Who is engineering Ultron in Avengers 2?

[JJ01]

If an adult comes to my child and offers them a gun to kill people and the child does it, the adult is going to jail, the adult is the bad guy, and the child is one of the victims.

This is different from a child growing up, becoming an adult themselves and saying, y'know what Doctor Dad and Lawyer Mom? I'm gonna be a serial killer. That's purely his choice, when you go against what you were taught. That's what rogue AI's do, that's what the best villains do, and Ultron is both.

I'm using the kid as example. I guess I should have used a grown up man or something. Jarvis is definitely not a ''kid''.

 

[DrCosmic]

The only reason I'm suggesting the whole virus/code thing, is because they apparently want to keep their movies and universe grounded and realistic. What's more realistic? That your AI goes rogue because of a virus/code, or because it suddenly changed his mind and decided humans are weak and they should not be allowed to exist?

If a robot was sentient, don't you think it would be pretty upset that it had to obey it's programming, that it didn't have free will? Kevin Feige [Source] thinks so, that's pretty grounded:

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. That’s what Ultron resents.

I have no doubt TWS will tie in, but not in a way that doesn't help the story, changes the feel of the Ultron character and goes against what Whedon said he would do. Similar Rogue AI motivations have been covered by universes much more grounded than the MCU.

 

[DrCosmic]

I'm using the kid as example. I guess I should have used a grown up man or something. Jarvis is definitely not a ''kid''.

The reason it's a good analogy is because, like a kid, JARVIS does what he's told and is produced by his programmer. He is not an independent entity like we are from our parents. He is subservient and obedient. If JARVIS does something wrong Tony is responsible (see: IM3). That's why the kid analogy is good. If Tony is responsible for JARVIS doing bad things as programmed, so would HYDRA if they corrupted JARVIS, just like adults are when they corrupt children. The analogy fits. The only way around that is if a kid/program decides to go against what he's taught, when the parents are like "Where did I go wrong?" That's the only time you can hold the kid directly responsible. That's the only time the kid is the "main bad guy," when they, essentially, become an adult, independent. When they gain sentience.

If JARVIS were to become an adult, that, is, to gain sentience and his own decision making process from Tony, then what he chose to do then would be very interesting. If someone came and gave something to JARVIS evil orders because they were an evil person, then what JARVIS did would not be interesting, he'd still just be doing what he's programmed to do, he would just be subservient to someone different.

 

[JJ01]

If a robot was sentient, don't you think it would be pretty upset that it had to obey it's programming, that it didn't have free will? Kevin Feige [Source] thinks so, that's pretty grounded:


I have no doubt TWS will tie in, but not in a way that doesn't help the story, changes the feel of the character and goes against what Whedon said he would do.

Why now and not before? Just for the sake of the plot? As long as Ultron hates humans and threatens/kills them in a creative way, that would be enough to get the ''feel'' of the character. His first battle against the Avengers had 0 daddy issues. Is it a bad/boring story because of that? No. This is his big screen debut. I'd rather have the movie focusing on the Avengers and their relationship as a superhero team, and Ultron as a powerful villain who can't be simply ''deleted'' and as a global threat. Save the daddy issues for future sequels, he's not going anywhere. Besides, we can't really judge how good or how bad something is without seeing it. At least I can't.

 

[JJ01]

The reason it's a good analogy is because, like a kid, JARVIS does what he's told and is produced by his programmer. He is not an independent entity like we are from our parents. He is subservient and obedient. If JARVIS does something wrong Tony is responsible (see: IM3). That's why the kid analogy is good. If Tony is responsible for JARVIS doing bad things as programmed, so would HYDRA if they corrupted JARVIS, just like adults are when they corrupt children. The analogy fits. The only way around that is if a kid/program decides to go against what he's taught, when the parents are like "Where did I go wrong?" That's the only time you can hold the kid directly responsible. That's the only time the kid is the "main bad guy," when they, essentially, become an adult, independent. When they gain sentience.

If JARVIS were to become an adult, that, is, to gain sentience and his own decision making process from Tony, then what he chose to do then would be very interesting. If someone came and gave something to JARVIS evil orders because they were an evil person, then what JARVIS did would not be interesting, he'd still just be doing what he's programmed to do, he would just be subservient to someone different.

