Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
![]()
What you're basically arguing is that Tony shouldn't have created Ultron because that makes him the main character?
...I really don't follow that. If someone creates the villain, that doesn't make them the main character. Sure, that means Tony has to stop him, but all the other characters have to stop him as well, not just Tony.
It's an ensemble movie. That's sort of the point of the Avengers.
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/438969-first-look-at-bucky-barnes-in-captain-america-civil-war
Not much, but it's a start. Assuming Stan is in-costume as opposed to just practicing in his own clothes, it suggests Bucky's just been a vagrant for the last two years, which would add a further nail in the coffin to that supposed "leak" claiming he's spent them assaulting HYDRA bases.
edited 12th May '15 11:23:49 AM by AlleyOop
![]()
![]()
What I'm saying is, the fact that Tony is so singularly important to the main conflict should make him the main character, but it doesn't, and the movie suffers for it. Like I said, they could've made Ultron's creation more of a group effort, or at least something all the other Avengers agreed on doing so they'd all have a stake in the central conflict.
edited 12th May '15 11:28:43 AM by spashthebandragon
I've got fanfics for Frozen, Spectacular Spider-Man, Crash Bandicoot, and Spyro the Dragon.
The first movie had the advantage of having a much more simplistic story, and therefore not everything needed to be concise.
![]()
Yes, Iron Man's not the main character of the movie, but he does something that probably would've been done by the main character had this not been an ensemble movie.
I mean, heck, if we're just gonna throw in any old hero with no stake in the conflict, why stop at just nine Avengers? Why not have ten, eleven, or twelve? I know, let's put all the Avengers that have ever existed in the movie! They may not have anything to do with the main plot, but don't worry, we'll be sure to give them all equal screen time!
edited 12th May '15 11:35:18 AM by spashthebandragon
I've got fanfics for Frozen, Spectacular Spider-Man, Crash Bandicoot, and Spyro the Dragon.
No, that didn't happen (at least not in the original Armor Wars). Basically, Tony found out that someone had hacked into his systems, stolen all his designs, and sold them to supervillains and different governments.
So he went to get them all back. He fought a bunch of different armored villains and even heroes, once getting into a fight with some government agents (the Mandroids, I believe) and Captain America.
![]()
They went with those six Avengers because those six Avengers were in the previous movie. And then they introduced more characters that become Avengers.
Time permitting, they will eventually introduce more and more. That's the whole problem: time. Marvel has had decades and decades to introduce their characters. The MCU has had eleven movies.
edited 12th May '15 11:42:02 AM by alliterator
And that's why, for all my issues with the movie, I was totally happy to see the new, smaller Avengers lineup at the end.
edited 12th May '15 11:44:42 AM by spashthebandragon
I've got fanfics for Frozen, Spectacular Spider-Man, Crash Bandicoot, and Spyro the Dragon.Ah, must have been in the cartoon. His plans got stolen by some ghost, used by various villains to do their jobs, Stark invents some thing that destroys anything built with his tech, nearly drowns an Armored Hero because he thought they were wearing armor based on his designs, and this results in him trying to destroy the Warmachine armor as well.
In the comics, it's pretty much the same except for the ending. Rhodey is actually helping him throughout, so Tony never fights him. And at the end, a Corrupt Corporate Executive builds a huge Iron Man suit with a built in nuke and Iron Man has to fake his death and then comes back and fights him with a newer, better suit.
![]()
Technically, the number of Avengers never changes. In the beginning, it's six. In the end, it's six. Just a different six.
edited 12th May '15 11:48:38 AM by alliterator
He beat up Rhodey during the Crossing but I think Rhodey had an alien goo armor at the time.
And Crossing was apparently a mess of dumb.
... Which is why I want it to be adapted. Imagine, RDJ fighting a CGI younger RDJ
Imagine
Forever liveblogging the Avengers![]()
But Scarlet Witch walked out that door. That makes it at least seven.
Hawkeye is totally in charge of picking Avengers.
Once he pointed at Justice and Firestar and said 'yes, these two are Avengers'
And Cap nodded and said 'Okay but now you're not'
So those two became Avengers and Clint stole all the beer from the fridge and took off on his next adventure.
Forever liveblogging the Avengers...Tony didn't make Ultron all by his lonesome. Tony and Bruce provided the AI in Loki's Scepter an opportunity to complete their work, and Ultron was the consequence.
