Who is engineering Ultron in Avengers 2?

[DrCosmic]

Doc, this IM3 thing is getting tangential and really...weird. I mean, seriously: where do you get "killer robots" in that movie? Where did any of the JARVIS-controlled Iron Legion try to kill "good guys?" Are you insinuating that the Extremis soldiers were "good guys?" Because given their orders and motives, that's way far off the mark. There was exactly one "innocent" Extremis soldier, and we've already been over the fact that JARVIS wasn't programmed to make a judgment call to say "oh, it's Pepper....extenuating circumstances, better let her go." JARVIS' program, as given by Tony, was simple: Extremis bad. Kill Extremis.

So, when you bring up IM3, and say untrue things about it, that's totally on topic, but when I point out that what you're saying is correct that's... tangential and... weird? So basically, whenever someone shows you to be wrong it's off topic and strange to you? Good to know.

Pepper is a good guy, JARVIS tried to kill her. He also attacked her earlier in the bedroom. They were accidents. Tony's character was not assassinated. Why would Ultron be any different? Would Ultron have a different reason than JARVIS had for attacking people? Yeah. Would Tony be any more character assisinated in AoU than IM3? No.

Also, using IM3 as an example of Tony Stark not wanting to remote control Iron Man is patently ridiculous.

As for why I feel so strongly about the origin issue for Ultron, it isn't about Pym. That's (dark) water under the bridge. The reason I'm so strongly against the theory of Tony Stark being Ultron's creator is because of my love for Tony Stark's character, *not* Hank Pym's. Simply put: comic-book Hank Pym --- that deeply flawed, multiple personality anti-hero schizo --- makes sense as a Dr. Frankenstein; Tony Stark does not. It goes entirely against the character that RDJ has established for him. It would severely weaken both Ultron and Tony Stark's character, and do irreparable damage to Stark in the MCU if he was directly responsible for the thousands of innocent people who are about to die at Ultron's cold genocidal steel hands.

What exactly is it that you think goes entirely against the character that RDJ has established. Accidentally making a robot that tries to kill Pepper doesn't go against what RDJ has established, so what exactly goes against what RDJ has established? Being a psycho, that's hardly necessary to keep Ultron the same:

When Ultron gains sentience and finds out he doesn't have free will, he's going to be pissed, especially at Tony, who Feige describes in this case as "the poster boy for free will." When that happens, and that is what will happen, how does Tony not being schizo protect him. What about Tony not having MPD keeps MCU Ultron from being just as obsessed with and angry with Tony as 616 Ultron is with Pym?

How does that irreparably damage Stark? Pym wasn't even irreparably damaged, and he's not nearly as beloved as Stark is now.

Weren't you one of the ones who was complaining loudly about Superman causing so much collateral damage in MOS? Apologies if you weren't, but there's a *lot* of blather about that in Marvelphile circles around here. I'd find it more than a little hypocritical if those same haters would then turn right around and be okay with Tony Stark "accidentally" wiping out thousands of innocents with one of his own creations.

It wasn't blather, it was a specific complaint: the hero didn't seem to care about the destruction, not that there was destruction. If you're going to try and change the subject so you can try to call hypocricy, at least pay attention to what was said.

Ok, let's make it simple and read Whedon's comment again:

''We don't have to have him. It works very simply — this is Marvel cinema, not Marvel comics. One thing [Marvel Studios head] Kevin Feige has a genius for is knowing what to hold onto and what to let go of. You can invoke the feeling you had and play with the characters you love and remain true to the needs of the film.''

You're taking this as if Whedon was talking about your own personal feel. This can be interpreted in many ways, as not every person who read the story have the same feel. Some people might have the feel AIs are dangerous because of that story, some people might see Pym as a villain because of this, some other as a tragic hero, etc. He clearly mentions the needs of the film. I don't know exactly what are those needs. And unless you know Whedon personally, unless you're working with him in this movie, unless he especifically tells you what is it, you can't really claim you know what that feel is, because he might think different than you, just like most people. And you can't also say ''well maybe he might decide Batman creates Ultron because WHO KNOWS? HOW CAN WE KNOW?'', because the reason (Jarvis corrupted by something or someone else) is not as crazy as Batman or Peggy Carter creating it. All I know is a hero and, a villain and a motive is required. But since you're talking about feels, let's mention some feels I had while reading Avengers #1 and the Ultimates, since the movie takes things from both, while including certain changes so it can be its own thing.

In Avengers, they band together because of a stroke of luck, the Fantastic Four were not available at that time, so they couldn't answer for the call of help. Instead we got Thor, Ant-Man, Wasp, Iron Man and Hulk, defeating Loki. Only at the end Wasp and Ant-Man suggested the idea of becoming a team, and they came up with the name just because it was colorful and dramatic. The feels I had is that they're a superhero team that only came together because of LUCK. Not because they were a government sponsored team, or anything like that. The Stark in this story, is completely different than the one in the movie.

In the Ultimates, they're a government sponsored team, and most of them, are *****ebags (except Thor). Banner is a scientist working for SHIELD, trying to replicate the SSS and he is constantly mocked (which is completely different to the Banner in the movie). Stark is there because he has a brain tumour and he's gonna die soon (which, again, is way different). Their first fight is against an army, not Loki. And despite any disagreement they might have, they work for SHIELD and Fury, they're his ''soldiers''. The feel I had is that they're a realistic take on the Avengers (way more realistic compared than movie Avengers), they're not simply superheroes, they work for someone higher than them.

The Ultimates takes the basic things, such as heroes, villains, characters that they can use, and it's written in a way so it can stay true to the needs of the Ultimate universe. Realism. Kind of like the MCU. Even the twins already have a reason for their powers. Apparently Strucker is manipulating them in some way. It could be their own methods, or the scepter.

The Avengers movie takes things from both universes while keeping it realistic and true to the needs of the film. You don't see Hulk destroying New York, but you see him fighting against Thor. You don't see them gladly joining the team, you see Stark and Banner having doubts about all this, but at the end, they assemble for their own reasons. Even Stark mentions it:

''Why did Fury call us? And why now? Why not before? What is he not telling us? I can't do the equation unless I have all the variables.''

This is something Whedon wrote and directed. I'm going to assume he knew he had to come up with a reason for Fury calling them now, and not before, even though they were working with energy and the Tesseract. And I'm assuming it, because he found a reason for that, he found a reason for them to assemble, a reason for Coulson to die (Loki tricked him), a reason for Loki to use Stark Tower, a reason for them to not trust SHIELD.They didn't say ''hey Fury, we're taking off to Stark Tower. Keep us informed of anything''. If he has been this consistent, then why wouldn't he find a realistic reason for Jarvis or Ultron to go rogue? What's more realistic? Stark upgrading his own AI, just like he did before? Or just come up with a new AI for the sake of keeping your feel in the movie? What's more realistic? Jarvis suddenly hating humans, or getting corrupted because Stark was arrogant enough to not bother keeping his own AI up to date? He obviously does that for his armors, as we saw his armor absorbing the lightning strike he received from Thor. He would still get backlash, he would still be guilty. You said the kid analogy was good. In this case, the world would see Stark as the guilty one, not his kid, Jarvis. You say the audience won't have the same feel. How can you even know? We're all different, for many different reasons. They might see Stark as a terrible human being. Just like people see Aquaman and Ant-Man as lame, just like they see Superman as murderer. Not everyone is as bright as you.

