Thor 2: First MCU movie not to mention Stark?

[Spuzz]

How was Stark referenced in the first Thor again?

[Dark Raven]

If Tony's not mentioned in this movie, then to get round that, they need to change the title to Thor: The Stark World.

[pr0xyt0xin]

Originally Posted by jaqua99

Sickens me

A friend of mine hates Thor/Loki but has the female equivalent of a rock hard-on for Captain America. sigh... the lesser of two evils i suppose.

[pr0xyt0xin]

Originally Posted by Spuzz

How was Stark referenced in the first Thor again?

Agent: Is that one of Stark's?
Agent Coulson: I don't know. That guy never tells me anything...

[Quasar]

There could be a suit of armor designed for Thor with a note attached "Thought you might want a little enhancement. Tony", to which Thor would wave off with an "As if!" look on his face.

[MarvelKnight]

Originally Posted by Dark Raven

If Natalie Portman somehow ends up in the nude, even implied, then Thor can say to her: "Thou art stark naked fair maiden. I must preserve thy dignity. Here. My hammer shalt cover thee."

And if Maria Hill is now the new SHIELD agent Thor deals with instead of Coulson, he can say "Aye, thou art in stark contrast to thy predecessor."


And that will be the stark reference.

I also agree. Unless it is this, there is no need. lol

In all seriousness though, there is no real reason to mention stark in a thor movie that is going to take place throughout the various realms. I would assume the only reason Earth has to be even involved is because they decided they Had to have portman/foster tag along. So i don't really see the point.

[Keyser Soze]

Originally Posted by jaqua99

Sickens me

Why?

[misjuevos]

it's not like they went out of their way to mention stark. it was justified. the same shield agent who was in im 1 and 2 who knew stark and his armor now sees a new armored thing. of course he will immediately think stark.

[Godzilla2000]

Originally Posted by spideymouse

It doesn't bother me except at comic cons when the fangirls dominate the Q&As and don't ask any questions that are important to anyone but themselves. It happened at NYCC, and it sounds like it happened this year at SDCC too.

You know, I'm thinking that this is more or less your typical Convention faring female fangirl's behavior. Trust me I have seen panels where fangirls were even more brazen, like any panel that features voice actor Vic Mignogna who voiced many dubbed Anime characters, but you might know him more as Broly from the DBZ movies. Seriously just google any of Vic's panels and he relates some borderline bizarre fan encounters he's had.

What bothers me though is if Tom decides to do a little stage work this type of behavior would be quite distracting and break his concentration not to mention it being very rude to those just there to enjoy the play.

[Still A ThorFan]

Originally Posted by spideymouse

So, the first seven MCU movies--from IM1 through IM3--all have references to the name Stark (I mean, RDJ will have been in 5 out of the 7). It just shows how centrally important the GA's familiarity with the first Iron Man movie has been to the marketing and success of the whole franchise and the whole crossover idea. But now, thanks to the huge success of The Avengers, the GA has a greater awareness of Thor/lesser known Marvel characters.

My question is, could Thor 2 be the first Marvel Studios movie not to feel the need to reference Stark in any capacity, and would that hurt or help in expanding the MCU beyond the Iron Man world?

I know this is a silly discussion, but the thought came to mind and I wanted to bring it up. =P

After his first movie and on to Avengers I found Iron Man/Stark to be annoying. I wouldn't mind at all if he isn't mentioned in this film.

[jaqua99]

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

Why?

Loki's fangirls no nothing about Loki. It's all Tom. I love Tom, he's great as Loki, don't get me wrong. But after reading a whole lot of comics, Loki is that character you are just waiting to get his. Atleast he is to me. He is NOT a character that should attract fangirls. They really know nothing about the character, or even read comics. The simply love tom hiddleston playing loki. Because of tom.

There is nothing physically attractive about Loki, he cold dark, evil..etc...he shouldned be attracting fangirls. But the movie loki does, and they are just ridiculous. I saw a comment, on a trailer for the Thor and Loki blood brothers thing, they refuse to see it because Loki isn't tom, and he is a gross old looking man, and they are stupid for making loki not look like tom.

It's like...Loki has been around since the 60s

And it fustrates me, because besides Thanos, loki is probably my favorite villain. I love him as villain because of how he is. and to see his fangirls gushing over him the way they do, clueless about the character, its just gross, and honestly, kind of offensive

[Silvermoth]

That's not really fair. Just because they're girls it doesn't mean they only want love and romance and redemption. Some fangirls have been reading Thor for years.

I think what they're saying isn't just 'I want to believe I can change the bad boy', it's about how just about every Thor story involving Loki involves Thor trusting Loki. For that to happen he needs a reason, otherwise it would be difficult for Loki to manipulate people the way we love to see him manipulate people.