Here's the thing: you seem to be arguing that characters should only be in the story if they service the central plot, but it is not a character's responsibility to service the plot; it is a plot's responsibility to service the characters. Plot is just what happens when characters do things. The characters run the story.
Take Winter Soldier, for instance. That story could have been Black Widow: Winter Soldier or Hawkeye: Winter Soldier or Iron Man: Winter Soldier. Captain America was not chosen because he's vital to the plot of Winter Soldier; he was not picked as the only character that can service the plot of Winter Soldier. Rather, Winter Soldier was written to service the character of Captain America.
Sure, it could have been just Tony that creates Ultron. It could just as easily have been just Bruce. It could even have been Baron Strucker or J.A.R.V.I.S. Given the scepter's involvement, it could have been Thor. The point of having Tony and Bruce create Ultron isn't how Tony and Bruce are necessary to service the plot of Ultron's creation; it's how Ultron's creation services the characters of Tony and Bruce.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I really think people are nitpicking AOU. I watched Doug ad Rob Walker's Sibling Rivalry video on it the other day, and they made the point that the flaws in AOU are the exact same flaws in the first Avengers - so now there's this critical backlash against AOU to make up for the fact that everyone overpraised the first Avengers. The critics have to cover their tracks for falling in love with the mess that was Avengers and say that there's so much wrong with AOU.
But to me, AOU did everything right that the first Avengers did wrong. I actually gave a damn about the conflict because - regardless of Tony's Spotlight-Stealing Squad tendencies - there was a personal stake in the conflict rather than just aliens and gods falling out of the sky causing problems. I actually knew the characters well enough to care about their subplots - even the shitty ones like Black Widow/Hulk. At least they were given something other than witty one liners this time around.
But people loved the streamlined, "heroes team up to fight badguys" storyline of the first movie that they're upset that suddenly the new movie is a bit more complex than that. I thought the point that the MCU proved was that comic book movies were more than "heroes fighting badguys." That they were about people, and problems, and heartbreak and friendship and all those other themes and crap.
AOU - for all it's flaws - is a hell of a lot more meaningful than the first movie, to me anyway, so I really don't get the buttload of criticism it's getting.
"A king has no friends. Only subjects and enemies."I'm not talking about stories in general. I'm talking about Age of Ultron. It's an ensemble movie with a huge cast. If it doesn't focus rigidly on the main plot, then the whole thing just becomes an overstuffed, convoluted, graceless mess. A movie shouldn't just be "all plot" or "all characters." There should be a balance, and Age of Ultron throws that balance way out of wack.
My issue with Age of Ultron isn't the overall meaning of the movie, it's how all the ideas come together. Age of Ultron gets an A in "story depth" but a D- in "coherent presentation." If that doesn't bother you, then great, good for you. But bear in mind it's a totally reasonable thing for other people to be bothered by.
edited 12th May '15 12:12:47 PM by spashthebandragon
I've got fanfics for Frozen, Spectacular Spider-Man, Crash Bandicoot, and Spyro the Dragon.I wouldn't describe Ao U as more meaningful. It had aspirations to be more meaningful, but the movie didn't truly explore any one idea enough to even pin down what the movie was supposed to be about other than "evil robot guy tries to destroy world". It certainly was more complex, but that's not a good thing in and of itself. All it had was a bunch of things that *could* have been meaningful if the writing had been a little denser or more focused. Compare Winter Soldier- that movie probably had less going on overall (although it still had a lot), but it explored it's central theme far more thoroughly than Ao U explored anything and picked it's subplots carefully so that they could be developed as a consequence of proceeding with the main plot, rather than competing with it for screentime.
I agree that making Tony more of the main character would have given the movie a bit more cohesion. It's not the only way that could have been done, mind- the movie just needed to pick something to run with instead of half-developing everything.
Funny thing- I pointed out those problems with the first Avengers movie, but the simpler plot and the novelty of having all of the Avengers together helped mitigate the problems. In the review of Ao U I posted on this thread, I called out those problems as having gotten out of control. I don't think anyone has to "cover their tracks" here. The first movie was fun, but flawed. The second movie was a little less fun and a bit more flawed.
edited 12th May '15 12:30:07 PM by Bloodsquirrel
Winter Soldier explored its central theme more thoroughly?
They resolved the Freedom v. Security question by strawmanning proponents of Security as literal Nazis.
It was a great movie, mind you, but not because of any thorough, intellectual analysis of the subject matter it was dealing with.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

Synopsis for Agent Carter Season 2
.