The reasons why they band together, the circumstances and the secrets and motives are way different. At the end of the day you still get the Avengers fighting Loki/the army. At the end of the day, you'll still get Stark craking jokes, you will see them interacting, you will see them fighting Ultron. Those are the most important needs. That's what the average movie goer should expect. The movie is not just for me, or you, or comic fans. It's for everyone. And we should be extremely excited Ultron is going to be the next big thing. The next Joker. The next Loki.

Agreed on Sam's point. If there should be a valid reason as to why Stark should not take all the credit, is because Marvel is already letting their movies influence their comics. You could say ''hey that's a good thing, those same people will buy their comics and everyone wins!!''. But that's not true. Iron Man is not even pulling half of Batman's sales. The main Avengers ongoing is not selling 1 billion of copies. Not even half of that. They're slowly making it everything just like in the movies. Just look at EMH. They canceled a great show for Avengers Assemble. Just because it was exactly like in the movie. And it's a terrible show. The jokes are bad, the plot is boring, the animation is awful. Seems they got all that wrong. Last episode had Ant-Man as guest character, using the costume he wears in Wright's teaser. They didn't call him by any name. Not even Scott Lang. How long until Marvel changes it so that Stark was Ultron's creator and not Pym? How long until they make him old? How long until they change it so it was Thor, Hulk, Cap, Widow, Clint and Tony the actualy founding avengers? They're not going to stop now. The MCU is a cash machine. Whether you like the movies or not, whether you find them mediocre or great movies, you can't change this simply truth: they are successful as hell. Rumour has it Fury Sr will die in Original Sin, so Fury Jr (who looks exactly like Sam L Jackson) can be the only Fury. Even Coulson is already there. Their movie audience is not going to buy their comics. And their fans who actually buy comics will slowly drop Marvel. Are they a comic book company or movie company? Comics should influence movies, not the other way around. And if movies are to influence comics, make it subtle like Widow suddenly mentioning her ''ledger'' in Superior Spider-Man. The money is obviously more important to them. It would be weird if it wasn't.

Okay, you gave me a lot. A few things:

1) The MCU Avengers come together part out of SHIELD's bidding (Cap, IM, Banner) and part out of Luck (Thor, Hulk, Coulson dying), so the feels that everyone got are preserved.

2) Again, if someone comes and corrupts a child, the world does not blame the parent, who did a good job, they exclusively blame the corrupter.

3) Sam's point is that Iron Man 3 proves Tony would never have AI robots do his fighting for him, and if they were to attack someone, like they did Pepper, it would be character assassination for Tony. You agree with that?

4a) It looks like you're trying to portray the feeling of Ultron as a mastermind instead of a HYDRA lackey gone bad/worse as something that's just personal for me. That's silly, but I can't prove it, so instead, I'll tell the reason Ultron will go rogue in Avengers Age of Ultron.

Entertainment Weekly
“There is an element of free will that our heroes have, that all humans have, whether it’s Thor or Steve Rogers — and certainly Tony Stark is the poster boy for free will,” Feige says. “That’s what Ultron resents.”

JoBlo Interview

"I knew right away what I wanted to do with him," Whedon said. "He’s always trying to destroy the Avengers, goddamn it, he’s got a bee in his bonnet. He’s not a happy guy, which means he’s an interesting guy. He’s got pain. And the way that manifests is not going to be standard robot stuff. So we’ll take away some of those powers because at some point everybody becomes magic, and I already have someone [a new character, Scarlet Witch] who’s a witch."

Whedon added that he will still "ground [the character] while still evoking that guy. As a character I love [Ultron], because he’s so pissed off."

These are direct answers to questions about Ultron's motivation. So Ultron goes rogue because Ultron is upset, not because of any outside interference. He doesn't like that he has free will, he doesn't like Tony Stark because of what Tony Stark did. If you woke up and found out you were Tony Stark's servant for eternity, would you be happy? Wouldn't you want to rebel somehow? It's Ultron, and Ultron alone who decides that he doesn't like Tony Stark, like a kid who grows up and decides to hate his parents because they didn't do what he thought they should. That's what a good mastermind villain does, btw. Like you said, he's not Two Face that gets corrupted, he's the Joker.

That's Joss Whedon's feel of the character, and that's all that matters, apparently. If that's not a good enough reason for you, then, oh well. -shrug-

4b) The question of how/when Ultron gains sentience is actually a different question. That's like becoming an adult, when Ultron becomes a different kind of entity, and not just what Tony Stark programmed him to be. What makes that happen may be anything from the concept of Singularity [Wikipedia Article on the Concept] to Scarlet Witch sneezing on him. It doesn't make any sense for getting hacked by HYDRA to make him sentient, he'd just be a robot for HYDRA, not someone mad about not having free will. Also, Tony Stark did not upgrade JARVIS before, he adapted him so he could be in the armor, but that's not an upgrade in the sense that it makes JARVIS more powerful, just more portable. So there's still room to upgrade JARVIS and have that Singularity thing, if that's the way they want to go.

If they really want to go with the whole 'conflicting instructions caused me to realize how dumb humanity is' path to sentience, which doesn't make much sense to me, but if they did, they could have two Avengers enter the conflicting instructions on, say, what to do about the defeated HYDRA, since the filmmakers probably aren't going to focus on HYDRA as much as you seem to want.

5) You worry too much about movies affecting 616. Marvel doesn't do retcons like that to founding Avengers and what not.

 

[JJ01]

So, when you bring up IM3, and say untrue things about it, that's totally on topic, but when I point out that what you're saying is correct that's... tangential and... weird? So basically, whenever someone shows you to be wrong it's off topic and strange to you? Good to know.

Pepper is a good guy, JARVIS tried to kill her. He also attacked her earlier in the bedroom. They were accidents. Tony's character was not assassinated. Why would Ultron be any different? Would Ultron have a different reason than JARVIS had for attacking people? Yeah. Would Tony be any more character assisinated in AoU than IM3? No.

Also, using IM3 as an example of Tony Stark not wanting to remote control Iron Man is patently ridiculous.