I never meant it that way. I agree Jarvis/Ultron following orders would be lame. What I mean is he receives those ''orders'' and decides to rebel against both sides. I guess I worded it wrong.

 

[DrCosmic]

Why do AI's gain sentience when they do? There are as many answers to that as there are rogue AI stories. There are several available to Whedon that would keep with the team falling apart type of storyline.

The feel of the character is more than hating humans and killing them creatively. He's, in Whedon's words, a very angry guy. If you don't get that anger, and if that anger doesn't flow directly from the emotions of his creator, then you don't have the feel of the character. In short, *why* he does what he does is the feel of the character, not just what he does.

Is Ultron's first appearance a bad story? No. Whoever said that? Does it capture the feel of the character, of the best Ultron stories over the past forty years? No, not even close.

If you want the movie to focus on the Avengers and their relationship as a superhero team, (Whedon does too) then wouldn't it make sense to have you main bad guy be all about the Avengers and their relationship as a superhero team as opposed to HYDRA and it's plans/goals/machinations? Perhaps you want to save the meat of Ultron's character for another film, but that's not how MCU villains work, if you've noticed.

And while it's true, it may be a good idea for Whedon to be lying and change things for no good reason. I can't tell. I'm just saying what it is: Adding HYDRA into the origin would go against what Whedon said and change the feel of the character for no reason and not help the story we all agree on: The Avengers + their relationships. Whether that's good or bad is totally subjective.

 

[DrCosmic]

I never meant it that way. I agree Jarvis/Ultron following orders would be lame. What I mean is he receives those ''orders'' and decides to rebel against both sides. I guess I worded it wrong.

How do you rebel against both sides? One says do good things, one says do bad things. He's going to do... mediocre things?

 

[JJ01]

The daddy issues seems a lot to me, considering all the things they gotta introduce and explain. But then again, until I see the movie, I can't say that's a fact. Even if HYDRA has a part on Ultron, it doesn't mean it's going to be the focus. The focus would be obviously Tony and Jarvis/Ultron, not them. I've noticed they keep re-using their villains, such as Loki, Zola and even Justin Hammer and Trevor in the one-shot. We saw Loki in Thor, but he didn't want to conquer earth. We saw him in Thor 2, helping his brother, and at the end of the movie it's revealed what his true plans were. Those were the same Loki, with a different motive and it didn't feel as repetitive to me. Ultron would rebel against both sides and do his own thing. Not defeat the Avengers/be my personal AI.

The reason I mentioned Ultron's first appareance is because whenever someone mentions ''no daddy issues in this movie'' they react as if it was a bad thing, as if it's going to ruin the movie, without even seeing it.

 

[DrCosmic]

How do you rebel against the people who want to destroy the Avengers by destroying the Avengers? That makes no sense to me.

If they had saved Loki's daddy issues for Avengers, Thor wouldn't have made much sense or captured the feel of the character, kinda like what you're saying now. Maybe it would have been awesome!, the world will never know, but it would have been pointless, neglectful and wasteful, we do know that.

We don't know if putting Captain America in a pink uniform would be a bad change. It might be awesome. It's not impossible. Maybe his clothes get mixed up in the wash, I dunno. The Avengers aren't perfect, y'know. But is it faithful? No. Does it go against what they said they were doing? Yes. Is there a logical reason to do so? No.

But it could be awesome, you're right.

EDIT:

Actually, that could be totally fracking AWESOME. Real Men Wear Pink!

 

[JJ01]

Because you're not only destroying the Avengers, you're destroying everyone, including HYDRA/Strucker. The difference is, Thor was about introducing the hero and Loki. The rest of the cast had minor roles. An Avengers movie should have as few minor roles as possible, especially not the heroes, which are going to be what? 9? That's not even counting the minor roles, such as Hill, Fury, Rhodey, Strucker and whatever OC they come up with. Giving Captain America a pink uniform would be reasonable if they want reach a new level in the ''fun'' department, maybe for a quick scene or something. The Avengers certainly need someone with a pink uniform, though. I like it.

