Spider-Vader
Mercin' & Workin'
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 12,396
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 58
I must be the only one not in love with the idea of Coulson Vision.
I despise the idea. It'd ruin two characters in one swoop.
I must be the only one not in love with the idea of Coulson Vision.
I despise the idea. It'd ruin two characters in one swoop.
Absolutely.
The clueless wonders who keep spouting this Coulson/Vision nonsense have absolutely no knowledge of nor respect for Vision's actual origins. If you take away Ultron as his creator, you take away the dramatic heart of Vision's story; and if you take Ultron's origin away from Hank Pym, you take away the heart of *its* Oedipus complex story.
The Pym mythos needs to develop in Edgar Wright's Ant-Man film, period. Hank; Janet; Scott; Ultron; Vision; Jocasta. No way in hell should *any* of those characters appear before Ant-Man's release, except maybe as a cameo intro in Avengers 2.
cherokeesam said:Absolutely.
The clueless wonders who keep spouting this Coulson/Vision nonsense have absolutely no knowledge of nor respect for Vision's actual origins. If you take away Ultron as his creator, you take away the dramatic heart of Vision's story; and if you take Ultron's origin away from Hank Pym, you take away the heart of *its* Oedipus complex story.
what if ant-man is a prequel? Like, say current MCU exists with Ultron before he goes full on bad, phase 2, he is built up and the villain. Then Ant-man is the origin story of the pym, and the origin of Ultron. Certainly would tie into fiege's comments, elements folding into phase 2 and 3
CATFA is the only Marvel Studios movie that is a chronological prequel, and that was out of necessity. I strongly doubt Marvel has the need nor desire to do that again. Trying to bounce a Hank Pym/Ultron/Vision story back and forth between past and present over multiple movies would be needlessly confusing.
True, but it may not though. Especially if an Ultron story concludes in avengers 2. He already exists by the time IM3 starts, and it just so happens that he starts to become more self aware/sentient. He evolves, and becomes the villain in avengers 2. Then, if Ant-man takes place in the past (wasn't it rumored to do so?) It would probably cover a bit of Ultron's origin at some point. I don't think it would be THAT confusing

Sounds worse than an adamantium bullet to the head.Sure it would. And you're talking about approaching the story in reverse order, a strategy that is guaranteed to fail. A robot that supposedly *already* exists (even though there's been exactly zero hint of it in any of the current Marvel films), even before IM3 releases this year; becomes the Big Bad in Avengers 2; and then you go back and cover its origin story in Ant-Man --- after it's already been defeated/concluded in the Avengers sequel....? Who's going to give two ****s about seeing the origin story of a villain that's already dead?![]()
Sounds worse than an adamantium bullet to the head.
I agree as well!I despise the idea. It'd ruin two characters in one swoop.
Sure. But that's not the point. The point is that Ultron's origin is incredibly essential to his status as a villain. To skip over that and make him the Avengers 2 villain makes him less compelling, and then to revisit it in a prequel-ish Ant-Man seems like an afterthought. Prequels can work when part of the intrigue of the villain is the shroud of a mysterious past, but the intrigue of Ultron is pretty much directly opposite of that.I agree,......buuutttt, as we all know, Ultron is never 'truly' dead. He always has contingency plans to ensure his survival.
One of his groovier traits!
Sure it would. And you're talking about approaching the story in reverse order, a strategy that is guaranteed to fail. A robot that supposedly *already* exists (even though there's been exactly zero hint of it in any of the current Marvel films), even before IM3 releases this year; becomes the Big Bad in Avengers 2; and then you go back and cover its origin story in Ant-Man --- after it's already been defeated/concluded in the Avengers sequel....? Who's going to give two ****s about seeing the origin story of a villain that's already dead?![]()
I agree,......buuutttt, as we all know, Ultron is never 'truly' dead. He always has contingency plans to ensure his survival.
One of his groovier traits!
Sure. But that's not the point. The point is that Ultron's origin is incredibly essential to his status as a villain. To skip over that and make him the Avengers 2 villain makes him less compelling, and then to revisit it in a prequel-ish Ant-Man seems like an afterthought. Prequels can work when part of the intrigue of the villain is the shroud of a mysterious past, but the intrigue of Ultron is pretty much directly opposite of that.
The thing is that the character of Hank Pym himself has become so greatly informed by Ultron (the characters inform each other) that to change the mythos and extract Ultron from his connection to Pym would be to render Pym an even weaker character. I suppose it would make sense if Wright is going to focus on Lang, but it would be a pretty big slap to the face of a classic Avengers team founder and long-time member. Character assassination.I think Ultron being created out of JARVIS would be compelling .... it's just that it changes the mythos, so they'd piss off fanboys.
Rock Sexton said:I think Ultron being created out of JARVIS would be compelling .... it's just that it changes the mythos, so they'd piss off fanboys.
It's just Stark who builds Ultron instead of Pym, similar to what they did in Next Avengers. That's all, if they're going to do it. Just leave Ant-Man out of it entirely.
No, just no. The fact is, Ant-Man is getting made and it is going to be set in the MCU so he is going to be the creator of Ultron. Since Pym is almost exclusively defined by his membership in the Avengers and his relationship to Ultron. Without those two things, there is no reason to make the film.
BTW, Next Avengers sucked.
I think Ultron being created out of JARVIS would be compelling .... it's just that it changes the mythos, so they'd piss off fanboys.
No, just no. The fact is, Ant-Man is getting made and it is going to be set in the MCU so he is going to be the creator of Ultron. Since Pym is almost exclusively defined by his membership in the Avengers and his relationship to Ultron. Without those two things, there is no reason to make the film.
BTW, Next Avengers sucked.
Hank Pym or no Hank Pym, there's always a reason to make the film.
No, just no. The fact is, Ant-Man is getting made and it is going to be set in the MCU so he is going to be the creator of Ultron. Since Pym is almost exclusively defined by his membership in the Avengers and his relationship to Ultron. Without those two things, there is no reason to make the film.
BTW, Next Avengers sucked.
It'd be a lot cooler if it did...It doesn't have to go by the source material.
It'd be a lot cooler if it did...
[YT]jS30OfLFbRM[/YT]
The reason Ultron works as a villain is that his existence takes a relatively good man and ultimately destroys every meaningful aspect of his life. Pym is the ultimate tragic hero.
No way would Marvel be willing to deconstruct Stark like that, nor should they. And without that aspect of the story Ultron is just another killer robot.