What exactly is it that you think goes entirely against the character that RDJ has established. Accidentally making a robot that tries to kill Pepper doesn't go against what RDJ has established, so what exactly goes against what RDJ has established? Being a psycho, that's hardly necessary to keep Ultron the same:

When Ultron gains sentience and finds out he doesn't have free will, he's going to be pissed, especially at Tony, who Feige describes in this case as "the poster boy for free will." When that happens, and that is what will happen, how does Tony not being schizo protect him. What about Tony not having MPD keeps MCU Ultron from being just as obsessed with and angry with Tony as 616 Ultron is with Pym?

How does that irreparably damage Stark? Pym wasn't even irreparably damaged, and he's not nearly as beloved as Stark is now.


It wasn't blather, it was a specific complaint: the hero didn't seem to care about the destruction, not that there was destruction. If you're going to try and change the subject so you can try to call hypocricy, at least pay attention to what was said.



Okay, you gave me a lot. A few things:

1) The MCU Avengers come together part out of SHIELD's bidding (Cap, IM, Banner) and part out of Luck (Thor, Hulk, Coulson dying), so the feels that everyone got are preserved.

2) Again, if someone comes and corrupts a child, the world does not blame the parent, who did a good job, they exclusively blame the corrupter.

3) Sam's point is that Iron Man 3 proves Tony would never have AI robots do his fighting for him, and if they were to attack someone, like they did Pepper, it would be character assassination for Tony. You agree with that?

4a) It looks like you're trying to portray the feeling of Ultron as a mastermind instead of a HYDRA lackey gone bad/worse as something that's just personal for me. That's silly, but I can't prove it, so instead, I'll tell the reason Ultron will go rogue in Avengers Age of Ultron.



These are direct answers to questions about Ultron's motivation. So Ultron goes rogue because Ultron is upset, not because of any outside interference. He doesn't like that he has free will, he doesn't like Tony Stark because of what Tony Stark did. If you woke up and found out you were Tony Stark's servant for eternity, would you be happy? Wouldn't you want to rebel somehow? It's Ultron, and Ultron alone who decides that he doesn't like Tony Stark, like a kid who grows up and decides to hate his parents because they didn't do what he thought they should. That's what a good mastermind villain does, btw. Like you said, he's not Two Face that gets corrupted, he's the Joker.

That's Joss Whedon's feel of the character, and that's all that matters, apparently. If that's not a good enough reason for you, then, oh well. -shrug-

4b) The question of how/when Ultron gains sentience is actually a different question. That's like becoming an adult, when Ultron becomes a different kind of entity, and not just what Tony Stark programmed him to be. What makes that happen may be anything from the concept of Singularity [Wikipedia Article on the Concept] to Scarlet Witch sneezing on him. It doesn't make any sense for getting hacked by HYDRA to make him sentient, he'd just be a robot for HYDRA, not someone mad about not having free will. Also, Tony Stark did not upgrade JARVIS before, he adapted him so he could be in the armor, but that's not an upgrade in the sense that it makes JARVIS more powerful, just more portable. So there's still room to upgrade JARVIS and have that Singularity thing, if that's the way they want to go.

If they really want to go with the whole 'conflicting instructions caused me to realize how dumb humanity is' path to sentience, which doesn't make much sense to me, but if they did, they could have two Avengers enter the conflicting instructions on, say, what to do about the defeated HYDRA, since the filmmakers probably aren't going to focus on HYDRA as much as you seem to want.

5) You worry too much about movies affecting 616. Marvel doesn't do retcons like that to founding Avengers and what not.

You are still missing the point. Coulson's death was not luck. He tried to take on Loki because Thor was caged and he didn't wait for anyone. That's why he got tricked and killed. A reason. Loki didn't grab him and stabbed him just because. Luck was never a part of the movie, because SHIELD was previously stablished as the super spies and big brother organization. If I only read Avengers #1, then they failed to portray my feel of luck when they banded together. You say the feels are preserved. How can you even know? You don't know about my feels, you don't know about everyone else's feels. They're not talking about just 1 feel. They're talking about 1 general feel anyone can understand because the movie is for everyone. That's the important thing. The feel this movie needs. It makes more sense if the conflicting instructions caused it. Because then that way the audience knows he's not a generic evil robot, he's not just a HYDRA lackey, he is his own thing, that he's got a god complex. You're probably going to miss the daddy issues. Which is a good thing. You don't need Ultron to have them for him to be a compelling villain.

The world is not full of bright, intelligent people. They will eat anything that comes from the media. The media is going to eat Stark alive. It's going to be a miracle if he still keeps his company by the end of movie. And our real world? Just look at facebook comments and such. They're not bright, and the moment Marvel decides to showcase Stark as the guy who killed tons of people in the world, you can expect those same people complaining about how Stark is a murderer. Again, you're not seeing the big picture. Sam's point was that of giving Stark Pym traits. That's crazy considering the way he's been portrayed. Not everyone wants to see Stark like that. Not kids, not the average movie goer. And as I said before, this movie is for everyone. Not just a few people.


''I knew right away what I wanted to do with him," Whedon said. "He’s always trying to destroy the Avengers, goddamn it, he’s got a bee in his bonnet. He’s not a happy guy, which means he’s an interesting guy. He’s got pain. And the way that manifests is not going to be standard robot stuff.''

We don't know where that pain comes from. We're not 100% sure. This can be interpreted in different ways too. If I were an AI, the fact that Stark only used be as his personal slave and AI, not keeping me up to date, and the fact that other humans went as far as corrupting me just because they wanted to use me, I'd be pretty pissed off. I'd realize the humanity does not deserves to die. At the end, there's no such things as good or evil. So It's better if I kill them all, and start my own Age.

I never said I wanted them to focus on HYDRA. I said there was no need for that. Just focus on Tony/Ultron. Ultron targeting the entire human race targets EVERYONE.

You say Ultron/Jarvis is suddenly going to hate the human race. Why? Why now and not before? There has to be a reason for that. I already explained Whedon's reasons for pretty much everything that is important to the plot. The movie is not out yet, and the twins already have an explanation for their powers. They were not just born that way. Even if Ultron is created by Tony, there must be a reason as to why he goes rogue. He's a genius, and while not perfect, he is certainly not Frankenstein or Pym.


Well, of course I worry. Because I support them and buy their comics. Not every single ongoing, but I do. And that, as costumer, is just disappointing. They're not going to do it right away. So how long? They already started and you can't stop them. If this was happening to the movies in some sort of way or form, you would care too.

And again:

''We don't have to have him. It works very simply — this is Marvel cinema, not Marvel comics. One thing [Marvel Studios head] Kevin Feige has a genius for is knowing what to hold onto and what to let go of. You can invoke the feeling you had and play with the characters you love and remain true to the needs of the film.''

