Discussion in 'The Avengers Sequels' started by Thread Manager, May 3, 2013.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]451439[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]373209[/split]
Well it wouldn't be the first time that a marvel franchise has ignore the lineage between characters.
We have yet to have any kind of on-screen confirmation that Mystique is Nightcrawler's mother, let alone that she's Rogue's stepmother (or that Nightcrawler and Rogue are supposed to be like siblings). There has been no reference to the connection between Scott and Alex Summers, or Heimdell and Sif.
So yeah, the lineage thing shouldn't be a issue, especially since I doubt most regular moviegoers would know about it right away or at all.
Repercussions from IM3:
-Tony's decision at the end
-Brain slot which "destined" to evolve humans
Anyone can think of anymore?
Brain slot is going to be HUGE, can already see it somehow coming into play with Bucky in Cap2, and possibly with the twin addition in Avengers2. Some baddie in the future will make that a big deal.
Or even more important things like Frigga still seems to be Thor's mother in the MCU, as the nature of his mother is really why he's so attached to Midgard.
I'm excited to see ultron after seeing all the unmanned armors in im3
[BLACKOUT]-Rhodey as a government-sponsored superhero with the only Iron Man suit currently left in existence?[/BLACKOUT]
At the end of the film Tony says, "I am Iron Man." That implies that he will build more suits. Also, we know he'll be in TA2 and "Tony Stark Will Return" is the last text on screen. Even if Rhodey had the last functioning suit for a hot second, it wouldn't last long because the mechanic will create more.
Lets have Vision if we get Ultron.
I heard from someone though that he destroyed ALL of his suits for the sake of spending more time with Pepper and such.
I guess what I'm wondering is that if he starts this film with having more armor suits, what was the point of getting rid of all of the suits that took time and energy to make in Iron Man 3?
This. It just doesn't make a whole helluva alot of sense.
They would've been better off [BLACKOUT]making every suit a nondescript drone like what was originally rumored as opposed to individual and unique designs.[/BLACKOUT]
It was closure for Tony. As he called it, a "Clean Slate". The way I see it, he'll put on a suit if need be, but he doesn't let his tech define who he is, and didn't need the reminder of all his tinkering during an anxiety-ridden period of his life. Detonating the suits was an emotional action on his part, rather than a practical one.
Exactly, and one that he could afford to make because he no longer uses the suits as a crutch, as the movie detailed, making it also a practical decision, just not one driven by fear, but of purpose.
Having those suits be nameless design-less drones removes the storyline of Tony being a creative mind who uses his suits and robots as replacement friends, which was kinda the point. And it also would have removed any emotional impact of him getting rid of them for the sake of a real human relationship.
He demonstrated in the film, and double explained it at the end, just because he doesn't have any tech at the moment doesn't mean he can't/won't whip something up as needed in a heartbeat. The first suit in a cave took 3 days. The second suit took what? 5 Hours?
OMG Roger Wardell tweets
"Marvel Studios and Joss Whedon is in the process of storyboarded a sequence in The Avengers 2 involving a large-scale prison escape."
"Kang the Conquerer is the current topic of discussion over at Marvel Studios"
"The villains in The Avengers 2 will not be referred to as The Masters of Evil."
"Joss Whedon will make the villains remind you of The Liberators."
I would not trust anything from Wardell; other sites have pointed out the inconsistency in his methods and claims. First, why would there be a prison break? Marvel Universe is not structured like Batman: they do not fight common criminals, and the villains that are fought, are either dead or in another dimension.
I doubt the Liberators/Kang angle: there have not been enough villains introduced to make up the Masters of Evil, because of them being dead/in another dimension.
At the time of the film's release, here is a list of what could be culled from:
-The British Actor from IM3
-The Villain Manipulating the Winter Soldier
This is a terrible selection, as more of them are probably going to be dead, and some of them are hypothetical. Introducing 4-6 characters for the Masters of Evil would run contrary to the system that Marvel Studios has been built. Introducing one new villain would be fine, but 3-4 more would be terrible...especially with the cast list of TA2 reaching crazy levels on the protagonist front, to begin with.
And besides, the villain is going to be Thanos: Starlin confirmed that he reached a financial agreement with Marvel to license Thanos for GOTG and TA2. Considering he nearly filed a lawsuit against them for using Thanos in TA2, it seems very unlikely that they will renege on the agreement; or, if they did, that Starlin would keep quiet about it, considering he went public with his frustration with Thanos' usage in the first place.
