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
He probably wouldn't have shed any tears over shooting a terrorist, even if she was a girl. He's actively gone out of his way to do that before, although admittedly some Character Development has happened since then.
@Wanda not being the first victim of the Hulk.
I always assumed that Wanda didn't just make Hulk angry, but trapped him in a nightmare illusion that made him see Johannesburg, all of its citizens and the Avengers as enemies trying to hurt him - which would explain why he went straight for a populated area (given that if he had the choice Hulk has chosen not to do so in the past) and why he seems to surprised to see everything when he snaps out of it.
That being the case, she could've just used the illusion to make him unable to see her and walked away (or watched, or whatever) without fear.
edited 1st Nov '16 12:53:54 PM by KnownUnknown
Wanda not being the first victim of the Hulk makes perfect sense when you remember that her brother, Quicksilver, was standing right there. He was the one who brought Banner to her in the first place.
He's her evac. She lit the fuse and disappeared at the speed of Pietro.
edited 1st Nov '16 12:54:33 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I'm saying that, given her powerset, she didn't really need Quicksilver to escape in the first place. Chances are Hulk went straight for the city and forgot all about her. Deflecting attention away from yourself is Illusionist 101, especially when one's power is to directly cause characters to fall into nightmare visions - there's no reason for Wanda, herself, to be in the vision she gives Hulk.
edited 1st Nov '16 12:57:50 PM by KnownUnknown
Re: Tony shooting a person - I should have clarified. I meant a person, not in a tank, not in armour. I know he blasts the HYDRA mooks, but that was a stun shot, and he blasted Falcon, but at that point he was pissed off. But non-emotionally, if Wanda stands before him, just as herself, no suit, no transport, no visible weapon, would he shoot to kill? Because that would surprise me.
Tony kills a lot of powered-but-armorless people in Iron Man 3. Remember that time he fired his Unibeam through Savin's chest?
Tony does not have a No-Kill Policy.
edited 1st Nov '16 1:02:02 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I don't think Wanda's intent for the Hulk was 'go smash Johannesburg!', but I think she had to know collateral damage was a possibility with the goddamn Hulk. She's culpable, although I don't know if she's necessarily a murderer, and wow, I've said this exact thing before, haven't I? Maybe Adric is right.
Johannesburg is yet another object lesson in why Banner is probably right when he keeps telling everyone trying to control the Hulk is a bad idea.
On the other hand, Avengers 2 does establish him using stun rounds against mooks that are aggressive but not really that dangerous, which is not something he's ever cared about in his own series. I took it as him developing his stance to the job and trying to be less indiscriminately destructive.
But Wanda, with the superpowers and the "violently" obsessed with vengeance thing, does not likely apply to that category.
edited 1st Nov '16 1:04:34 PM by KnownUnknown
![]()
![]()
I don't, because I haven't seen the Iron Man sequels yet. In the Avengers movies, a lot of fuss is made about him not being a soldier, and killing someone whose face you can actually see is probably a lot more difficult than killing someone who is hidden inside a tank or even a suit.
edited 1st Nov '16 1:05:29 PM by hollygoolightly
![]()
Not necessarily. Even as early as Iron Man 1, he relies on knocking down terrorists with repulsors and manhandles Bakaar before leaving his fate to the people of Gulmira. It's not clear if the shoulder-guns he uses to neutralize the hostage-takers are lethal.
But when the tank hits him, he straight up murders the sonovabitch. Tony meets force with force. He is neither Batman nor the Punisher. He uses the amount of force he feels is necessary to do the job.
If he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that his target is not a threat to them, he goes for nonlethals. If he feels legitimately threatened in any way, he'll take the killshot. Whatever gets the job done.
edited 1st Nov '16 1:07:33 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
Iron Man 1 has him drop down into a terrorist attack on a city and basically slaughter everyone with a weapon - the tank missile being the final stroke. In 2 he doesn't fight too many human opponents (with blowing up Vanko seeming more like a last resort), but 3 has him blatantly say to a bunch of faceless mooks "you're all going to die the moment I have the ability to kill you" and then effortlessly do so moments later.
I always assumed the repulsors were lethal to un-gifted, un-armored opponents - given that they launch people with enough force to make them do serious damage to stone walls - unless stated otherwise, and that Bakaar goes spared because he's a named "lieutenant" character and thus gets a slightly more karmic end than the mooks (that is, thrown to the people he was harming to be dealt with). Which - to be fair - is ultimately why if faced with Wanda, Tony probably wouldn't shoot.
edited 1st Nov '16 1:13:54 PM by KnownUnknown
Her best chance was in South Africa, honestly. She would need to get him into melee range to mind-whammy him in order to pull it off, which is exactly why South Africa was the best opportunity. Not that she knew, but it was the only time a suited Iron Man would ever be vulnerable to it.
In a vacuum, Wanda mind-whammies Tony to keep him from shooting a Tank Missile in her face, so J.A.R.V.I.S. or F.R.I.D.A.Y. shoots a Tank Missile in her face instead.
In South Africa, J.A.R.V.I.S. had already "died" and F.R.I.D.A.Y. hadn't come along yet. He didn't have a suit AI to back him up if she seized his mind. But she still couldn't go for it, because range and velocity was an issue. Once he and Ultron started in on each other, she could neither catch up to Tony by jogging nor reach him in the sky.
Which is precisely why Wanda engaging him in any way was not part of the plan, and her job was simply to do away with the other Avengers before setting off the Hulk - leaving Tony to deal with that instead of pursuing Ultron.
edited 1st Nov '16 1:14:25 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.That does make sense. But please, in case I'm taking a side by saying this, nobody try convince me that it doesn't make sense, because I pretty much haven't read most of the Wanda discussion since the last time we had it.
If the Avengers dressed up as Disney characters for Halloween, who would they choose, in your opinion?
Probably why Quicksilver was like 'why don't we just kill him'
'Seriously, he got out of his armor. Its like he's ungiftwrapped just for us. We're not going to get a better chance, Wanda. Wanda, the whole slow burn to destroying himself is good in theory but he's right there out of his armor.'
-dies- 'I blame you, Wanda'
edited 1st Nov '16 1:23:39 PM by Bocaj
Forever liveblogging the AvengersYeah. First time I watched that, I thought her hesitance was cold feet after the vision she gave Tony. I thought she could see the visions and was like, "Wait, his worst fear is not being able to stop aliens from destroying our planet and killing us all? ...I might be on the wrong side of this."
But nope. Just classic Villain Ball self-sabotage.
They would dress as each other. Because they are Disney characters.
Tony and Thor would both be dressed as Cap and then they'd be all, "Hmph! One of us is going to have to change!"
edited 1st Nov '16 1:27:56 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.She might have been bullshitting to be honest.
The vision did shake her up, but she didn't want to worry Pietro (since he'd be baffled about why she's suddenly less violent towards him or something), so she half lied (because she was right that he'd cause a problem himself, though as we've discussed before, Ultron was not something anyone would have been ready for).
She figured there was nothing she could do to him that would be worse then what he'd do to himself.
One Strip! One Strip!As an aside, I'd like to take a moment to really appreciate this imagery
◊ from the movie. With FOX holding the character's rights, we may never get this close to an MCU Doom. But that moment was perfectly Doom.

Yes.
Tony Stark has never had a No Kill Policy. If Wanda had tried to meet him head-on in the battlefield, she would have been reduced to a fine paste.
edited 1st Nov '16 12:52:55 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.