? Thirty?) it makes sense that he (and possibly Bruce) couldn't resist an opportunity to "examime" the sceptre closely. And given that he is already familiar with Tesseract technology, it's not outside the realm of probability that he figured out a defense against the sceptre's mind control app and had it ready when Loki tried it on him.
*** Pure speculation and stuff being made up without any reference of it happening in any capacity at all in the film. This explanation is, again, making something far more complicated than it is. We're not shown them doing anything at all with the scepter.

*** Fine. I was wrong abut them being "useless". If the fight had kept going then the BadassNormals would have eventually been worn down by sheer numbers; you're are right about that. But that would be all the Chitauri could do. What happens when humans come in the thousands and tens of thousands? Loki can't keep sending soldiers forever to one day exhaust humanity. Even if we don't beat the Chitauri because HumansAreWarriors, we could easily hold out long enough to finish Phase II if Loki dies in the nuke attack, which he likely would, and we grab the Cube.

*** Oh I know it wouldn't have killed her, as I work on an archery range and handle arrows on a regular basis. But it would have at least pierced her skin if he stabbed at her face, allowing him to follow up with his knife as she reels back from pain. There might also be more damage if he had equipped it with one of the trick aarrowheads, such as the superheating one he used on the Chitauri flier.