Besides, introducing Kang in the film would complicate the mythology with time travel and alternate timelines; the mechanisms would have to be introduced in one of the solo films before being utilized in TA2.
Think for instance of the Tesseract:
-while not shown, we see its use in Thor when Odin transports his army to Jotunheim.
-In Captain America, we see it being used as an energy/weapon source, in addition to enabling transportation (relocating the Red Skull.)
-In IM2, Tony figures out how to successfully harness the energy from his father's materials.
Thus, when we arrive in The Avengers, we see that the Tesseract:
-is used as a weapon/energy source (SHIELD)
-enables inter-realm travel (Portal in New York.)
Again, we see that this device - inter dimensional travel - is built up slowly, over films. However, Kang is thrown into the mix, there would be problems, as he sure as hell would not be in Thor, and is unlikely to be in GOTG, with Thanos and the [possibly] the Collector as the main figures in the film.
So, the claims from Wardell are pure rubbish. He's been on called on for trolling before, and will continue to do so, like Jett on his site.
New Interview with Kevin Feige. Implies TA2 will have a subtitle Also says Joss Whedon already has character interactions better than the first movie.
The idea of going deeper, but not necessarily over-the-top big is how I really like to hear how they're approaching Phase 2.
If they do the Masters in Avengers 2, I could see a line up like this:
Zemo*, The Leader, Red Skull, Abomination, Enchantress, The Executioner, Loki, Crossbones.
* - Or whoever else is pulling Winter Soldier's strings, unless it's Redford's character, in which case just introduce a new one
Introducing characters like Enchantress and Executioner can be done quickly and easily - they're old enemies of Thor's who agree to work against him. Then if they're needed in a Thor sequel, fully expand on their characters.
Thanos would basically use the Masters for two reasons - to attempt to get rid of the Avengers, but also to serve as a distraction, whilst he steals the Infinity Gauntlet from Asgard. This can be the big revelation at the end of the film - they defeat the Masters, but they discover it was all part of a larger scheme, and once they get to Asgard, it's too late - the Gauntlet is gone.
Loki's involvement can be down to Thanos forcing him, after he lost the Chitauri army and the Tesseract. The Other would send him, alongside Enchantress and Executioner, to Earth to orchestrate a break out at a SHIELD prison, and to trick those who escape into working together, to dispose of the Avengers.
Red Skull could be sent at the same time - him being stranded in space at the end of CA:TFA sets up an alliance with Thanos/The Other quite nicely.
We know that The Leader and Abomination are in SHIELD custody, and it was said at some point Grillo was expected to be in Avengers 2, although the legitimacy of that could be questioned.
The Masters could work - this is just my personal ideas. But I guarantee Marvel wouldn't just re-use old villains and not introduce new ones. Not a strong enough threat otherwise.
The only flaw I can see here is the lack of a personal villain for some characters - Iron Man mainly, which can easily be fixed by introducing a new character. Or, bringing Killian back. Or maybe even Savin, or another Extremis henchman.
I actually wouldn't want them to use Loki again. He's beaten, it's over. Keep him in the Thor universe from now on.
Enchantress will be more than enough or maybe one of the wrecking crew if they want the Enchantress to be a major villain.
Hopefully the sequel has the Avengers come together themselves and SHield only comes In because of whatever crisis Is caused by The villains.
It would be very Intresting to see them Introduce villains In the Avengers sequel and not use villains from solo films.
think outside of the box. what's the easiest way to introduce a bunch of new villains for the Avengers to fight? you could pluck them from another dimension; like the Chitauri. or you could introduce them from a secret prison. you don't think S.H.I.E.L.D or the military would have such a location? i doubt that Emil Blonsky is in a regular prison. who says that they haven't been dealing with superpowered individuals in and outside of the U.S. (and locking them away)?
Like I've been saying since before The Avengers came out, Ultron all the way.
I hope the Masters are the villains.
Yeah, deeper rather than over-the-top big is a lot more sustainable if they want this thing to keep rolling on.
I like subtitles too, Thor's & Caps are pretty good.
Edit: And character interactions are what Joss does best. I think he'd do a really good job with SW & Quicksilver on screen together.