Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Avengers Sequels' started by The Overlord, Dec 3, 2011.
No, I'm hoping you'll stop posting entirely.
Also, that's not a goat, genius.
I really can't believe Thanos is beating Ultron in the poll...
Also, if we're being even remotely faithful to source material, Kang is so much more deserving of being the antagonist in an Avengers movie than Thanos. The villian has so much more history with the team and, arguably, some of the most important story arcs in all of the Avengers' print history (Avengers Forever and the Kang Dynasty).
Also (again), the Hank Pym hate makes me sad.
Thanos and Ultron have been in videos games. Kang the Conqueror? I would pick Marvel ' Morgan La Fey ' over Krang.
What video games? I've personally never seen Thanos in a game. Ultron and Kang were (very recently) in the Facebook Avengers Alliance RPG.
Thanos hasn't been in an issue of Avengers in the last 15 years (barring his appearance in the continuity light Avengers Assemble series launched to captialize on the first film last year). I pretty confident in that claim but I could always be wrong. Kang had a major 16 issue arc (#41-55 + annual) in 2002 where he destroyed Washington D.C. and conquered Earth. I know Thanos killed most of the Avengers once but Kang is no small threat either. I'm just arguing that he is much more important to Avengers' lore, specifically, than Thanos and thus more deserving of some big screen recognition.
As for Morgana Le Fay, she's an established threat too but we already had a magic threat in the first movie and she is relatively low on the list as far as recognizable villains go (granted the list is pretty short). I would argue that Thanos is really not that much of an Avengers threat but rather a universal one, like Galactus or even Doom. His cosmic nature makes him much better suited for another movie, like Guardians of the Galaxy (I wish!).
Personally I would say that it's a good reason to use Thanos as a bit threat for the Avengers, as it's about as tough as you can get (depending on what they choose to do with him of course). That the threat has a cosmic feel is a pretty clear way of showing why you really need a team of the most powerful heroes, rather than one of them with a little backup. Kang of course has a similar feel to him though.
If anything I'd say that point of Thanos more argues for that it might be too soon to use him as the frontline antagonist since many other powerful villains will seem to be a step down from him.
Then again the Avengers will probably keep going for quite a while so we'll get to many villains and they can't all go bigger and badder than before, they just have to be different kind of threats.
Yes, if by entirely, you mean dead.
we may still see kang. or immortus some down the line/
so you are saying you are dead?
don't answer for me. it might have nothing to do with Ultron's creation. or it might have everything to do with it; depending on how and/or if they want to introduce Ultron in the cinematic universe. if they wanted to streamline things, they could (theoretically) have Stark be behind Ultron's creation. there's now precedent for it since Ultron now has ties to Stark within the books and animated series. they've already eliminated Pym and Janet as founding Avengers. Robert Downey jr may be wrapping up his turn as Tony Stark. they might give him the Ultron story as a parting gift of sorts. arrogantly using his own brain patterns to create artificial intelligence sounds exactly like something movie Tony would do. movie stark has all of the human foibles needed to make Ultron a threat. again, i'm not personally an advocate of it. but don't act like it's something they wouldn't consider; simply to save space.
Here we go again.
it's too early to tell what will or won't be rational. if, for some strange reason, Pym is appearing only in flashback or a retiree in the Ant_man movie, it'd might not be as logical to use him as Ultron's creator.
i don't see how it'd be superfluous to Stark. it'd be the logical next step in his evolution. he starts out as the best weaponeer on the planet. he sees how dangerous these weapons can be in the hands of others. he fights to take those weapons back.
next part of the story involves others trying to replicate his weapon and Tony discovering a higher purpose (thanks to his father's recordings).
then comes extremis; human "iron men."
next...the weapons, themselves, gaining sentience i.e. Ultron
I wouldn't mind Stark building Ultron while Hank is credited for the AI.
Ultron would become Yet Another Killer Robot. And general audiences and movie critics alike would correctly point out that Stark will have already been there/done that with the drones in IM2 and with Extremis-powered suits in IM3.
The last thing Tony Stark needs to build in the MCU post-IM3 is another robot/drone/suit that takes on a life of its own.
Another Hulk movie would do better than Ant Man.
I was going to hit on the exact same points, but was beaten to the punch.
And another Avengers movie would do better than another Captain America movie. By your implied logic, why not make Avengers 2 in lieu of CA:TWS?
You just missed the point.
I don't think I did... but ok, maybe so.
Can you elaborate on your point, please?
I have a suggestion for everyone....
Stop the petty arguing, post civilly, and play nice.
True. But again. Why save space? Why would they do that when ALL the elements to create Ultron the way he was originally are there in phase 3? I just don't see changing it up. If they had no plans for ant-man, sure. But he is coming. Why have Ultron be someone else's creation if all the elements for his original creation are there in the MCU?
and as Sam has said, it takes away from Ultron. Ultron in the MCU would just become another killer robot bent on destroying humanity. Which is weary, and quite repetitive. Stark is already the face of the MCU, but he doesn't have to do with EVERYTHING.
It's all opinionated. However, one fact, atleast in my eyes, my opinion that it's a fact lol, is that if Stark creates Ultron, we will be loosing some good character development from Ultron AND Pym. Pym has to do it.