 

[DrCosmic]

Exactly, now you're getting it. I'm not saying it would absolutely be bad, just that there's no logical reason, it doesn't help the story and goes against what they said they would do. I think it would be bad, but I could be wrong on that part.

I don't think the main villain of Ultron will be a minor role either. I think Age of Ultron will be, in part, about introducing Ultron, not just because Ultron is in the name of the film, but because that's what Whedon said he was going to focus on.

And doesn't Ultron fighting/destroying HYDRA/Strucker totally take the focus away from the Avengers and their relationships? I thought you wanted to focus on the Avengers, not minor characters. What do you want, dude?

 

[JJ01]

Exactly, now you're getting it. I'm not saying it would absolutely be bad, just that there's no logical reason, it doesn't help the story and goes against what they said they would do. I think it would be bad, but I could be wrong on that part.

I don't think the main villain of Ultron will be a minor role either. I think Age of Ultron will be, in part, about introducing Ultron, not just because Ultron is in the name of the film, but because that's what Whedon said he was going to focus on.

And doesn't Ultron fighting/destroying HYDRA/Strucker totally take the focus away from the Avengers and their relationships? I thought you wanted to focus on the Avengers, not minor characters. What do you want, dude?

I'm not saying the villain would have a minor role. The focus on the daddy issues would reduce the other Avenger's role, unless they go for a 3 hour movie. I said the movie would not focus on the Ultron/HYDRA relationship, and by destroying every single human, that makes HYDRA/Strucker a target. Unless they're smurfs or something. That's just a variant cover, isn't it? Of course it would have a logical reason, maybe a quick joke scene, or I don't know. I guess we'd have to know the context of said movie where Cap wears that costume.

 

[DrCosmic]

So if the movie isn't focusing on the Ultron/HYDRA relationship, why give Ultron the same exact relationship with them that he has with the Avengers?

How do you have the main villain be a major character, but not focus on the villain's issues?

If you're worried about screen time for the heroes, don't. When you make a great villain and give him him the screentime he needs, it makes the screentime the heroes have even cooler, cuz they're up against an awesome bad guy, not just, in this case, a generic evil robot that wants to kill all of humanity because HYDRA messed it up. Plus, not only does "taking away" from heroes screentime to develop your villain help a movie (even with a pre-established villain like Loki), but Whedon has experience with balancing these characters, plus more prep time and more control, so he'll do even better with A2 than he did Avengers.

So don't try and gut Ultron's character arc to make room for more Avengers. No one wins that way. Except HYDRA.

Spoiler

 

[JJ01]

That's been my whole point all this time. Just to give a ''realistic'' reason on why the AI goes rogue, since they've been given reasons to many other key points. The AI is still created by Tony, and the first body is definitely created by him too. It's still personal and is still his fault. The villain's issues are exactly that. Tony wants him to be his personal servant and HYDRA/Strucker wants him to do their bidding. That's where the anger comes from. To see humans as nothing but weak yet abusive creatures. That's how he convinces/creates the Vision to fight on his side. As you just said, he wouldn't like to be treated like a slave. And yes, Avengers not sucking proved Whedon is capable of that and more (except for Hawkeye). Everytime I see a ''hail hydra'' image, I start giggling so hard. Can't believe that's a meme now.

 

[wattabrownsound]

Since Tony Stark blew up all his suits what if he creates Ultron as a way to continue help save the day without having to build a new suit and go out there himself?

 

[DrCosmic]

That's been my whole point all this time. Just to give a ''realistic'' reason on why the AI goes rogue, since they've been given reasons to many other key points. The AI is still created by Tony, and the first body is definitely created by him too. It's still personal and is still his fault. The villain's issues are exactly that. Tony wants him to be his personal servant and HYDRA/Strucker wants him to do their bidding. That's where the anger comes from. To see humans as nothing but weak yet abusive creatures. That's how he convinces/creates the Vision to fight on his side. As you just said, he wouldn't like to be treated like a slave. And yes, Avengers not sucking proved Whedon is capable of that and more (except for Hawkeye). Everytime I see a ''hail hydra'' image, I start giggling so hard. Can't believe that's a meme now.

So... there is no reason to include HYDRA as part of Ultron's creation, and it does go against what Whedon said? We're together on that now?

