And in what way does that contradict the Infinity Gauntlet being brought in? All you have are your suppositions, which are founded on thin air. I, on the other hand, have something to support my position. A prop which Marvel spent good money to have constructed. A prop which Marvel displayed for all the world to see. A prop which Feige dropped an oblique hint about during an awards ceremony about how the audience isn't supposed to see it yet, implying that it will be seen.
You keep getting stuck on 'they constructed it, so it must be used.' All that means is that they planned to use it at one time. What have I supposed, exactly? All I'm doing is telling you what the movies said, you're the only one suggesting there's more to it.
Because he doesn't give a damn about taking over the universe. He's after genocide, not conquest. And given what his lackey said at the end of Avengers and his reaction, it's clear that Death is still his #1 priority even in the MCU. And for all the power the cube has, it doesn't hold a candle to the Infinity Gems.
You're right, but that's a bit of a nitpick. My point was the cube gives him what he needs to accomplish his goals.
According to the Red Skull, who's hardly an authority. I very much doubt he got a look at the complete catalog of items which Odin keeps in his treasure room.
In a film, exposition is exposition, not character development. See how you have to contradict the movie's storyline to get your point, while all I have to do is say 'hey, Feige didn't know the exact story of Avengers before it was written.' This answers your early question, how it contradicts.
And I wish you wouldn't be so purposely obtuse when Marvel is blatantly telegraphing their moves. Especially when, despite your claims, it doesn't contradict anything that happens in the movies. I mean, you're talking about paying attention? Feige himself hinted at the Infinity Gauntlet playing a role down the road. If there's anyone who should have some idea about what route Marvel's going to be taking in the movies, one would think that it's Kevin Feige.
I took that as an indication that they were planning to use Thanos and the Infinity Gauntlet Storyline (which you can do with any macguffin). Perhaps they'll do the Infinity Gauntlet. Whedon can juggle six superheroes, that's never been done, perhaps he can also juggle two different cosmic level superdevices, which has also never been done. Sure. Whatev.
But it was never in their long term plan to have gems spread out throughout multiple movies and take over those storylines (thank goodness). And the story works without the IG, so including it could be a waste of time and energy. I guess we'll see.
Here's what I don't get about all these theories about Thanos wanting to gain control of the Cosmic Cube:
.....he already has control of the Cosmic Cube.
Look, if he can open portals through the Cube from the other side of the galaxy to let Loki sneak in, don't you think he already commands the Cube? If he really wanted the Cube, he would've just stepped into SHIELD's JDEM lab through that portal he created, splattered Fury & Co. to oblivion, and taken the Cube back home to Oz. Instead of sending someone like Loki on a mission that he knew was doomed to fail.
He set Loki up. That's pretty clear. He knew Loki would fail, and he knew that the Cube would wind up back in Asgard. Which means, as Captain Marvel has said above, that Thanos is clearly after something in Asgard.
Given that the Infinity Gauntlet was already teased in the Thor movie, and given Thanos' long and storied history with that shiny glove, it makes perfect sense that this is *exactly* what he's been after all along.
It's not a hard train of thought to follow, folks. Makes perfect sense.
This is a great point. The best one so far for the use of the IG, imho. It does make sense that he wants something from Asgard, as that's what he's set up for. The Infinity Gauntlet still doesn't make sense in the context of the films, as you said, the reason we expect it is because of the history in the comics, not because it makes sense in the films. I mean, what you're saying makes sense, but by the same token, if Odin has the IG sitting 6 gems full in his treasure room... why did Loki take the Casket instead? Why did Odin need to gather dark energy in order to send Thor to Earth?
So yes, a very easy train of thought to follow. That doesn't mean it goes anywhere.
Joss Whedon has said that he feels a common fallacy than befalls a lot of movie sequels, especially action/super hero movies, is an attempt the previous film in terms of action and epicness. Going from that, he's said that he'd like to avoid that by making the Avengers sequel quieter and more personal. Not that there won't be action, but the goal would be to top the dramatic elements of the first film as opposed to the spectacle of it.
My point in bringing this up is that Thanos, an evil genius who's insane and is trying to impress death by murdering everyone
so she'll go out with him is the perfect character to engage in some really dark, twisted mind ****ery with the characters and I hope that's the way the next film goes. Portraying Thanos as a threat not because he's the most powerful guy ever, but because he's completely unrelenting in his cruelty and hurts them in very direct and personal ways. I think that would be totally awesome.
I have a darkness in me.
I really can't say how excited I am about Whedon going that way with a sequel. I don't think Thanos is the character for that, though. I could be wrong, but I don't know that he's been a big torturer before. He seems really impersonal.