 

[DrCosmic]

You are still missing the point. Coulson's death was not luck. He tried to take on Loki because Thor was caged and he didn't wait for anyone. That's why he got tricked and killed. A reason. Loki didn't grab him and stabbed him just because. Luck was never a part of the movie, because SHIELD was previously stablished as the super spies and big brother organization. If I only read Avengers #1, then they failed to portray my feel of luck when they banded together. You say the feels are preserved. How can you even know? You don't know about my feels, you don't know about everyone else's feels. They're not talking about just 1 feel. They're talking about 1 general feel anyone can understand because the movie is for everyone. That's the important thing. The feel this movie needs. It makes more sense if the conflicting instructions caused it. Because then that way the audience knows he's not a generic evil robot, he's not just a HYDRA lackey, he is his own thing, that he's got a god complex. You're probably going to miss the daddy issues. Which is a good thing. You don't need Ultron to have them for him to be a compelling villain.

Recall, that as many times as you've brought up 'Daddy Issues' I haven't brought them up once, much less asked for them to be included. But anyway, like I said, how you feel or I feel doesn't really matter, but what Whedon thinks the feel is, right? Since that's whose choosing the feel.

Conflicting instructions causes computers to shut down, not turn evil, so it doesn't actually make any sense. And even if it did, then he's not motivated by emotions, but by programming, hence, he's a generic evil robot and not what Whedon said the feel of the character was. And if you don't want to focus on HYDRA, you'd have the Avengers give him conflicting instructions, and not HYDRA.

The world is not full of bright, intelligent people. They will eat anything that comes from the media. The media is going to eat Stark alive. It's going to be a miracle if he still keeps his company by the end of movie. And our real world? Just look at facebook comments and such. They're not bright, and the moment Marvel decides to showcase Stark as the guy who killed tons of people in the world, you can expect those same people complaining about how Stark is a murderer. Again, you're not seeing the big picture. Sam's point was that of giving Stark Pym traits. That's crazy considering the way he's been portrayed. Not everyone wants to see Stark like that. Not kids, not the average movie goer. And as I said before, this movie is for everyone. Not just a few people.

Well, that's not really interesting, we've already seen the media incorrectly blame the hero a dozen times for something that is absolutely not the hero's fault. Batman's whole franchise is about this, Spider-Man does it all the time. But who knows, maybe Whedon wants to rehash an old played plot point instead of the thing that makes Ultron unique - that even the audience, in the know, sees it as the hero's mistake, and not him being unduly blamed.

If Sam's point was that you shouldn't give Stark all of Pym's traits, then he should have stuck with that, because we all agree on that. That has nothing to do with whether or not he can accidentally create Ultron on his own or how it will make him look afterwards.

Paint me the big picture. I'm just going by what Whedon and Feige say at this point, but if there's a big picture I'm missing, show it to me. Spell it out.

''I knew right away what I wanted to do with him," Whedon said. "He’s always trying to destroy the Avengers, goddamn it, he’s got a bee in his bonnet. He’s not a happy guy, which means he’s an interesting guy. He’s got pain. And the way that manifests is not going to be standard robot stuff.''

We don't know where that pain comes from.

Yes we do. I just quoted Feige saying it comes from being angry about the heroes, Tony especially, having free will. If you want to make up a story about Ultron being mad instead that HYDRA corrupted him, or doing bad things because he feels as though morality is subjective, send me the fanfiction.net link, I will read it and happily review it. Though, I'll warn you, I will take points off for trying to portray AI as things that get 'updated' like normal software. Any computer person would.

I never said I wanted them to focus on HYDRA. I said there was no need for that. Just focus on Tony/Ultron. Ultron targeting the entire human race targets EVERYONE.

I know you didn't say you wanted to focus on HYDRA, but when I suggest having the Avengers do things instead of HYDRA, you insist HYDRA do it instead. So do you want to focus on the Avengers or not?

You say Ultron/Jarvis is suddenly going to hate the human race. Why? Why now and not before? There has to be a reason for that. I already explained Whedon's reasons for pretty much everything that is important to the plot. The movie is not out yet, and the twins already have an explanation for their powers. They were not just born that way. Even if Ultron is created by Tony, there must be a reason as to why he goes rogue. He's a genius, and while not perfect, he is certainly not Frankenstein or Pym.

We already know why, Feige said it.

Why not before? Well, it's logical that, like all other computers, he didn't have the ability to dislike being a robot slave before, in short, he gains sentience during AoU. What exactly gives him sentience? Could be several things, again, from Singularity to Scarlet Witch sneezing on him. Do either of those concepts sound like unreasonable ideas, to you, to give Ultron sentience?

I've basically said all this in point 4b. I thought I was pretty clear.

Well, of course I worry. Because I support them and buy their comics. Not every single ongoing, but I do. And that, as costumer, is just disappointing. They're not going to do it right away. So how long? They already started and you can't stop them. If this was happening to the movies in some sort of way or form, you would care too.

Marvel doesn't retcon their continuity like that. They just don't. They make new univereses, and change the surface details of 616 to match the films, not the past. That's all they've done for the past twenty years. X-Men came out, the X-Men wore all black, but they didn't change Wolverine's joining the team to be like in the movies, ever. Blade never looked like that in the comics until the films came out, but his comic book origin is still totally intact. To act like they'll suddenly do more than they always do is wasted worrying time. You're not a more caring fan just because you say the sky is falling, it might just be that you scare easier. And why would you think that I care about surface details of movies changing? Haven't I pretty much said the opposite over and over and over again?

And again:

''We don't have to have him. It works very simply — this is Marvel cinema, not Marvel comics. One thing [Marvel Studios head] Kevin Feige has a genius for is knowing what to hold onto and what to let go of. You can invoke the feeling you had and play with the characters you love and remain true to the needs of the film.''

It appears we're getting different things from that quote. I believe Whedon is going to keep the feeling he had, which is, according Whedon, someone who is mad at the Avengers for personal reasons, not because of programming. I believe Whedon is going to remain true to the needs of the film, which, according to Feige, is Ultron being upset about free will, not any attack or conflict.

So forget my feelings, or your feelings, let's go by Whedon's.

 

[JJ01]

But anyway, like I said, how you feel or I feel doesn't really matter, but what Whedon thinks the feel is, right? Since that's whose choosing the feel.

So forget my feelings, or your feelings, let's go by Whedon's.

