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 honestly wonder if the reason i didn't care for the first Avengers film was because of Whedon, or because the film was reliant on investment in the characters from previous movies who didn't impress at the time (it was probably a mixture of both, i guess). This led to Eight Deadly Words and me being bored throughout the entirety of the film. the mixed reception to age of ultron has me tepid about watching it, but i'll probably do so eventually.
edited 16th Jan '16 6:08:10 PM by wehrmacht
I've seen some people try to make a case for the two getting together on the basis of her appreciating him as a person first, and it being a relationship based on intellect rather than pure lust or sexuality like a lot of females get. Or that Natasha still retains agency since it's her choice and she has the right to seek a romantic relationship after a lifetime of being someone else's weapon, that the romance tends to treat Bruce as the more receptive partner, that he doesn't shut her down by using sexist stereotypes against her, and that it generally avoids objectifying Natasha.
But a lot of even the supportive fans still boil it down to "good in concept, poor in execution" criticism in the end.
edited 16th Jan '16 6:18:53 PM by AlleyOop
I think what we got was about the best possible way to handle Brucex Natasha: pretty well. I liked the romance. Felt very comic-booky (random romance between two characters who barely interacted working better than expected).
I agree with Cinema Sins' take on the controversy. It was very obvious the "I'm a monster" line was referring to the fact that she was raised to be a violent killer, but the awkward placement of having her break down and cry about being a monster RIGHT AFTER revealing that she was sterile was a really bad narrative decision.
Like, even though that wasn't the intention and I do think some people were looking for something to be angry about, I can definitely see why it rubbed so many people the wrong way.
It seems like Whedon really wanted to do a romance, but was hampered since he was limited to characters who don't have their own solo films.
Which is funny since the exact same thing happens in comics all the time.
This is one of my problems with it as well. Nat had more, and frankly better, interactions with Clint and Steve. Pairing her up with Bruce just comes out of nowhere. It's especially dubious because Whedon wanted to prove that men and women could get close without becoming lovers in Age of Ultron but did this at all.
I think the actual reason for it was that he needed a reason to get rid of the Hulk in time for Civil War. But there were better ways than resorting to a Romantic Plot Tumor, like having him be missing after the destruction of Sokovia.
Joss Whedon wanted to show that men and women could still be friends without it being romantic and accomplished this by giving Natasha almost no interactions with Clint or Steve.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.I honestly don't get how people confused it for a "sterile equals monster" point in the first place. The context seemed pretty clear to me even if it wasn't as smooth as it could have been.
Does anyone even espouse the whole "if a woman can't reproduce she's useless" rhetoric outside of, like, the "go forth and multiply" religious far right and I Want Grandkids people anymore?
You cannot firmly grasp the true form of Squidward's technique!![]()
![]()
Or doing the exact same plot (that he is indirectly responsible for the destruction of a city, can't live with the danger he poses as a public figure any more and goes AWOL) without sticking a romance into it.
It just hit me that even though the romance is part of Banner's arc rather than the basis of it, Widow doesn't actually have an arc in that movie that doesn't rely on being a Love Interest.
edited 16th Jan '16 7:45:18 PM by KnownUnknown

Right, so, in the Force Awakens thread we were discussing Whedon's potential issues with writing women, and Avengers came up. It was suggested that the discussion be moved here.
Anyway, I know Black Widow's infertility was in the comics, but like I said in the FA thread, just because it's in the comics doesn't mean it's a good idea. Avengers # 200 exists, but nobody wants to see that.
I don't think Whedon intended for her to mean that she was a monster because of that, but it could have been phrased better, at the very least.
Oh God! Natural light!