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 can't recall that much of Thor's characterization in the first Avengers movie, although that IIRC played up him speaking archaically and had this largely undeveloped idea of Asgardian interests not matching up with human ones, especially where Thor's protectiveness of Loki is concerned. Which is true and in-character. Thor really does treat Loki's atrocities in the way we would treat a sibling making bad life choices. But Whedon seemed to also have this weird idea, similar to the presentation of Superman in 'Film/'Man Of Steel'' of Thor as an alien with a thought process which mankind could not comprehend.
I thought he was pretty good in AOU though, especially showing a surprisingly modern outlook at the party and where he cheerfully and obliviously praises Banner for his killing prowess.
Something else I was thinking about which has a lot to do with my iffy feelings about Tony, especially in terms of that Blood Knight characterization of Steve (which I agree is not unprecedented).
So, IIRC I don't think the movie is completely clear on how Tony envisioned it working in practice to have a bunch of AI-run suits/Ultron bodies keeping peace in the world. But it implicitly seems to involve them killing fairly large numbers of people, right? I mean I hope it wouldn't be going as far as say zapping shoplifters to dust, but I don't think it's off-base to figure that you're talking about a lot of "policing actions"/. Which granted, would hypothetically would do a good (perfect?) job of avoiding civilian casualties.
As I said, I don't know. And I don't think the movie knows either, which is why there's this Debate and Switch that makes it mostly about Steve not wanting to be unemployed and/or being resistant to new technology.
edited 17th Apr '18 12:19:15 PM by Hodor2
It is pretty quickly glossed over how Tony’s Ultron plan would basically be Insight 2.0, though he was sorta vague about whether it was only a preemptive anti-alien defense measure. It’s part of the reason why it’s never brought up in regards to Vision even though he should be capable of handling such a robot fleet according to the original instructions.
As someone who went from an art high school/carnival work to university/management, and as a result had to tone my swearing way the hell down; I'd understand the "language" line if they'd framed it as Cap having to adjust from wartime to being held up as a role model to kids (not that he wasn't in the first film, but now he's in a society where almost everything ends up on the internet eventually), and had him overcompensate out of that. But that context just isn't there.
In general Age of Ultron, while I didn't hate it, definitely gave me the impression that Whedon didn't bother actually watching most of the previous MCU films.
edited 17th Apr '18 12:23:51 PM by Pseudopartition
It's an awkward bit because we have two Romani characters in the comics who are now overt members of a Nazi organization in Avengers.
And Captain America is like, "Ah, they're just fighting for their country."
Their country's Nazi government.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.@Tuckerscreator-
Exactly. It's such a regressive and even evil idea if it's Insight 2.0 and/or a Robot Cop style "tough on crime" measure.
Given the wood-chopping scene generally foreshadows Civil War, I wonder if Whedon was trying to foreshadow Tony as the "Eisenfuhrer". Although what's weird is that while the idea of it being like Project Insight would fit with that, the movie otherwise seems very much on Tony's side and very much not on Cap's side, and basically is so unclear about what Tony's plans are that Cap is basically overreacting for no reason.
Edit-
Well, technically, I think the idea is supposed to be that they are loyal to Sokovia. But it's presented as them being willing Hydra test subjects/minions as opposed to being experimented on by Sokovian officials who unknown to them, are Hydra agents.
edited 17th Apr '18 12:35:26 PM by Hodor2
A lot of Sokovia seems to hate The Avengers. There's anti-Avengers graffiti on the walls, the people openly taunt the Iron Legion when it comes to help, and HYDRA is parked in that big-ass castle right up on the hill there, and yet no one there seems to mind.
Also it's unclear how much they know about HYDRA's true nature. From what we get, it seems like Strucker plays the "imperialist Westerners coming in the mess things up" card to get people on his side, and we're told that Sokovia tends to be a battleground whenever larger nations fight each other, which probably doesn't help matters either.
I mean Tony's best buddy is codenamed "War Machine." And they even made that into a gag in IM 3.
I think that Tony just picks names that sound cool. I mean his stated reason for going with "Iron Man" to begin with, despite the armor not actually being made of Iron, was that he read the name in a newspaper and thought it sounded "catchy."
The only film that's been able to make it's fictional country truly feel like an actual place imo is Black Panther. I suppose GOTG does ok with it with Xandar, but the latter feels kind of generic.
As for Olsen's accent, I love it and I'm glad that they didn't just drop it for CW. I mean there is no "Sokovian Accent" IRL obviously. so they can make it pretty much whatever they want.
It's because Black Panther was the only one of those films that had any interest in actual worldbuilding as opposed to presenting a generic MacGuffin!City that the heroes have to save.
Despite the MCU being It's Popular, Now It Sucks!, I don't know why I don't see random comments that relate to "The MCU is cancer and must be killed with fire" scattered around, nor do I see medium-visibility "Marvel Sucks" videos, unlike with the case of Undertale or Minecraft
Late to this, but yes, Tony wouldn't necessarily have known that meddling with the stone and the tech would have created the mess it did, so fair enough, but it's still his responsibility. Moreover the film makes a point of the fact that Tony enlisted Bruce to do the whole thing behind the whole team's back because he thinks that he knows better than everyone else.
The point where he decides to do basically the same thing again except this time it magically works out is where the film really shits the bed for me. Not to say there weren't noticeable problems beforehand that I noticed the first time watching (mostly Brucetasha being horrible and forced), but everything about Vision's creation was so entirely wrong, from a narrative and character standpoint, that it completely took me out of the movie. It means that Tony learns basically nothing and any character arc he was supposed to have is utterly jettisoned.
Yes. It seems like it's meant as a subversion of Gone Horribly Wrong and is supposed to establish that Steve was being irrational in a Wrong Genre Savvy kind of way. Which I guess is great if you dislike Steve as a character, as I know some tropers do.
But it doesn't really make structural/story sense and everything about Ultron and the scepter/Mind Stone is really muddled. Like it makes sense in terms of the idea that Ultron and Avengers!Loki were running the same "kill all humans" program implemented by Thanos but I can't make any sense of how the same device would give the Maximoffs their completely different powers or how that explains the Vision's creation.
I think the twins running off to do their own thing was a pretty good indication that they felt zero loyalty to Strucker
Forever liveblogging the AvengersI always figured that having Jarvis as a base this time allowed the Ultron creation process to be more stable.
The fact that whatever trap was hidden in the mind gem was already Ultron (and thus couldn't cause a problem again) probably helped.
One Strip! One Strip!Yeah, I still absolutely love Age of Ultron. The writing and direction is great, the fight scenes are some of the best in the MCU, the lighting and color pallate, while darker than the first Avengers, is still very good, and Ultron is incredibly entertaining and scary as a villain.
I think we just need to stop talking about it, because everyone who had something to say about it has already said it multiple times and nothing is gained or changed by just pointlessly repeating the same argument again and again, especially since nothing new is being said and no-one is ever going to change their minds. It's just a complete waste of effort and energy and it only annoys others.
So, how 'bout that Thanos prequel novel, huh? That sounds like it could be cool.
My only thought on the prequel is that the fact that it exists is concerning as that's backstory that may not be in the movie proper.
This song needs more love.I wonder who has the bigger Nice Job Breaking It, Hero! reputation, Tony Stark or Barry Allen.
The Protomen enhanced my life.

In retrospect Thor is pretty stiff and underused in AOU even before he flies off to the bath thing.