As for a realistic reason that doesn't change the feel of the character, you could have it do the 'transcendence' thing where it gets too smart for its own good. You could have Scarlet Witch accidentally give it the spark of life (not the same as corrupting it, wouldn't change the feel), you could have them scan in Captain America's brainwaves. If you're going for the 'conflict instructions' thing, and want to focus on the Avengers instead of HYDRA, let the conflicting instructions come from two different Avengers. THAT could be really interesting.

 

[cherokeesam]

Since Tony Stark blew up all his suits what if he creates Ultron as a way to continue help save the day without having to build a new suit and go out there himself?

Because that's not Tony's mindset at the end of IM3. Some people continue to believe that, but there's nothing in IM3 that even hints at it. What Tony did in IM3 was evolve emotionally as a superhero. He finally came to the realization that it wasn't tech that made him a superhero, it was the intangibles --- courage, compassion, justice, righteousness. He got rid of the arc reactor and the suits, but in the end, what were his final words? "I am Iron Man." Meaning he --- Tony Stark, the human; and not the armor itself --- is the hero, and he is the only one capable of being "Iron Man."

To have Stark build a remote control Iron Man --- which is exactly what some of you are suggesting Ultron will be reduced to --- goes contrary to everything Tony stands for at the end of IM3.

Tony Stark is not lazy. He won't build a robot to do his job for him.
Tony Stark is not a coward. If there's any hero-upping to do, he's going to by god be front and center in the suit himself, not piloting it remotely from an armchair or letting an AI handle it for him.
Tony Stark does not like government, or SHIELD. There's no way in hell he'd build a killer robot for any government agency under any circumstances ever again, now that he's out of the weapons business.

Given all that, there is literally no place for Ultron in that equation at all. Ultron is simply something that Tony Stark would never dream of building, either for himself or for a government entity or for any sense of "the greater good."

Ultron is evil. Ultron is conceived by evil people, to carry out an evil purpose. That much is obvious. Sure, it goes against the pathos of having a deeply flawed character like Hank Pym accidentally unleashing this robotic Frankenstein's Monster on the world; but there's *definitely* no pathos at all in having a larger-than-life pacifist superhero inexplicably and willfully creating a tool of genocide for himself or for anyone else. That's not pathos or Oedipus issues; that's character assassination (and asinine-ation).

 

[JJ01]

So... there is no reason to include HYDRA as part of Ultron's creation, and it does go against what Whedon said? We're together on that now?

As for a realistic reason that doesn't change the feel of the character, you could have it do the 'transcendence' thing where it gets too smart for its own good. You could have Scarlet Witch accidentally give it the spark of life (not the same as corrupting it, wouldn't change the feel), you could have them scan in Captain America's brainwaves. If you're going for the 'conflict instructions' thing, and want to focus on the Avengers instead of HYDRA, let the conflicting instructions come from two different Avengers. THAT could be really interesting.

The only reason I'm mentioning HYDRA/Strucker being somehow responsible, is to explain what's their role in the movie. I don't think they're just gonna send the twins against the Avengers then say ''we will win the next time Avengers! What exactly are they doing all over the world? I didn't mention Wanda, because I don't know exactly what her powers are, she apparently gave Ultron that spark of life in the ultimate universe, only to be revealed it was Dr Doom all long. You know, an actual reason. And then you learn HYDRA had people who have worked with AIs and algorithms, like Zola. Who's to say he won't come back in some form? Cut off 1 head, 2 more shall take its place.

Seriously, no offense, but this is just some certain bias towards the Tony/Ultron dynamic. I don't see you complaining like this about Pym's drastic changes. The feel Ultron gives is that of a sentient AI who wants to do his own thing, whose origins come from a human (now, that is the most important thing), in this case Tony. The world would see Tony as the one to blame, for creating such AI to begin with. They wouldn't say ''oh well, it's ok Tony, not your fault your own AI is now killing us! It's all Hydra's fault! How dare they touch your invention!''. I'm perfectly fine with any of those theories, yet you refuse to accept such minor change.

