Discussion in 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' started by Thread Manager, May 4, 2015.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]482115[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]459317[/split]
Why did Marvel even allow him to pull this **** in a long term franchise like this and under the circumstances with Fox.
Every second a resurrected Quick-Ass is on screen are seconds Whedon is displeased and that makes me happy.
Unless the plan was to resurrect Quick-Ass eventually all along.
Bringing Quicksilver backcould potentially add fuel to the "death means nothing in the MCU" fire. However, it would make a great plot in Civil War if Tony secretly kept a comatose Quicksilver and subjected him to SHIELD expiraments, ultimatly bringing him back. He could potentially fill the role of the Thor clone from the original storyline.
Oooooo, that would be awesome
Anyway, Marvel should stop having characters with future potential they're not ready to let go of killed off.
Then people wouldn't have to contemplate resurrecting any from the dead.
Well, the only character in the MCU that legitimently died and came back was Coulson.
Others people usually cite weren't dead to begin with (Loki, Pepper, Nick Fury)
The fake out deaths throughout Phase Two could be like characters losing arms/hands as a homage to Star Wars in every film.
Imagine Joss Whedon directed Justice League, pulled his garbage and kills off the Flash, and DC vows to keep dead characters dead.
You lose that character and can't use them again.
Blacking out almost the whole post for the benefit all three members who are yet to see A:AOU.
[blackout]Highly doubt Quicksilver dying was Whedon's decision. He said he'd filmed two versions, one in which Pietro dies (which they ended up using) and one in which he was grievously injured, but not dead (which they ended up ditching). Personally, I think this was more of a business oriented move than "purely" a narrative/storytelling device.[/blackout]
While I'm about to take a small trip into tinfoil territory, I think my reasoning is somewhat sound....
[blackout]My thought is that this might be due to a shake-hand agreement with Fox, who've been uncharacteristically friendly with Disney off late. QS might have been sacrificed in order to avoid confusion with the X-version of QS in order to bring the FF rights home, among other things going back and forth between the two companies. The recent announcement of the Star Wars digital download proves that Disney and Fox are negotiating at some level since Fox owns the distribution rights to the original Star Wars (i.e. Episode 4) in perpetuity.
While all of this is highly speculative in nature, I think that some kind of "enterprise level" deal is being negotiated between Disney and Fox that involves the following:
* QS dies in A:AOU so that the X-version is the only QS kicking about currently. Maybe Fox agrees not to use Wanda in their movies.
* Disney can include Episode 4 in Star Wars box sets, etc.
* Fox knows they have a stinker on their hands with FF, and renounce the rights after that movie's theatrical run.
* Disney/Marvel approves X-Men TV shows. Currently, Fox cannot put X-Men-based shows on TV without Marvel/Disney's approval.
* Some kind control over X-Men-based merchandise going to Fox.[/blackout]
Nah...don't think so.
[blackout] In the empire podcast, Joss even admitted that killing off Quicksilver was his idea. Splitting up the twins between different universes is a dumb idea to begin with anyways. IMO, the alternate ending shot is going to be thrown into an end credits scene on any upcoming MCU movie if they want to revive him. According to Joss, it was just a scene with Quicksilver waking up...which technically isn't an alternative ending since there was no confirmation of his death out side of getting shot. [/blackout]
I doubt Marvel/Disney gives a rats ass what Fox does with their version of Quicksilver and vice-versa. If they did, he wouldn't even be in the movie to begin with.
^ Exactly. But it was still a stupid move on Whedon's part, imo. Especially when your version is the better one in every way.
The alternate ending was Quicksilver with the new Avengers team, in a new costume. So the waking up scene would have been in addition to that. I can't see why they didn't go with that. Ugh.
Well, he wanted to do a real war movieas he said in that interview and in a real war people die.
I can understand that and I like, that he wanted to make it seem real... however killing Quicksilver still was a mistake, because of all the potential that character has.
He could have made it seem real in other ways. My idea:
He could have killed the boy. The viewers don´t know him, but he is a young child, so that is always touching, as well as the mother´s grief. Hawkeye could have tried to save him, but was to slow. Pietro saw that and took over. However even though he is so fast, he also cannot save him, maybe they both get shot. Boy dies, Pietro is badly wounded. Wanda of course feels the pain and still could have a nearly similar reaction to a close to death Pietro.
