Age of Ultron The Avengers 2! The Official News and Speculation Thread - Upgrade section 5 - Part 8

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]465983[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]464447[/split]

 

[Crimson King]

I don't find watching RDJ getting all weepy about being responsible for a genocidal killer robot to be interesting or "good character writing," either.

I'd personally rather see Marvel make their most daring move yet by cooking their golden goose (at least for a 2-3 year interval) and letting the rest of the team learn how to stand at the box office on their own merits, instead of perpetually making the MCU "Iron Man and His Amazing Friends."

Every non-IM solo movie is an effort to have the MCU stand on its own legs without RDJ's involvement. We already know that he's not signed up for an IM4 in Phase 3, so the daring plan is already in effect. Judging by the numbers for Thor so far (and the projections for US openings), it's off to a good start.

 

[DyeLorean]

I didn't feel that Avengers was Iron Man and his Amazing Friends. One of the best things about that movie is how each hero got their chance to shine on their own.

Just look at a pivotal moment in the film, when they all get together for the first time as a team during the New York battle, is not Tony calling the shots, is the Captain, like it should be. Sure, he was front row in the posters, but I didn't feel that in the movie, his character was very well balanced.

 

[Iceman]

Cap, Hulk & BW got plenty to do. Would have liked to see a bit more from Thor (& obviously Hawkeye was constrained by the story) but overall it was quite well balanced in managing characters. And Stark also is the most normal of the big 4 being from the present, from Earth and staying as a human while using his powers so it's not surprising that the story would be told more from his perspective.

 

[HunBoy]

After the 2008 Incredible Hulk exactly why it was replaced Ed Norton and why he had not played in The Avengers?

 

[jonathancrane]

Norton had gotten into fierce arguments with the studio over the final cut of TIH.

 

[Son of Coul]

There were also reports of discussions breaking down leading up to SDCC '10 but Feige later denied having any meetings with Norton about Avengers. Considering his harsh public statement and later lack of regret, I'd say the two had a pretty rough relationship.

 

[TeeKay]

How is the Avengers IM and his Amazing friends?

 

[Scarecrow_King]

I know I'm in the minority, but I liked Norton better than Ruffalo as Banner. Wish he'd stayed.

 

[DrCosmic]

I didn't feel that Avengers was Iron Man and his Amazing Friends. One of the best things about that movie is how each hero got their chance to shine on their own.

Just look at a pivotal moment in the film, when they all get together for the first time as a team during the New York battle, is not Tony calling the shots, is the Captain, like it should be. Sure, he was front row in the posters, but I didn't feel that in the movie, his character was very well balanced.

I still take issue with that moment, because as much as Cap gave the battle plan, Tony told him to. So it wasn't Cap taking leadership. At best, it was Tony giving it to him. Tony was also the character with a discernable arc and had the most moments to shine, action-wise and dialogue-wise. He wasn't just up front in the posters, he was upfront in the story. The others were very well represented, unlike, say, the X-Men in that franchise, but there's no doubt in my mind that Tony Stark was the central figure.

 

[cph9fa]

The thing about Iron Man is that he's basically the only character who resisted the call for the Avengers to assemble. As a result, he had the most dynamic character arc, going from an initial flat out refusal to eventually putting his life on the line. By way of contrast, Thor and Cap each have certain duties to fulfil, and BW and HE just follow SHIELD orders (when not being mind-controlled by Loki). Dr. Banner had a show of refusal at first ("What if I say no?"), but eventually plays ball easily enough (although there is a deleted scene after he crashes and shrinks down to "normal size" where he's still debating if he wants to rejoin them).

I've come to think of the Avengers team as a single protagonist, with each individual hero's motivation representing a part of its psyche. Iron Man tends to be the rational voice that argues against doing something (or maybe the voice of pride?). I've not thought this out completely, but it seems to be something like this:

Captain America follows duty ("You here with a mission for me, sir?")
Iron Man follows reason ("Not a great plan.")
Thor follows familial love ("Have care how you speak... he is my brother.")
Dr. Banner seeks acceptance ("So Fury isn't after the monster?")
Black Widow seeks redemption ("I've got red in my ledger")
Hawkeye seeks revenge ("It would be my genuine pleasure.")