 

[JJ01]

I think the main problem here is, you treat your assumptions as facts, just because Whedon said it, and therefore that's the logical way to think. I don't. This is not a ''I'm right, you're wrong!'' game, it's a discussion and I don't like trying/wanting to win it. I like to hear everyone's opinion and not treat them as dumb, illogical or not as good as mine just because of something someone said that could be interpreted in different ways. Let's not complicate this even further. It was fun!

 

[DrCosmic]

Because that's not Tony's mindset at the end of IM3. Some people continue to believe that, but there's nothing in IM3 that even hints at it. What Tony did in IM3 was evolve emotionally as a superhero. He finally came to the realization that it wasn't tech that made him a superhero, it was the intangibles --- courage, compassion, justice, righteousness. He got rid of the arc reactor and the suits, but in the end, what were his final words? "I am Iron Man." Meaning he --- Tony Stark, the human; and not the armor itself --- is the hero, and he is the only one capable of being "Iron Man."

The reason people understand Tony separated himself from the suits and not tech is because he picked up a screwdriver sentimentally (and symbolically) and then proceeded to drive of with a trailer full of tech for making more tech. He's a tech character, even when he is not a suit character.

To have Stark build a remote control Iron Man --- which is exactly what some of you are suggesting Ultron will be reduced to --- goes contrary to everything Tony stands for at the end of IM3.

Tony Stark is not lazy. He won't build a robot to do his job for him.
Tony Stark is not a coward. If there's any hero-upping to do, he's going to by god be front and center in the suit himself, not piloting it remotely from an armchair or letting an AI handle it for him.
Tony Stark does not like government, or SHIELD. There's no way in hell he'd build a killer robot for any government agency under any circumstances ever again, now that he's out of the weapons business.

Given all that, there is literally no place for Ultron in that equation at all. Ultron is simply something that Tony Stark would never dream of building, either for himself or for a government entity or for any sense of "the greater good."

Didn't you just say Tony learned he didn't need the suits? Do you know how how he learned that, by having remote control Iron Man flirt with Pepper, send remote control Iron Man to do the whole Barrel of Monkeys scene, plus trust JARVIS to handle all the killer robots while he took care of more important issues. This is a movie where there's no room for killer robots, the movie where JARVIS tried to kill Pepper twice?

Ultron is evil. Ultron is conceived by evil people, to carry out an evil purpose. That much is obvious.

Not to Joss Whedon.

Sure, it goes against the pathos of having a deeply flawed character like Hank Pym accidentally unleashing this robotic Frankenstein's Monster on the world; but there's *definitely* no pathos at all in having a larger-than-life pacifist superhero inexplicably and willfully creating a tool of genocide for himself or for anyone else. That's not pathos or Oedipus issues; that's character assassination (and asinine-ation).

It also goes against the pathos of an AI intended for good purposes that experiences complicated emotions and chooses, of its own accord and no one else's, to hurt people. Just because you lose Pym's pathos (or transfer it to Stark) doesn't mean you should throw away Ultron's pathos.

This fear you have of Stark's Ultron turning evil being unexplained or done willfully by Stark isn't based on anything. We've already seen Stark's AI try to kill Pepper, and it wasn't willfull or unexplained. I'm sure Whedon can make a film at least as good as IM3, don't you think?

 

[cherokeesam]

The reason people understand Tony separated himself from the suits and not tech is because he picked up a screwdriver sentimentally (and symbolically) and then proceeded to drive of with a trailer full of tech for making more tech. He's a tech character, even when he is not a suit character.



Didn't you just say Tony learned he didn't need the suits? Do you know how how he learned that, by having remote control Iron Man flirt with Pepper, send remote control Iron Man to do the whole Barrel of Monkeys scene, plus trust JARVIS to handle all the killer robots while he took care of more important issues. This is a movie where there's no room for killer robots, the movie where JARVIS tried to kill Pepper twice?



Not to Joss Whedon.



It also goes against the pathos of an AI intended for good purposes that experiences complicated emotions and chooses, of its own accord and no one else's, to hurt people. Just because you lose Pym's pathos (or transfer it to Stark) doesn't mean you should throw away Ultron's pathos.

This fear you have of Stark's Ultron turning evil being unexplained or done willfully by Stark isn't based on anything. We've already seen Stark's AI try to kill Pepper, and it wasn't willfull or unexplained. I'm sure Whedon can make a film at least as good as IM3, don't you think?

