Discussion in 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' started by Thread Manager, May 10, 2015.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]498137[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]497865[/split]
Yeah, I feel like a lot of people exaggerate the idea that death means nothing in the MCU. There is exactly one case of someone dying and being resurrected and that was given a lot of explanation and huge consequences. It was hardly just a snap of the fingers and suddenly everything was reset. Coulson's character and storyline are still being effected. The whole current arc on AoS would have never happened if Fury hadn't used questionable scientific experiments to resurrect a non-consenting Coulson.
Every other "death" is a fake out, most of which have the reveal taking place in the same movie. To me, that has a very different feel than what they did with Coulson. Maybe it's because I watch every film as a very in the moment kind of way and being self-contained even when it's a direct sequel. So when Fury gets killed in TWS I'm not thinking "hey, haven't they already done the fake out death with Loki?" I'm just thinking of it's effects on the current landscape and in that context having people like Fury and Loki fake their deaths makes perfect sense. Having Pepper, Groot, and Bucky survive their accidents works because their ability to regenerate has been established earlier in the film (although Bucky's case is slightly different since his takes place across two movies and also the hints that he'd been injected with a serum similar to Steve's were a bit more subtle).
I guess I'm just more concerned with the "death" working for the character within the narrative than worrying about if it's establishing some pattern outside the movie for the universe in general. Every film is going to have it's tropes and cliches that it relies on. They are not automatically a bad thing, it's all about making sure it works in context.
Having just said that, Pietro's death very much reminded me of Wash's in Serenity. It served the same function, which is basically to show that even towards the end of the movie when you want to believe everyone is safe the bad guys can still come in and destroy everything. I think this is the one time I've really been effected by the whole idea that the main characters aren't going to die because we already know they have sequels lined up. Usually that has zero impact on my viewing because like I said, I tend to watch movies from a very in the moment perspective but after Pietro's death there was actually a sense that everyone else would survive because of him. With Wash- oh man, that just lead me to fear for literally every single other character. Maybe it's because after that I understood just how much of a last run this was for the series, but I seriously thought they were all doomed.
One thing about Hawkeye's "last mission."
I could see why people would take it the way they do (retirement). I could even see people who think it was meant as a metaphor. But Marvel didn't write themselves into a hard corner because of the way the quote was worded.
Hawkeye never said anything about his "last mission." He said his next project (while talking about finishing up the house) would be his last. He clearly says "no more projects."
Like I said, I can understand where people can think that it was a metaphor for the truth.. but because of the nature of the quote, even if that's what it actually meant, Marvel can write themselves out of it pretty easy considering they could just say he meant what he said literally.
I sometimes wonder if some fans only see two possible states for a superhero: "Actively fighting evil" and "Retired forever". I don't think Hawkeye is retired, he's just not needed for a while, and can thus spend time with his family.
That part is clearly referring to his obsession with building and depending on his suits in IM3, he's even emphasising that being Iron Man is something nobody can take away from him.
I've seen people complain about that in multiple reviews and it honestly bothers me how people didn't seem to pay attention to the film, it gets even better with repeated viewings tbh
LOL That doesn't change anything of what I said, in IM3 he felt defenceless without his suits and at the end of the film he realizes he isn't(he learned that during the second act when he was basically forced to face threats without the suit), that however doesn't mean that he was never gonna use the suits again or that he was moving on from being a hero, heck that quote proves it "Obviously the irony is that he will almost certainly go back on [his promise] the next time we see him." so its clear they knew he was gonna keep being Iron Man except he was not gonna be nearly as dependant on the suits as he was in IM3.
The character did not retire and you just contradicted yourself by using info from outside the actual film to back up your point lol not that it makes any difference since that same article you brought has him acknowledging that Tony will keep being Iron Man in future films so there is no reason why he would end the movie alluding to something that would be irrelevant in the next film.
I'll try to explain this in the simplest way I can: Pepper is not against the idea of Tony being Iron Man, what she didn't like was the obsession he had with the suits in IM3 so by destroying those suits at the end, Tony was showing his commitment to Pepper. There is absolutely no reason why he would stop being Iron Man because that wasn't even the problem in the first place! She was always ok with it before and it wasn't until his PTSD(which caused his obsession with creating IM suits) that it became a problem in their relationship. Not only was this clear from the beggining, but now that AoU exists, it serves as an even bigger confirmation that this is the real meaning of the scene.
In fairness, writers aren't always right about their own works. I mean, Ray Bradbury claimed multiple times that Fahrenheit 451was not about censorship. Look, Bradbury, I know you wrote the book and all but you clearly wrote it about censorship sorry you can't see that.