EXACTLY. His feelings are that of an AI who is angry, who resents the free will. Which is in no way generic at all. But you the problem is you think those angry issues, that resent is from being created by Tony and forcing him to do things. You think that's what Whedon is exactly, word by word, talking about. Which brings us back to the ''realistic'' and ''consistent'' aspects. He has adapted Jarvis before. Why not now? He's a genius, why would his latest creation has a flaw? Ok, the Scarlet Witch, which would be similar to Ultron from 1610, but then again, at the end is revealed Doom was the one to blame. It wasn't just because Wanda suddenly gave him the spark of life. A logical reason. Look, you can take this as an attack, insult, whatever you want. If I wanted to troll people and attack them I wouldn't go as far as writing a wall of text just for you and me. This thread doesn't have that many people, it's pretty much you and me. But you can not have a proper discussion if your preference to RDJ clouds your judgement. And I say RDJ, because if you really cared about Stark, you wouldn't want him to go through everything Pym went. The average movie goer who likes him, does not want to see him being the guilty of the world's destruction. They don't suddenly want him to have father-son issues with a creepy robot. And it wouldn't be consistent. After Pepper ''died'', HE CRACKED A DAMN JOKE! That's part of his character. This is exactly like people not liking Man of Steel, because that's not the Superman they've been used to. He wasn't heroic, he wasn't saving people from planes, etc. And we all know the reception that particular Superman had. And this is why, they're not giving the fans the Pym they know. Because he's not even debuted in the MCU, yet you see people already calling him a wife-beater. If they put Pym exacty like in the comics, the real world backlash would be terrible. It's better if they introduce him as an old guy who passes the mantle. If they want to use him and please the fans, they can always make him young, or give him more appearances focusing on the scientist-adventurer aspect of him. Not the mental breakdowns, or the ''I built a crazy robot who wants to kill the world. HOW COOL IS THAT?!?!?!''. JJ01 out.

 

[DrCosmic]

EXACTLY. His feelings are that of an AI who is angry, who resents the free will. Which is in no way generic at all. But you the problem is you think those angry issues, that resent is from being created by Tony and forcing him to do things. You think that's what Whedon is exactly, word by word, talking about.

That's what he said, yeah.

Which brings us back to the ''realistic'' and ''consistent'' aspects. He has adapted Jarvis before. Why not now? He's a genius, why would his latest creation has a flaw? Ok, the Scarlet Witch, which would be similar to Ultron from 1610, but then again, at the end is revealed Doom was the one to blame. It wasn't just because Wanda suddenly gave him the spark of life. A logical reason.

All of his creations had flaws, from the first suit icing over, to JARVIS trying to kill Pepper (twice). Even Dumm-e screws up. Being a genius doesn't make you immune to mistakes, as Iron Man keeps proving over and over again. If you doubt this, go find a real genius and ask them.

Why would Doom not being to blame make it illogical? Is the only reason to be mad that you're a slave is if Doom is the one who lets you know? If Scarlet Witch, not Doom, lets you realize, hey, you're a slave to Tony Stark and there's nothing you can do about it. Is it *illogical* for you to dislike Tony Stark?

Look, you can take this as an attack, insult, whatever you want. If I wanted to troll people and attack them I wouldn't go as far as writing a wall of text just for you and me. This thread doesn't have that many people, it's pretty much you and me. But you can not have a proper discussion if your preference to RDJ clouds your judgement.

Where has my judgment been clouded? Because I don't think you need Dr. Doom to logically explain slaves being upset about being slaves? Because I don't think Tony doing things he did in IM3 would be inconsistent?

And I say RDJ, because if you really cared about Stark, you wouldn't want him to go through everything Pym went. The average movie goer who likes him, does not want to see him being the guilty of the world's destruction. They don't suddenly want him to have father-son issues with a creepy robot. And it wouldn't be consistent. After Pepper ''died'', HE CRACKED A DAMN JOKE! That's part of his character.

He also was clearly upset, he cared, that's also part of his character.

And while you seem to be worried about how the average movie goer will react if Stark does something bad, they just gave him a billion dollars for making a supervillain in IM3 by being a grade A jerk for no reason at all. The audience still loved him, more than ever before. They didn't consider him guilty of Killian's deeds, even though he, essentially created Killian.

You want to talk inconsistent? It would be inconsistent of the audience to be put off by Tony for accidentally letting his robot gain sentience and revolt but not be put of by Tony intentionally punking a hopefully promising young scientist so that he remakes himself as a supervillain. It would also be inconsistent for Tony to suddenly become a character who doesn't make flawed inventions, doesn't make AI controlled fighting robots and doesn't make supervillains, because all of his villains, save Whiplash, have been results of his actions. And that's cuz Whiplash is a result of his father's actions. No HYDRA necessary.

You keep bringing up these father-son issues. Why?

This is exactly like people not liking Man of Steel, because that's not the Superman they've been used to. He wasn't heroic, he wasn't saving people from planes, etc. And we all know the reception that particular Superman had. And this is why, they're not giving the fans the Pym they know. Because he's not even debuted in the MCU, yet you see people already calling him a wife-beater. If they put Pym exacty like in the comics, the real world backlash would be terrible. It's better if they introduce him as an old guy who passes the mantle. If they want to use him and please the fans, they can always make him young, or give him more appearances focusing on the scientist-adventurer aspect of him. Not the mental breakdowns, or the ''I built a crazy robot who wants to kill the world. HOW COOL IS THAT?!?!?!''. JJ01 out.

I don't think it's that deep. Before the MCU was even a thing, Edgar Wright was working on a 60's Pym, current-day Lang Ant-Man film for Marvel Studios. The only way they could have done anything different with Pym would be to fire Edgar Wright. They chose not to, and I think that's gonna pay off for them.

 

[cherokeesam]

What exactly is it that you think goes entirely against the character that RDJ has established. Accidentally making a robot that tries to kill Pepper doesn't go against what RDJ has established, so what exactly goes against what RDJ has established? Being a psycho, that's hardly necessary to keep Ultron the same:

When Ultron gains sentience and finds out he doesn't have free will, he's going to be pissed, especially at Tony, who Feige describes in this case as "the poster boy for free will." When that happens, and that is what will happen, how does Tony not being schizo protect him. What about Tony not having MPD keeps MCU Ultron from being just as obsessed with and angry with Tony as 616 Ultron is with Pym?

How does that irreparably damage Stark? Pym wasn't even irreparably damaged, and he's not nearly as beloved as Stark is now.

Um, yes....yes Pym *was* irreparably damaged. And yes, he's not as beloved as Stark --- never has been, never will be. That's been my whole point about Pym =/= Stark.

Pym is damaged goods. ALWAYS has been in the comics. He's never had a fanbase, and he's universally known as a psycho nutjob, as a schizo and a wifebeater, as the least trustworthy Avenger on the team. That's why he's been kicked out, arrested, changed allegiances to the bad guys from time to time, shot at and otherwise attacked by his fellow Avengers time and again over the decades. His connection to Ultron is by and large the *main* reason nobody likes him or trusts him.

And that's *exactly* why I don't want to see Joss going that route with Tony Stark. Tony Stark doesn't deserve it, and Kevin Feige sure as hell isn't going to let Joss do that to him. He's the Golden Boy, and always will be. Turning him into Hank Pym is tantamount to turning Captain America into Hannibal Lecter.