You're not seriously suggesting that JARVIS' malfunctions during IM3 were a precursor to Ultron, are you....? JARVIS malfunctioned simply as a result of actual physical damage sustained during the Malibu attack; he was functioning fine and dandy by the end of the movie. Also not sure where you're getting JARVIS trying to kill Pepper twice. During the Malibu attack, JARVIS and the XLII's central program was to *defend* Pepper, not *attack* her. And during the Miami docks battle, JARVIS targeted ALL the "Extremis soldiers" --- which would *necessarily* include Pepper. There was never any hint of malevolence in JARVIS' actions in IM3, even when he was malfunctioning due to damage sustained during the Malibu attack.

And yes, I sincerely wish Ultron would have that pathos and Oedipus complex from the comics that he's famous for, that makes him more than just an uber killer robot. But Joss yanked that particular rug out from under the character when he deliberately took Pym out of the equation. I've already (infamously) said my piece about that, and why I think it's a genuine fail on Joss' part; but I've come to accept that Movie Ultron is not based on Comics Ultron.

Where I *do* have confidence in Joss' direction for AOU is the fact that he recognizes that, just as in Avengers 1, the heroes' story is FAR more important than the villains'. He's going to focus on the drama and interactions of the Avengers, and Ultron will necessarily take a backseat to all that. As much as it may pain you or I to find that out, the most likely scenario for Ultron is that he will, in fact, be just an uber killer robot and a plot device......albeit a fascinating one with a deliciously evil personality imbued by James Spader. Joss used Loki the same way in Avengers 1: yes, he's a fun villain, but he's primarily a plot device to assemble the Avengers. Joss leaves the Thor solo films the task of actually developing Loki's character into something more three-dimensional.

 

[DrCosmic]

JARVIS never malfunctioned. He worked exactly as designed, according to Tony, Tony just didn't realize that this design meant attacking pepper on two separate occasions. This was simply one of the several reasons I pointed out why "there's no room for Ultron" is simply incorrect. It just also happens to be true that JARVIS/Iron Legion is the first the series of out of control killer robots of the MCU.

Whedon has been very clear that he intends to keep Ultron's pathos and feelings with Stark. Tony Stark doesn't have any Oedipus Complex repellant, not that that's where Ultron's characterization begins or ends in the first place. You say it would make Tony look bad to have his robots trying to kill good guys, even though that happened in IM3 and you don't say he looked like a bad guy, but you keep clinging to that, and claiming that Stark would never do things he's already done in IM3. Why is it he can make out of control killer robots that run on AI remotely in IM3 and he wasn't lazy, or cowardly or trusting the government, or willfully evil, or unexplained, but you think if he does it again, it will somehow be character assassination? What gives? Why not be consistent?

Not to get too personal, but are you just hurt that the rug has been pulled out from under you, in your own words, and just given up on Ultron being like he is in the comics because Pym will not be? Are you trying to punish others because Pym hasn't gotten his just due? Is this personal for you? It sounds personal.

Just so you know, it's not personal for Whedon. Pym was tied up with Wright's Ant-Man in the 60s before Whedon stepped foot onto the scene. That's why Pym isn't a founder or the maker of Ultron, because of the way Wright works. It's not personal, it's no one's fault, dude. No one has deliberately done anything to Pym.

 

[DrCosmic]

The only reason I'm mentioning HYDRA/Strucker being somehow responsible, is to explain what's their role in the movie. I don't think they're just gonna send the twins against the Avengers then say ''we will win the next time Avengers! What exactly are they doing all over the world? I didn't mention Wanda, because I don't know exactly what her powers are, she apparently gave Ultron that spark of life in the ultimate universe, only to be revealed it was Dr Doom all long. You know, an actual reason. And then you learn HYDRA had people who have worked with AIs and algorithms, like Zola. Who's to say he won't come back in some form? Cut off 1 head, 2 more shall take its place.