Pietro however survives in the end, but the way back is not easy. He may also suffer from a posttraumatic disorder and/or guilt about not being able to save the boy, who reminded him of himself as a child, even though he is so fast.
Still would feel like real war.... death, injuries, pain, post traumatic disorder... all stuff you see in and after war...and still Pietro would be alife and all the potential would still be there.
Im fully expecting Quicksilver to show up comatose in Civil War, only to wake up and even the playing field a bit for Cap's side.
Yet people keep overlooking [BLACKOUT]Urich, Owlsley (Sr.) , and Wesley's deaths in Daredevil. Unless the Soul Gem extends to them, these death poke a hole in that growing water balloon. [/BLACKOUT]
Exactly! Civilian deaths would be so much more effective at conveying the threat, plus would tie in perfectly to Civil War. But instead Whedon just had to go for the shock value of killing the most likeable half of the Maximoff twins. And then he completly discards the death, never actually mentioning it afterwards, which completly destroys any poignancy the moment might have had. Sure, there's a chance the Russos will bring him back (crossing my fingers for that) but if they do, I'm sure Whedon will just go around complaining about it in interviews like what happened with Coulson.
Or better yet,
why did it have to be Quicksilver? Why not Maria Hill, who is a bit of an expendable character? Or, if he really wanted showcase the devastation of war, then why not let that car that Cap was trying to stop from falling off the bridge, actually fall and Cap has to live with the consequences that no matter what, you can't save everybody!
Sorry, but both are to blame, Whedon and his dipstick writing style, and Marvel for not saying no, or come up with another idea!
And Frigga in Thor! People seem to forget about her too.
What the hell happened to Whedon? He made the Avengers movie, a great movie, people loved it, he had a blast going to all of the comic cons and visiting the fans, and seemed to be part of the MCU team. And then, in 3 years, he seemed to get this really fat head, like he was untouchable, and when his ideas and decisions didn't go over so well with the public, he is now turned into some raging cry baby! Eh, maybe the dude should go back to TV.
It really feels like there is no satisfying people. When characters get killed, the fans go "Why did they kill ____ off! He had lots of potential! I liked him/her!"
When they *don't* kill characters off, the fans go "No stakes, no menace! The villain was ineffective and incompetent!"
Also, anybody who says "they should have used civilian deaths" clearly didn't pay attention to the movie that just happened. The whole *point* of the movie was "stopping innocent bystanders from dying is why we exist".
That's what the trailers seemed to suggest. I was totally down for Cap having to carry the weight of a failed rescue on his shoulders. And killing the kid would have also carried huge weight.
If that's the whole point, then wouldn't that make the failed rescue of innocent bystanders much more dramatic than the death of a team member? If that's what the team places the most value on, then when they fail to uphold that, it carries weight, weight that would allow a character like Pietro to not only survive, but also survive to experience a new character arc, one that deals with something tragic which challenges his idea of being a hero.
There has to be other ways to convey drama, or a villain's menace. Not saying it's lazy storytelling either, but I think Whedon should have considered all his options before resorting to killing off a main character (and yes, since this is an ensemble film, I'll count Quicksilver as part of the main cast). If he really wanted to be edgy and shocking, he would have killed off the kid.
Failing to save people would have a HUGE impact, much more than Pietro's sacrifice. That upset people because they wanted to see more of him, only for Whedon to waste the character. On the other hand, the death of a civilian the heroes were trying to save would have a profound impact. They beat the bad guy but they failed at their #1 goal. This not only would have been extremely poignant, it would have lent itself to the themes of Civil War.
Was he ever actually called Quicksilver in the movie?
That's exactly how I feel. Seeing the devastation felt by the Avengers when they fail to save everyone would have had a big impact on audiences, while Pietro's death was just brushed off "in film", and only left the audience frustrated because they wanted more of him.
Only in the credits, Wanda wasn't called Scarlet Witch in the actual movie either
D'oh! Frigga too