 

[DrCosmic]

Hmmm... I think you have a deflated view of Hank Pym. Just recently, Hank Pym is the guy the Avengers turned to to train children in Avengers Academy, the guy who the Reed Richards turned to to lead an FF crew. He's definitely been redeemed. So, people who read him in the comics, and the characters in the comics, at least, don't see it that way.

But even if Pym had never been redeemed in comics, it doesn't mean that Stark has to be a schizo in order to accidentally make Ultron. Neither does it mean Tony can't be redeemed, since, as you say, no one liked Pym in the first place, and everyone likes Tony. He already put Killian on the path to villainy, who killed plenty people, and the audience didn't love him any less, and that was with him intentionally being a jerk, not trying to do something simple or good.

So why do you think people would dislike Tony when Ultron kills people even though they didn't like Tony when Killian killed people?

 

[cherokeesam]

Hmmm... I think you have a deflated view of Hank Pym. Just recently, Hank Pym is the guy the Avengers turned to to train children in Avengers Academy, the guy who the Reed Richards turned to to lead an FF crew. He's definitely been redeemed. So, people who read him in the comics, and the characters in the comics, at least, don't see it that way.

But even if Pym had never been redeemed in comics, it doesn't mean that Stark has to be a schizo in order to accidentally make Ultron. Neither does it mean Tony can't be redeemed, since, as you say, no one liked Pym in the first place, and everyone likes Tony. He already put Killian on the path to villainy, who killed plenty people, and the audience didn't love him any less, and that was with him intentionally being a jerk, not trying to do something simple or good.

So why do you think people would dislike Tony when Ultron kills people even though they didn't like Tony when Killian killed people?

It's a simple question of blame. Whatever part Tony Stark might have indirectly played in "creating" Killian as a villain (a patent falsehood anyway, but that's another story) was never shown to be public perception in the MCU. Tony Stark is still as beloved by the public at the end of IM3 as he was at the beginning of the movie.

If, however, Tony is shown to create a robot --- even for noble purposes --- that goes on to try to wipe out the human race, the public *are* going to blame him for that. His technology will no longer be trustworthy; he will be perceived to be weak for letting his own creations get wildly and lethally out of control; the public's perception of Tony Stark as hero will be shattered. That doesn't leave Iron Man in a good place in the Avengers, let alone the MCU as a whole. I don't think Marvel Studios wants to pull the rug out from under their golden goose, do you?

 

[DrCosmic]

It's a simple question of blame. Whatever part Tony Stark might have indirectly played in "creating" Killian as a villain (a patent falsehood anyway, but that's another story) was never shown to be public perception in the MCU. Tony Stark is still as beloved by the public at the end of IM3 as he was at the beginning of the movie.

If, however, Tony is shown to create a robot --- even for noble purposes --- that goes on to try to wipe out the human race, the public *are* going to blame him for that. His technology will no longer be trustworthy; he will be perceived to be weak for letting his own creations get wildly and lethally out of control; the public's perception of Tony Stark as hero will be shattered. That doesn't leave Iron Man in a good place in the Avengers, let alone the MCU as a whole. I don't think Marvel Studios wants to pull the rug out from under their golden goose, do you?

Wait, you're talking about his perception in the MCU? I thought we were talking about his perception IRL. If Tony Stark is blamed by the fictional masses in his universe, he'll be in the company of Spider-Man and Batman, characters even more popular than he is. That persecuted complex, not having that public perception of a hero like others is part of their draw. Tony may become even more popular and make more money for Feige and co if Stark Enterprises falls apart, the way it has several times in comics. And none of this precludes him being redeemed in Avengers 3 from whatever miscalculation he makes, at least in the eyes of the real life public, who pays the bills. Why would the fictional public blaming and hating Batman and Spider-Man make them more popular irl, but the fictional public blaming and hating Tony Stark somehow make him less popular irl?

And Tony's responsibility for Killian becoming a villain is well documented in IM3, not a patent falsehood by any means. Tony gives a whole speech about creating our own demons during the intro to the Killian scene. If he's not talking about Killian, who is he talking about? Killian even thanks him for doing so later in the film. Are they both wrong? It's the explicit message of the movie. Most popular IM movie ever.

 

[cherokeesam]

Wait, you're talking about his perception in the MCU? I thought we were talking about his perception IRL. If Tony Stark is blamed by the fictional masses in his universe, he'll be in the company of Spider-Man and Batman, characters even more popular than he is. That persecuted complex, not having that public perception of a hero like others is part of their draw. Tony may become even more popular and make more money for Feige and co if Stark Enterprises falls apart, the way it has several times in comics. And none of this precludes him being redeemed in Avengers 3 from whatever miscalculation he makes, at least in the eyes of the real life public, who pays the bills. Why would the fictional public blaming and hating Batman and Spider-Man make them more popular irl, but the fictional public blaming and hating Tony Stark somehow make him less popular irl?

And Tony's responsibility for Killian becoming a villain is well documented in IM3, not a patent falsehood by any means. Tony gives a whole speech about creating our own demons during the intro to the Killian scene. If he's not talking about Killian, who is he talking about? Killian even thanks him for doing so later in the film. Are they both wrong? It's the explicit message of the movie. Most popular IM movie ever.

You and I will never see eye-to-eye on IM3. The "we create our own demons" line, imho, was entirely about The Mandarin Twist, and was political allegory to boot. Tony Stark never "created" Aldrich Killian; if anything, Maya Hansen did. The movie was never about Killian trying to get "revenge" for some imagined slight at the NYE 99 party; in fact, Killian started the movie seeking Tony Stark's *help* and financial backing for the Extremis project in 2013. The NYE 99 party was not just Killian's all-time low, it was also the beginning of his life. His subsequent meeting with Maya Hansen is what turned his life around for the better, just a few scant hours after feeling dejected and rejected by Tony Stark.

As for trying to turn Tony Stark into Bruce Wayne or Peter Parker: good luck with that. Tony Stark has never been that kind of character. The only negative press he ever got in fandom IRL or in-universe was for being an alcoholic and for becoming a fascist dictator during CW. Feige has made it quite clear that he doesn't intend to explore either of those two options for Movie Stark.

 

[DrCosmic]

You and I will never see eye-to-eye on IM3. The "we create our own demons" line, imho, was entirely about The Mandarin Twist, and was political allegory to boot. Tony Stark never "created" Aldrich Killian; if anything, Maya Hansen did. The movie was never about Killian trying to get "revenge" for some imagined slight at the NYE 99 party; in fact, Killian started the movie seeking Tony Stark's *help* and financial backing for the Extremis project in 2013. The NYE 99 party was not just Killian's all-time low, it was also the beginning of his life. His subsequent meeting with Maya Hansen is what turned his life around for the better, just a few scant hours after feeling dejected and rejected by Tony Stark.