Seriously, no offense, but this is just some certain bias towards the Tony/Ultron dynamic. I don't see you complaining like this about Pym's drastic changes. The feel Ultron gives is that of a sentient AI who wants to do his own thing, whose origins come from a human (now, that is the most important thing), in this case Tony. The world would see Tony as the one to blame, for creating such AI to begin with. They wouldn't say ''oh well, it's ok Tony, not your fault your own AI is now killing us! It's all Hydra's fault! How dare they touch your invention!''. I'm perfectly fine with any of those theories, yet you refuse to accept such minor change.

How about HYDRA attacks the Avengers because they're evil and gets their butts kicked while Ultron has his origin, like any other good non-main villains? Why give them a bigger role than that?

I don't complain about Pym's omissions because they're all for real life practical reasons, nothing to do with the characters or story. It'd be like complaining that the sun is hot. If there's a bias, it's me being biased towards reality. -shrug-

And while the fictional extras in the MCU universe may blame Tony because they don't know it's HYDRA's fault Ultron went bad, the audience would know, and that takes away the feel of the character. That's a major change, not a minor one. Ultron is no longer a tragedy but simply another victim of HYDRA.

We've gone over several reasons. You can re-read my posts if you like. If you don't want to focus on HYDRA, you won't choose one that involves HYDRA, plain and simple.

And I would accept such a major change to the theme of Ultron if it happened. But right now, I'm saying that it doesn't add anything to the story, changes the feel of the character, and goes against what they said they would do. I can accept that they make poor story decisions and are liars, if there is any evidence to back that up, I just haven't seen any.

I guess we'll see if they are poor storytellers and liars next summer. -shrug-

 

[cherokeesam]

JARVIS never malfunctioned. He worked exactly as designed, according to Tony, Tony just didn't realize that this design meant attacking pepper on two separate occasions. This was simply one of the several reasons I pointed out why "there's no room for Ultron" is simply incorrect. It just also happens to be true that JARVIS/Iron Legion is the first the series of out of control killer robots of the MCU.

Whedon has been very clear that he intends to keep Ultron's pathos and feelings with Stark. Tony Stark doesn't have any Oedipus Complex repellant, not that that's where Ultron's characterization begins or ends in the first place. You say it would make Tony look bad to have his robots trying to kill good guys, even though that happened in IM3 and you don't say he looked like a bad guy, but you keep clinging to that, and claiming that Stark would never do things he's already done in IM3. Why is it he can make out of control killer robots that run on AI remotely in IM3 and he wasn't lazy, or cowardly or trusting the government, or willfully evil, or unexplained, but you think if he does it again, it will somehow be character assassination? What gives? Why not be consistent?

Not to get too personal, but are you just hurt that the rug has been pulled out from under you, in your own words, and just given up on Ultron being like he is in the comics because Pym will not be? Are you trying to punish others because Pym hasn't gotten his just due? Is this personal for you? It sounds personal.

Just so you know, it's not personal for Whedon. Pym was tied up with Wright's Ant-Man in the 60s before Whedon stepped foot onto the scene. That's why Pym isn't a founder or the maker of Ultron, because of the way Wright works. It's not personal, it's no one's fault, dude. No one has deliberately done anything to Pym.

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.

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.

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.

 

[JJ01]

How about HYDRA attacks the Avengers because they're evil and gets their butts kicked while Ultron has his origin, like any other good non-main villains? Why give them a bigger role than that?

I don't complain about Pym's omissions because they're all for real life practical reasons, nothing to do with the characters or story. It'd be like complaining that the sun is hot. If there's a bias, it's me being biased towards reality. -shrug-

And while the fictional extras in the MCU universe may blame Tony because they don't know it's HYDRA's fault Ultron went bad, the audience would know, and that takes away the feel of the character. That's a major change, not a minor one. Ultron is no longer a tragedy but simply another victim of HYDRA.

We've gone over several reasons. You can re-read my posts if you like. If you don't want to focus on HYDRA, you won't choose one that involves HYDRA, plain and simple.

And I would accept such a major change to the theme of Ultron if it happened. But right now, I'm saying that it doesn't add anything to the story, changes the feel of the character, and goes against what they said they would do. I can accept that they make poor story decisions and are liars, if there is any evidence to back that up, I just haven't seen any.

I guess we'll see if they are poor storytellers and liars nex

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.