 

[DyeLorean]

I still take issue with that moment, because as much as Cap gave the battle plan, Tony told him to. So it wasn't Cap taking leadership. At best, it was Tony giving it to him. Tony was also the character with a discernable arc and had the most moments to shine, action-wise and dialogue-wise. He wasn't just up front in the posters, he was upfront in the story. The others were very well represented, unlike, say, the X-Men in that franchise, but there's no doubt in my mind that Tony Stark was the central figure.

But I think the character is like that, Tony Stark is extroverted, is that guy we all know in a party that takes the spotlight. He has a big ego, a big presence, and it shows, he doesn't go unnoticed. But during that battle -and most of the movie- I didn't feel like he was taking leadership or anything. I saw him as part of a whole.

 

[Crimson King]

Maybe I'm over-thinking it, but I think Iron Man telling Cap to give the battle plan was Whedon's way of showing us that Cap was the one in charge of the group, even when most thought Tony would take the lead.

 

[DrCosmic]

Captain America follows duty ("You here with a mission for me, sir?")
Iron Man follows reason ("Not a great plan.")
Thor follows familial love ("Have care how you speak... he is my brother.")
Dr. Banner seeks acceptance ("So Fury isn't after the monster?")
Black Widow seeks redemption ("I've got red in my ledger")
Hawkeye seeks revenge ("It would be my genuine pleasure.")

That's a beautiful analysis. I don't think of them as a single protagonist, but what they bring to the unit is very solid here. The interesting thing is, reason and acceptance are very driving parts of any protagonist. As such, it would be natural for Banner and especially Stark to have arcs. This has the side effect of making them the most interesting characters and giving motivation to the writers to give them the best moments, and more of them.

I think at the very least Cap should have as strong an arc in the next one. If duty doesn't provide a strong enough arc, then it should be changed or upgraded to a more central protagonistic driving force, like right and wrong, for instance. That's a natural evolution of duty too.

Maybe I'm over-thinking it, but I think Iron Man telling Cap to give the battle plan was Whedon's way of showing us that Cap was the one in charge of the group, even when most thought Tony would take the lead.

I agree, I just would have liked him to show us in some other way than Tony taking the lead in deciding who was in charge.

But I think the character is like that, Tony Stark is extroverted, is that guy we all know in a party that takes the spotlight. He has a big ego, a big presence, and it shows, he doesn't go unnoticed. But during that battle -and most of the movie- I didn't feel like he was taking leadership or anything. I saw him as part of a whole.

It makes sense for the character of Tony. But it also makes sense for the character of Cap to just take charge without having to be directed to. They decided to go with the version that showed Tony as the most active, and Cap as the most passive he could be and still give orders. There was no impetus to deflate Tony's greatest moments with Cap's natural personality, it shows a lack of balance and a lac of equal respect for the characters when it goes one way.

 

[Crimson King]

I agree, I just would have liked him to show us in some other way than Tony taking the lead in deciding who was in charge.

I guess the part I left out was that I likened it to the passing of a baton, from the man the GA thought should be the leader to the man Whedon thought should be the leader.

 

[DyeLorean]

It makes sense for the character of Tony. But it also makes sense for the character of Cap to just take charge without having to be directed to. They decided to go with the version that showed Tony as the most active, and Cap as the most passive he could be and still give orders. There was no impetus to deflate Tony's greatest moments with Cap's natural personality, it shows a lack of balance and a lac of equal respect for the characters when it goes one way.

To be fair, Rogers is still in his early days as Cap. We still have a lot to see from him in the MCU. He will become stronger and more active as the character progresses. They must have some sort of arc. If Cap in Avengers 2 gets more tough, more active, we're gonna witness that character development, and I think that's very interesting.

 

[cherokeesam]

I guess the part I left out was that I likened it to the passing of a baton, from the man the GA thought should be the leader to the man Whedon thought should be the leader.

Or, it could've been simply that Tony realized that, since the situation had erupted into a full-scale military battle, it was time to quit slinging his ego around and let the battle-scarred war veteran who actually knew a thing or two about combat take over the tactical part of the operation.

Remains to be seen whether Tony is going to keep his ego in check in the long term and just quietly let Cap assume command of the Avengers for posterity.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don't find watching RDJ getting all weepy about being responsible for a genocidal killer robot to be interesting or "good character writing," either.

I'd personally rather see Marvel make their most daring move yet by cooking their golden goose (at least for a 2-3 year interval) and letting the rest of the team learn how to stand at the box office on their own merits, instead of perpetually making the MCU "Iron Man and His Amazing Friends."