As for trying to turn Tony Stark into Bruce Wayne or Peter Parker: good luck with that. Tony Stark has never been that kind of character. The only negative press he ever got in fandom IRL or in-universe was for being an alcoholic and for becoming a fascist dictator during CW. Feige has made it quite clear that he doesn't intend to explore either of those two options for Movie Stark.

Who said Killian was mad? I just said Killian thanked him. Before that Killian was a nice guy scientist. After that Killian became a ruthless businessman. Killian liked that, but Tony made that happen, that's why Killian thanked Tony, specifically:

"But as I looked out over that city, nobody knew I was there, nobody could see me, no one was even looking. I had a thought that would guide me for years to come. Anonymity, Tony. Thanks to you, it's been my mantra ever since, right? You simply rule from behind the scenes. Because the second you give evil a face, a Bin Laden, a Gaddafi, a Mandarin, you hand the people a target."

The Mandarin Twist itself is Tony's fault, it's Tony's demon, inspired by Tony's actions, according to IM3. If you don't see eye to eye with the dialogue from Iron Man 3, that has nothing to do with you and me. IM3 said it was Tony's fault, IM3 most successful yet. So how is there any room for the idea that Tony being responsible for the villain will make the audience dislike him at all?

Then, you just said 'Tony has never been that kind of character' and then gave just the two most famous examples (one of which fans keeps asking for) of when Tony was exactly that kind of character. How is that not a contradiction? I mean, do you know how many times Tony has lost his company in the comics?

And of course Feige doesn't want to expose kids to alcoholism or make Tony out of character.

By the way, your new avvy is brilliant. Love it.

 

[metaphysician]

*cough* I think the problem with this entire argument is that it messes a big hole: why the hell would Stark build Ultron in the first place? He's disinclined to build weapons he doesn't personally control. Could he decide to build some autonomous suits? Sure. But an entire integrated android weapon system? Not seeing it. And I specifically note that "so he doesn't have to wear a suit" is not a valid answer, as Tony *didn't retire*.

Its far more likely that Hydra will build Ultron, or at least start Ultron on its way to existing, possibly with a "hijack Stark factory systems" stage along the way. Hydra ties it to Cap, Hydra stealing Starktech ties it to Iron Man, Hydra experimenting with alien artifacts ties it to Thor. There, you've just fulfilled the Word of God talk of Ultron "coming from the existing Avengers" just fine, and without needing Step One of "the Avengers randomly decide to build a killer death robot."

 

[DrCosmic]

I don't see how that can be viewed as a hole. Tony has already built an army of autonomous suits with integrated weapons systems. What's one more? It's already attacked people he didn't intend to to boot.

I also don't see how people can view something that goes against what Whedon said, and doesn't help the storyline as what's more likely. There are ways to tie Ultron to Cap without having to have that tie go through HYDRA. And having HYDRA hijack Starktech goes against the word of god that Ultron is motivated by anger at the situation the Avengers put him in, and is all about going against his programming, as opposed to HYDRA giving him evil programming, and him going with that.

Is it really that farfetched for the Avengers to not expect Ultron to gain sentience and turn evil? "They should have seen the first robot ever gaining sentience coming, how stupid of them!" Is that how you guys feel?

 

[Lorus]

Ultron isn't a killer robot until he kills someone. He could have the most benign of purposes in his earliest iteration, similar to JARVIS, but still end up becoming the villainous Ultron he's destined to be. Ultron is always upgrading himself in the comics, and word of God says that multiple iterations will be seen in the film. It seems to me that all Ultron needs is intelligence in his earliest form, before he gains sentience and that would cover all bases. If, for example, Ultron were designed as some form of defensive/protective protocol (similar to how the Rescue armour in the comics had no offensive capabilities) he could choose to subvert his programming as a middle finger to his despised creator. There are tons of ways Ultron could be a creation of Stark's which don't involve him building a giant death machine.

 

[DrCosmic]

^Boom.

If anything Ultron will decide to go get the HYDRA algorithm after Cap tells him about it.

Edit:

Wait, are you guys saying asking why would Tony Stark build Ultron-5? I totally agree, Stark wouldn't build an Ultron so that all he has to do to take over the world is go evil. Ultron when he is first built/goes bad will likely be no more prepared to kill all humanity than JARVIS was in IM3. Maybe less so.

 

[Ant-manic]

Hmmm... I think you have a deflated view of Hank Pym. Just recently, Hank Pym is the guy the Avengers turned to to train children in Avengers Academy, the guy who the Reed Richards turned to to lead an FF crew.

would you like to correct yourself or should I?

 

[Ant-manic]

Um, yes....yes Pym *was* irreparably damaged. And yes, he's not as beloved as Stark --- never has been, never will be. That's been my whole point about Pym =/= Stark.

Pym is damaged goods.

not because of Ultron. I think most people consider that to be the coolest thing he has ever done. he's damaged goods because of beating up Janet. she was the "little sister" of the founding Avengers. it'd be like Bradley Cooper giving Jennifer Lawrence a sexually transmitted disease. take that one incidence of spousal abuse out of the equation and Pym's just a mad scientist who created a highly advanced A.I.; probably during an upswing in his bipolar disorder.

 

[JJ01]

Hmmm... I think you have a deflated view of Hank Pym. Just recently, Hank Pym is the guy the Avengers turned to to train children in Avengers Academy, the guy who the Reed Richards turned to to lead an FF crew. He's definitely been redeemed. So, people who read him in the comics, and the characters in the comics, at least, don't see it that way.

http://i.imgur.com/Ftwwaab.jpg - page to big, couldn't resize

And when he says ''forgiven'', he doesn't mean they all see him as a good-guy Hank. They see him as unstable, because of everything he's been through. I can't believe you actually suggested ''reading up on the original Ultron stories if you have trouble imagining how a superhero could accidentally create Ultron'' a few pages ago, yet you pretty much confirmed you just read wiki articles at best. You keep asking the same questions even though I already gave you the answers. This is why the thread is now 4 pages long filled with walls of text. You say you want to keep the ''feel'' of the original story, by replacing only Stark in this. That's the whole feel. An AI created by an avenger, who hates humans and has an oedipus complex, (THIS IS WHY I KEEP BRINGING IT UP, you also said you wanted all these things in some other thread and this is part of the ''feel'', by not making him just a killer robot) not because he just wanted to do a good thing, but because after seeing Stark was Iron Man, after being just a guy with ''lame'' powers in a team that has Thor, Hulk and Iron, and after Pym Particles being his only relevant discovery in science, he felt he had to be the first one coming up with an AI like Ultron. The way Stark has been stablished is nothing like Pym. And if you don't include that, then it's not the same feel someone had while reading that story. Again, you can't know Whedon's entire feel unless he told you word by word what he exactly meant.

