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
I believe that's referring to the speech Cap makes just before the climax. "The price of freedom is high", and all that.
But...he's nowhere near a microphone then, is he? I mean, he's just talking into a radio. He doesn't really hesitate either. He's just being Captain America.
I don't think TWS and AOU Captain America are in any way different, actually.
I think Age of Ultron ended up having some characterization and plotting issues due in part to Whedon ignoring the rest of Phase 2. Nevertheless, I also think it's a good enough film given all the issues I believe it has.
![]()
I think you're being overly literal there. He was speaking into something; it might have been a microphone of sorts, I can't remember.
I'm not sure about hesitation, but I do think the speech is more complex than most of his dialogue in Avengers.
Such as?
My issue with bringing up The Dark World is that there really isn't anything in there that would have added anything to Age of Ultron, hence why the events of the former have little bearing on the latter.
I get that it's a joke, but I don't feel like it's an especially insightful one.
edited 29th Sep '15 4:57:55 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!Thor: The Dark World did kind of have Thor decide to stay on Earth, which I guess could be considered a form of development (I can't remember much of the film, I haven't seen it in years).
Oh, and the ending is pretty important, too. Loki does his magnificent bastardy shtick and that kind of builds to whatever the hell Thanos is up to, plus Ragnarok. As to what it means towards Age of Ultron, absolutely nothing.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?Original Avengers was largely the fallout of Thor (Loki falling off the bridge and getting roped in as a tool of bigger tool Thanos) and Captain America (the tesseract stuff).
Iron Man 2 introduced Natasha but her opening scene in Avengers reintroduced her just fine.
Age of Ultron is largely the fallout of Iron Man (Tony's paranoia and lingering problems with SPACE) and Captain America Winter Soldier (Hydra which brings in the twins and the staff).
I might be missing stuff since I haven't seen all the movies in a while but thats basically how I see it
Hm. Captain America's movies have been pretty much a big influence on where the meta-plot of the MCU goes.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersI really want to avoid coming off as a jerk here. I'm only giving my opinion about this movie at the end of the day, and there's nothing wrong with discussing how contrary our opinions are.
I'm not trying to be a jerk either, I just don't understand the argument. At first, you said Age of Ultron didn't take any characterization from the Phase 2 films. But then you said there pretty much was no characterization for Thor in Thor 2, so...I don't get it. What was characterization AOU supposed to take?
I mean, I understand for Black Widow, since she actually did have character development in Winter Soldier, but I also think that this continued in Age of Ultron. But I would say that the only three characters that really had character development in Phase 2 were Tony, Cap, and Natasha and Cap's development was more like, "I learned that I was totally right."
(Thor didn't have much development in Thor: The Dark World, Guardians of the Galaxy took place in space, and Ant-Man came after Age of Ultron. So really the only movies that would have impacted Age of Ultron would have been Iron Man 3 - and we were told that Tony still believes "up there" is the end game, like his panic attacks revealed - and Winter Soldier.)
edited 29th Sep '15 5:54:15 PM by alliterator
I misread there for a second
I maintain this still mostly.
I changed my opinion on Thor after debating with you and considering Hodor's earlier post.
edited 29th Sep '15 6:00:53 PM by VeryMelon
Well, I'm thread hopping, so I don't know if this was mentioned but Mads Mikkelsen has heard the rumours, and he would totally be up for Doctor Strange if Marvel asks.
Steve and Natasha since they were the only Avengers written in a different fashion by the Russo brothers compared to how Thor is basically the same in his sequel.
Hawkeye and Hulk didn't have any real issues either since no one but Whedon wrote them going forward. Tony I guess works even if it looks like the end of Iron Man 3 is being ignored because you can argue it as continuation of it's ending in spirit, at least.
Natasha I can maybe see, since her characterization is a bit different, but I chalk that up to the fact that it's been a few months since The Winter Soldier and she's had time to lower her defense more and/or make a new "mask" for herself.
Steve I don't see. I think he's the same in Winter Soldier as he is in Age of Ultron. At the end of Age of Ultron, he was basically proved right in his beliefs that what SHIELD had been doing was wrong - the lesson he learned was just, basically, "Let others help you." Hence Sam and Natasha. In Age of Ultron, he's pretty much the same.
![]()
yea Steve always picks up where his last movies off. He's too unwavering to change drastically on the surface. He needs to be at odds with the times and people around him, which is why tony stark is his prime person to butt heads with. His adherence to his convictions. fortitude confidence locality etc won't disappear from him no matter the film. It just who he is at this point and since he's an adult dedicated to his work,knowing what he wants, how to get it, and be satisfied with it , there is not much to change for another 3 movies. At the least when he is down he goes into introspection moods but currently he became satisfied with himself, which happened in wintersoldiers ending
edited 30th Sep '15 2:02:28 AM by xbimpy
Going back to the "why did Whedon have to show that men and women can be platonic friends when Winter Soldier already did that" thing:
- Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron were being made concurrently so it's not like Whedon necessarily knew what they were up to.
- Why the hell can there only be one MCU film dismantling unfortunate relationship tropes?
I think that Whedon has a really good grip on Tony, and he is really good in writing Bruce and Steve in relation to Tony, but has problems understanding them as stand-alone characters. Thor has been the least integrated Avenger from the get go, he barely shares any scenes with anyone which don't involve fighting. I give Whedon a lot of credit for recuing Black Widow from the scrappy heap after Iron Man 2, but I guess he should have studied the script for The Winter Soldier more closely before penning his own.
I didn't mind his portrayal of Steve; in fact, Whedon did something pretty daring in him in AOA by suggesting Steve subconsciously seeks perpetual war. Yeah, the "language" gag did get kinda tiring at times, but the character point brought up by him makes me very interested in how Civil War will test him on it.
edited 30th Sep '15 1:28:21 AM by Tuckerscreator
All of his scenes were great because they were a testimony to who he is on the inside. Benfitacial characterization and dialogue. Without all those scenes his position in civil war wouldn't be as built up that strongly. Each bit showing a b and c thing has counted for Steve thus far.they all add up and next year is when they get pushed to the limits
edited 30th Sep '15 2:12:09 AM by xbimpy
Something just occurred to me: The MCU can't exactly tell the origin story of Captain, unless they add Mar-Vell into the mix, and I guess it would be better to have Carol as the first Captain Marvel. So...maybe we just saw the base for her origin? After all, they just have to start her movie with a fast explanation that some stuff ended up in the earth eco system, which caused people to develop Superpower, and then they can tell the story of Carol Danvers, who is hiding her abilities because of the current negative opinions towards powered people, but then decides to step forward during a time of crisis....

I will say that I think Thor's characterization suffered the least- even in his own films, Thor is largely a fish-out-of-water beefcake when around humans. It's only when he's interacting with Asgardians that he seems like a normal person.
Actually, I think the Thor's Hammer scene is a bright spot in AOU, in part because of the implication that Thor is more of a normal person than his teammates (and the audience) think.