Avengers wasn't Iron Man and His Amazing friends. Avengers was a very well rounded film. I think giving Stark a reason to doubt himself and question whether or not he himself is a monster (like his creation) is VERY compelling character writing. Much better than a cheap cliffhanger where he is "dead" but we all know he isn't "dead." Stark sees himself as a changed man, but would Ultron's destruction make him think he is still the weapons manufacturing monster? Much better story arc.

Give me some examples of these more interesting storylines, keeping in mind that all of them happened after YEARS, Winter Soldier included. Cap's other great storylines like Captain America No More are too much like what's already been done, plus they don't help tie into anything Thanos related. So I'm not sure they're better ideas necessarily.

But I agree that Cap shouldn't be "killed off" for a majority of the film. That's why doing Return and Fallen Son simultaneously is such a great idea, because Steve is an active in the entire story, he's just doing it from random points in the past. He may be killed, but he's not "off" in any way shape or form. This has the added bonus of giving a heavy in depth history to a character that doesn't actually have it in the movie-verse. It's more than satisfying to see Steve Rogers be an epic military hero for the ages with a long history-filled history of excellence and strategy and demonstrate that on screen in order to win the day.

Cap's had many great storylines over the years. While the comic storyline of the serum killing Steve Rogers and making weak was poorly executed, on film that might make an interesting 3rd film. Winter Soldier's trailer indicates possibly using elements of Cap being an enemy of the state, so that probably is out. You can use many of Mark Waid's stories from his Cap run instead. Cap has a lot of untapped potential without going with Fallen Son/Return of Steve Rogers this early.

I agree. Having him actually die, or a death cliffhanger is a bad idea because it's too close to what's been done before with the character.

Agreed, and it is primarily why I think killing Stark is a bad idea. If someone were to "die" I think Thor or Cap would work better (but I'm not really for either of them "dying" either). At least Thor could find a way out of Hela's realm or whatever in a 3rd film. I think Bucky Cap is a bad idea, but it could happen. But, as I noted earlier, I think better Thor/Cap 3 films are out there, than making ones that deal with a cheap cliffhanger.

 

[TeeKay]

Wasn't Tony the first leader of the Avengers in the comics before Cap?

 

[Spider-Fan]

I still take issue with that moment, because as much as Cap gave the battle plan, Tony told him to. So it wasn't Cap taking leadership. At best, it was Tony giving it to him. Tony was also the character with a discernable arc and had the most moments to shine, action-wise and dialogue-wise. He wasn't just up front in the posters, he was upfront in the story. The others were very well represented, unlike, say, the X-Men in that franchise, but there's no doubt in my mind that Tony Stark was the central figure.

No, that was Stark ACCEPTING Cap's as the leader of the team. Not GIVING it to him. Cap had earned it already, Stark was finally acknowledging that Cap is the man his father told him about.

 

[cph9fa]

No, that was Stark ACCEPTING Cap's as the leader of the team. Not GIVING it to him. Cap had earned it already, Stark was finally acknowledging that Cap is the man his father told him about.

Yeah. It really contrasts nicely with the earlier scene where Cap says "We need a plan of attack!" and Tony completely blows him off with the line "I have a plan: attack."

 

[TeeKay]

I still take issue with that moment, because as much as Cap gave the battle plan, Tony told him to. So it wasn't Cap taking leadership. At best, it was Tony giving it to him. Tony was also the character with a discernable arc and had the most moments to shine, action-wise and dialogue-wise. He wasn't just up front in the posters, he was upfront in the story. The others were very well represented, unlike, say, the X-Men in that franchise, but there's no doubt in my mind that Tony Stark was the central figure.

I disagree. I think Hulk stole the show in terms of action. People came out of the Avengers talking more about the Hulk more than anyone else in the film.Especially these moments.....

So much win.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Iron Man had some amazing action in TA, but Hulk stole the show in terms of audience impact. Hopefully Hulk gets more screen-time in AoU. I think he definitely will, since they have Disney backing the budget and by extension, ILM at their disposal. Expenses shouldn't be a problem.

 

[mkilban2]

I know I'm in the minority, but I liked Norton better than Ruffalo as Banner. Wish he'd stayed.

While I enjoy both I have to agree that I also liked Norton more but idk if it was biased towards liking his films more or because he was the Hulk for an entire film which I really liked. But Ruffalo is great as well so I have no problems.