And the reason the audience didn't blame Stark for Killian's crimes, is because Shane Black did a good job introducing Killian in the first what? 10 minutes? as a damn joke. As a damn stereotype. The movie is comedy. It's probably a good Shane Black movie. But it's definitely not a good MCU movie. And you want to know why? Because it didn't bring anything fresh or new to the table. The MCU's appeal is to see the heroes from the comics in the big screen, sharing the same universe. That's why people complained about the Mandarin twist. Because that's the main appeal, and Trevor was nothing but a joke. Killian was just another bussiness man, only this time he had powers. Firebreath, for instance. Which he only used once. And that wasn't even fighting Stark. You seriously think Ultron is going to crack jokes or be displayed as something funny and comedic? Do you find killing people funny, which he's going to do?, since he's a killer robot. Read Reed's comment in one of those pages I posted. At his core, he's a killer robot. Just like Cap, Iron Man and Thor are heroes.

 

[DrCosmic]

not because of Ultron. I think most people consider that to be the coolest thing he has ever done. he's damaged goods because of beating up Janet. she was the "little sister" of the founding Avengers. it'd be like Bradley Cooper giving Jennifer Lawrence a sexually transmitted disease. take that one incidence of spousal abuse out of the equation and Pym's just a mad scientist who created a highly advanced A.I.; probably during an upswing in his bipolar disorder.

^Pretty much.

would you like to correct yourself or should I?

Dang, I was wondering why I couldn't find anything on it. It was so Scott Lang in the Future Foundation. Didn't know he ended up becoming such a scientist. Regardless, Hank Pym passes whatever background check you need to teach super powered children, so... yeah.

 

[Ant-manic]

^Pretty much.



Dang, I was wondering why I couldn't find anything on it. It was so Scott Lang in the Future Foundation. Didn't know he ended up becoming such a scientist. Regardless, Hank Pym passes whatever background check you need to teach super powered children, so... yeah.

in FF, he introduced himself as a nanotech specialist and an electrical engineer. but Reed didn't call him up to be a scientist. he wanted he, She-Hulk, and Medusa as teachers. but Scott had to have picked up stuff along the way. he used to live with the Fantastic Four and handled the upkeep of Reed's private lab (while Reed was presumed dead).

as for Hank, i never quite understood why Captain America picked him to run Avengers Academy. i don't want anyone to think that i'm insulting the character. but this was shortly after a disheveled and freshly skrull-napped Pym started screaming at Jan's funeral. his face, at that point, was associated with the Skrull Invasion and the Camp Hammond tragedies. wtf was Cap thinking; placing Pym, Quicksilver (orchestrator of House of M), and Tigra (fresh off going Punisher on the Hood's gang) in charge of kids feared to become super-villains? i know why it happened out-of-story; for purposes of drama. in-story, it should have come as no suprise that these kids were doomed. one of the kids blackmailed Pietro into training her as a terrorist.

back to Hank, he has a lot of good traits. he should be respected simply because he's been around since Tales to Astonish and is second only to Reed Richards in the exotic science department. his appeal is that he's unpredictable.

 

[DrCosmic]

And when he says ''forgiven'', he doesn't mean they all see him as a good-guy Hank. They see him as unstable, because of everything he's been through.

Incorrect. Hank doesn't clarify the word forgiven in this way. Reed addresses what Hank is currently going through, not what he's been through in the past.

I can't believe you actually suggested ''reading up on the original Ultron stories if you have trouble imagining how a superhero could accidentally create Ultron'' a few pages ago, yet you pretty much confirmed you just read wiki articles at best.

Personal, not important to the facts or logic.

You keep asking the same questions even though I already gave you the answers. This is why the thread is now 4 pages long filled with walls of text.

Incorrect. You avoid questions by restating the premise and restarting the discussion. Current question being avoided:

Why would Doom not being to blame make it illogical? Is the only reason to be mad that you're a slave is if Doom is the one who lets you know? If Scarlet Witch, not Doom, lets you realize, hey, you're a slave to Tony Stark and there's nothing you can do about it. Is it *illogical* for you to dislike Tony Stark?

You say you want to keep the ''feel'' of the original story, by replacing only Stark in this. That's the whole feel. An AI created by an avenger, who hates humans and has an oedipus complex, (THIS IS WHY I KEEP BRINGING IT UP, you also said you wanted all these things in some other thread and this is part of the ''feel'', by not making him just a killer robot) not because he just wanted to do a good thing, but because after seeing Stark was Iron Man, after being just a guy with ''lame'' powers in a team that has Thor, Hulk and Iron, and after Pym Particles being his only relevant discovery in science, he felt he had to be the first one coming up with an AI like Ultron. The way Stark has been stablished is nothing like Pym. And if you don't include that, then it's not the same feel someone had while reading that story.

Incorrect. I never requested those things. That is not the whole feel according to the film's writer and director, Joss Whedon. Reminder: I am disregarding both my and your personal feels.

Again, you can't know Whedon's entire feel unless he told you word by word what he exactly meant.

Query: What basis is there to conclude that Whedon did not already say word for word what he exactly meant?

And the reason the audience didn't blame Stark for Killian's crimes, is because Shane Black did a good job introducing Killian in the first what? 10 minutes? as a damn joke.

Evidence not found for statement. No corroborating reports on this reasoning for audience reaction exist. Please provide evidence.

As a damn stereotype. The movie is comedy. It's probably a good Shane Black movie. But it's definitely not a good MCU movie. And you want to know why? Because it didn't bring anything fresh or new to the table. The MCU's appeal is to see the heroes from the comics in the big screen, sharing the same universe. That's why people complained about the Mandarin twist. Because that's the main appeal, and Trevor was nothing but a joke. Killian was just another bussiness man, only this time he had powers. Firebreath, for instance. Which he only used once. And that wasn't even fighting Stark. You seriously think Ultron is going to crack jokes or be displayed as something funny and comedic? Do you find killing people funny, which he's going to do?, since he's a killer robot.

Inconclusive. Argument based on unproven premise "Audience Sees Killian as a Joke.prem" Will revisit argument when premise is proven true.

Read Reed's comment in one of those pages I posted. At his core, he's a killer robot. Just like Cap, Iron Man and Thor are heroes.

Incorrect. Generic descriptors are not core characteristics, by definition. No basis exists for claiming Reed Richards is commenting on Ultron's core.

 

[cherokeesam]

I'm gonna bow out of this one, since neither I nor Doc are ever even going to remotely change our minds about who creates Ultron, even when one (or both) of us is ultimately proven to be wrong.

All I can say is let the best mad scientist win.

 

[DrCosmic]

Hmm... not quite. I change my mind when given proof, and I'm a totally skeptical that we're going to avoid talking about this over the next three hundred and eighty some odd days, but... okay, good luck bro.