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
Earlier, she also talks about her previous encounter with the Winter Soldier. I think she even shows him her bullet wound.
Honestly, what is there about Thor: The Dark World that would have been important? I believe that the scenes that might have had it be relevant were cut, and I don't think Thor had any significant development there that ought to have come up on Ao U.
edited 29th Sep '15 3:35:05 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!Okay, that's one tiny bit of backstory (she worked for the KGB when she was...seven?), as opposed to the onslaught of backstory we got in Age of Ultron.
Earlier, she also talks about her previous encounter with the Winter Soldier. I think she even shows him her bullet wound.
But she got that wound when she was working for SHIELD. So that's not really backstory.
I'm arguing it's bad because I feel like Whedon cut some corners in terms of characterization when writing the plot of Age of Ultron.
How so? Either he ignored the previous films and did his own characterization or he didn't ignore the previous films and relied on previous characterization. Either one has it's own pros and cons, but I don't think relying on previous characterization is a bad thing in a serial medium.
Yeah, there was no Thor character development in The Dark World, except for him working with Loki again.
edited 29th Sep '15 3:36:05 PM by alliterator
That too. I do think the deluge of backstory we got for her in Age of Ultron was too much to the film's detriment (and more proof that she deserves her own film to have the room for it), but that doesn't mean one should go in the complete opposite direction and say a film is better with no backstory for her.
edited 29th Sep '15 3:36:26 PM by Tuckerscreator
![]()
![]()
Eh, I'd count it as backstory. Regardless, she does let down her guard in WS, just not to the extent of Ao U. Even if it's small, I still think it counts.
edited 29th Sep '15 3:38:06 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!I think Joss Whedon relies on tropes when he's writing characters. So Steve's the cape, Tony's the snarky one, Natasha's the badass chick with the wounded center, etc.
One thing I like about TWS is that the characters still have their characteristics, but it's not played one hundred percent. In the Avengers, Captain America comes strolling in to give a speech to Loki on heroism or resistance or some shit. In TWS, Steve's got his mask off, standing at the microphone, trying to think of something inspiring for Captain America to say.
In the Avengers, Widow's a badass super spy who can take out three assailants while tied to a chair in a vaguely sexual fashion. In TWS, Natasha's a cold-blooded operative who still believes in a greater good. Sometimes that means shooting people in the head. Sometimes that means destroying SHIELD and leaking all of its secrets.
I should rewatch Winter Soldier is what I'm getting from this conversation
Forever liveblogging the AvengersIn TWS, Steve's got his mask off, standing at the microphone, trying to think of something inspiring for Captain America to say.
...I don't remember that scene at all. I also don't remember Black Widow shooting anybody in the head. (Was it during the assault on the ship? Because Cap was killing people, too.)
RE: Clintasha, Whedon stated in an interview that he was originally going to make the pairing officially canon in AOU but then changed his mind.
Link, please? I've read the interview where he stated that he originally had a different backstory for Hawkeye in the first Avengers, but I don't remember any interview where he states that Clint and Natasha were going to be a thing. If anything, I remember interviews where he said that he didn't want to make them a thing.
I think Black Widow should cameo on Daredevil, have one date with Matt Murdock and its just terrible for everyone.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersI believe that's referring to the speech Cap makes just before the climax. "The price of freedom is high", and all that.
As for the Black Widow bit, I believe that's a generic example, not referring to any specific incident in the films. Morally speaking, it probably doesn't matter where the kill-shot is - what matters is that she's killed people, and she believes that sometimes that's necessary for the greater good, but not always.
Umm...I'm a little confused here. What exactly is your position on this, again?
Oh God! Natural light!I don't think Steve kills anybody on the ship. I mean sure, in real life at least some of those guys might die from their injuries, but in movie terms Steve's very restrained. Natasha probably could take out people non-lethally, either with stingers or movie dart guns, but she goes straight for the kill shot because it's practical.
On a different note, one thing I like about the movie is that Steve never lectures anybody about using the non-lethal option.
edited 29th Sep '15 4:43:39 PM by JBC31187

It's a thing that can be argued, but it's not about being good or bad on it's own.
If that's the case, then why were you arguing that it was bad?