I was literally asking you what you meant. Literally that's it. You are now on my ignore
Mmmmmm the whole things depends on Antman's reception imo. If Ultron is going to become a big baddy, then the audience is going to have to give two craps about Pym because of the dynamic between he and Utron as seen in the comics. Otherwise, nobody's going to care about the daddy issues and he still becomes "just another killer robot". At this point it's really a stretch to think Pym would be so completely front and center in an ensemble like the Avengers.
Seeing as how they reshaped where the Iron Patriot came from, it's not far fetched to believe they could do it for Ultron. I've long bought into the idea that Ultron inevitably will be some kind of creation as a backstop for SHIELD or the government in case they need it against the Avengers. Creative liberties will continue to be taken in the MCU. I mean look at Mandarin as well.
or he'd be Stark's backup plan to take out the other Avengers if need be. he is paranoid enough to do something like that (a la Batman). if SHIELD were stockpiling weapons to fend off asgardians, why wouldn't Stark do the same? they could easily say that Ultron was the last ditch scenario; someone to carry on in case Stark is killed. they did something similar to it on the Earth's Mightiest cartoon.
because money isn't unlimited. because Edgar Wright hasn't given many details about his Ant-Man movie. because they've already eliminated Hank and Jan as founders. because maybe they want to add some other character. a company is making these movies. they are motivated by more than creativity and appreciation for canon.
why do you keep saying that as if it's a given. Wright might not use Hank at all. Wright's plans might change; ending any development on an Ant-Man movie. this wasn't Marvel's idea. they might haven't even considered it if he hadn't already had that pitch in mind. and what other elements are you referring to? there's no mention of Jan in Phase 3. the only A.I. we've "seen" has been J.A.R.V.I.S.
you do not have enough information to make that claim. it's as meaningless as saying, "Mandarin not having alien rings takes away from him." in each movie, they've drastically changed something. and all of these movies have been serviceable; despite the changes. the Avengers don't have a mansion. the Avengers don't have a butler. they didn't find Hulk in a circus. Rick Jones is nowhere to be found. Justin Hammer isn't an old british guy. Stane didn't drive Tony into the gutters. Nick Fury's a black guy. Hawkeye's not a carnie. this is its own universe. Ultron will be whatever they can market to the larger movie audience.
that's all he does in the books. only fans of Pym care about Ultron's relatively uninteresting daddy issues. everyone else just remembers Thor "having words" with it and Tony Stark transforming into a woman.
i wouldn't get your hopes up. they haven't even properly introduced Thanos. they might skip Ultron and go straight to Kang or Zemo.
Pym shouldn't create Ultron because Disney will run out of money?
Pym won't create Ultron because details haven't leaked for a movie that is two years away?
Pym won't create Ulton because he and Jan didn't found the Avengers?
Pym won't create Ulton because Marvel wants to add another character? (That's my favorite) (Suggestion for new character: Ant-Man)
While that is true, this company's assets are it's characters. Marvel must stay true to it's characters, otherwise, what does it have?
Ant-Man will be in the MCU, that is a given. It is a given because the MCU must be planned out in advance. The architects of the MCU have ideas planned out in advance, the MCU wouldn't work otherwise. Ant-Man is in the MCU because Marvel wants it there, not because of Edgar Wright.
You said yourself "Edgar Wright hasn't given many details about his movie." There not being a mention of Jan so far, is proof of nothing.
The only AI we've seen is JARVIS so it should be assumed Stark creates Ultron? So JARVIS is now Ultron? Do we have to call him Ultron or can we still call it JARVIS? Will he still be really polite? Making JARVIS be Ultron and Stark the creator would be confusing. Start clean with Pym as the creator.
All of the changes you bring up are merely cosmetic. None of those changes have the impact of changing the origin story of one of the best villains of all time.
Because Ultron's daddy issues are the cool part of the character. Hey Marvel, make sure to highlight that part in the film!
What? "They haven't properly introduced Thanos"? Well, yeah but we know he will be introduced considering the roll he plays in both Guardians and Avengers 2. That seems like it will be enough of an introduction. The rest of your statement is just speculation based on nothing.
You said so yourself: it'd be just like Batman. ZOMG NERDRAGE COPYCAT yadda yadda yadda. Stark keeping secret files on his teammates is redundant in the MCU because (a) Nick Fury already has that avenue of paranoia well-covered; and (b) unlike Batman, Iron Man doesn't *need* to know the achilles heels of his comrades to take them out ---- he can (and does) just build a suit specially designed for that use (i.e., Hulkbuster, Thorbuster).
And the Avengers don't need to start getting paranoid about each other. They're "superfriends" now. From what I can see of IM3 so far, the paranoia Tony is experiencing is directed at the *bad guys* of this universe, not the *good guys.* He trusts Hulk and Thor (maybe more than he should). His personality might clash with Cap, but he has no real reason to hate, fear, or mistrust him --- he's freakin' Saint Steve Rogers. And fear or mistrust the SHIELD "help," like Tasha or Clint or Fury or Hill...? Not even worthy of his consideration.
We're still a long, long way from any kind of "Civil War" in the MCU. No need to start planting those seeds yet. If ever.
....And what was that all about....? Janet Van Dyne. i.e., Oedipus issues. That whole schtick wouldn't have worked at all without Janet and Hank playing Mommy and Daddy to their unruly "child."