Death of the author is a totally valid criticisms, and one I think most people seeing a movie are likely to use because they don't nessisarily know who did what in a movie or their intentions.
But on to the really important question. Saw this movie a second time and I remembered something I'd noticed the first time but immediately forgot among everything else. Is geeky little SHIELD boy from the helicarrier the same as from TWS? I'm absolutely horrible at recognizing actors but I swear to god he is,I absolutely loved him in TWS I don't care that he only had like two lines.
Yup, that's him.
IM3 never had Tony quit being Iron Man. It had him realize that he's not defined by the suit.
What people need to understand is that all the suits he blew up at the end were essentially garbage. They were all rush jobs, hence why they kept breaking down so easily. They were all designed with the sole purpose of coming to him and nothing else, as he felt weak and puny without them post-New York.
Thus when he blows up the suits at the end, he's not saying "I'm done with Iron Man". He's saying "I won't let these crappy poorly done suits define who I am." He realizes that Iron Man is himself, with or without the suit, as Iron Man is the byproduct of Tony's heart and great intellect. Without Tony, any suit is just a war machine. Nothing but a slightly more advanced weapon piloted/controlled by someone who can never fully understand it.
It's also a nice character progression from IM2 where he says "I'm Iron Man, the suit and I are one." By IM3 he realizes he doesn't even need the suit.
I like how you conveniently ignored that the very same articles you brought support my point, you can't just use the half of info that is most convenient for your point.
People have constantly proved why you're wrong about this so its time for you to realize that the one who needs to admit he's wrong is you.
I think both points are Right he retired and yet he didn't/he didn't and yet he did.
Couldn't it be he meant it for the Moment Ergo:.Why he Created or was working on Ultron..Ergo:His statement to Cap..."Lets end the War so the good guys can go HOME"...(HE WANTS TO GO HOME!)...
maybe his objective was to Create Ultorn so he could retire Ergo:All the Ironbots he had around the World....Maybe your both right he meant to retire but was still in the process Ergo:He wasn't retired but just yet???
His Ironbots and Ultimatly Ultron was his way of keeping his Promise to Pepper and still being Ironman without the suit it just didn't work out as he had Planned because he still seems to retire at the end AOU anyway so that proves its still his intention but his OCD/PTSD for the unresolved issue of World Peace wont allow him too...
Maybe its his intention but for one reason or another he just cant...
At least until he feels the Problem is Resolved Ergo:Civil War.
Sorry for all my "Ergos" But I think your both right.
Is that so? Let's take a look at the evidence you posted.
What part of this contradicts anything of what I said?
His obsession with making suits is what got in the way of his relationship with Pepper. Not just Pepper, but his whole entire life. He wasn't even running Stark Industries anymore or paying any important attention to it. He gave up that obsession, sure, but that's not the same thing as saying he gave up being a superhero. He's practically where he was prior to the obsession (where he was still Iron Man).
As for the red part, if anything, it defends my point more than it does yours. It's the exact character arc I just explained to you.
Tony never quit being Iron Man. PunyGod conveniently left out Drew Pearce saying that the entire concept of the scene "came to mean something else" than Tony abandoning his suits so Pepper would abandon her powers.
Blowing up the suits was a demonstration of him being free of his reliance on them and a gesture of goodwill towards Pepper that he'd once again make her the most important thing in his life. Fetching Dummy, grabbing the screwdriver, and his entire speech at the end was just Tony realizing that he had transcended the suits. With or without them, he is Iron Man. The end.
If he was retiring then he would've said "That's it, I'm done, I'm tapping out." - Exactly as he did at the end of Age of Ultron. He's gone into semi-retirement, but the events of Civil War and Infinity War will obviously bring him back.
Haha, I noticed this too, and loved it. Brilliant idea to have him cameo.
When things are open to interpretation later movies can come and change what was first the idea. Another case is the tag scene with Stark and Ross. In TIH you get the impression that Ross will join the initiative, but a later one shot changed the meaning of the scene to that they sent Stark because Ross would never agree with him.
Not to add fuel to the fire but there is no way Disney or the Marvel execs would allow them to have Tony Stark "retire" at the end of Iron Man 3. The writer and director may have left it ambiguous but I think all he was saying is that the suits aren't what make him Iron Man. Besides I'm pretty sure at the end of the credits it says "Iron Man Will Return." Or something like that. Sorry PunyGod...
Can you give me an exact quote that says "Tony Stark is retiring from being Iron Man at the end of Iron Man 3." Cause I haven't seen that anywhere....