The Avengers: Age of Ultron is Live. Don't forget the Spoiler Tags, Damnit.Movies 

  • Thread starter niky
  • 377 comments
  • 20,308 views
Going by the SHIELD clip, it looks like they are setting up Thor's downfall as well. The hammer-lifting game looks like harmless joking around, but I'm willing to bet someone will pick up the hammer by the end of AGE OF ULTRON.
No need for another to pick up the hammer. In Civil War comics Stark uses a robotic Thor with a hammer it can control. It doesn't go well.

Thor was AWOL leading up to Civil War, which would make sense to have RAGNAROK happen just after Ultron. Thor might be a bit busy.
I'm willing to bet that Thor falls during ULTRON. Loki becomes ruler of Asgard, and the realm comes under attack in RAGNAROK. Thor would ultimately be revived, but the Avengers are divided over the defence of Asgard; they are vital allies, but going to their defence will leave the earth vulnerable, leading to CIVIL WAR (I don't think the Registration Act would translate well onto the big screen).
They setup the socio/political argument for the registration act in TWS, though. They were targeting all potential super threats. "This isn't freedom. It's fear." Hydra or no, even Fury defended the idea of monitoring them as a security measure. No one will allow automated monitoring with possible preemptive measures ever again, but making them register will be an acceptable option.
 
@FoolKiller: No I didn't forget. What I said was that out of everyone that has appeared in the MCU so far, only two has the strength to lift Thor's Hammer, the aforementioned Hulk and Captain America. Hulk was able to do it without being declared worthy by Odin, whereas with Captain America, he would have been able to lift it and gain Thor's power had he not died in the Civil War.
 
They setup the socio/political argument for the registration act in TWS, though.
TWS wasn't a straight adaptation of that storyline, though. It was a synthesis of two.

X3 experimented with the idea of controlling the mutant population, and it didn't translate well onto film (though that may have been Brett Ratner's fault). The problem with a CW storyline is that it was applied to the entire Marvel universe. The MCU has fewer super characters than the comics, so any dispute is going to be localised in the film when it was worldwide in the comics. That's why the Avengers falling out over the defence of Asgard would work - it means leaving the earth vulnerable, creating a dispute that affects everyone whilst retaining a lot of the themes from the comics. And there is a precedent - a synthesis of "Civil War" and "Siege". It could tie in with the idea you floated of Ultron being cast off into space and encountering the Kree, who could then attack Asgard.
 


If there's any doubt to this being where they plant the Civil War seeds...
 
TWS wasn't a straight adaptation of that storyline, though. It was a synthesis of two.
I'm not saying TWS was a direct adaptation, but that the moral dilemma that leads to Civil War is introduced.

X3 experimented with the idea of controlling the mutant population, and it didn't translate well onto film (though that may have been Brett Ratner's fault).
The same can be said for Captain America, Hulk, and Thor. Let's be honest, no exceptionally huge Marvel ideas played out well before Marvel took the reigns.

The problem with a CW storyline is that it was applied to the entire Marvel universe. The MCU has fewer super characters than the comics, so any dispute is going to be localised in the film when it was worldwide in the comics.
The fact that CW is in a solo film makes me wonder how it will play out. What makes it a CA film and not just Avengers 2.5?

I have this vision of Stark being appointed director of SHIELD and implementing policies that Rogers disagrees with. It might just be a continuation of TWS, where it is just SHIELD vs SHIELD more than heroes vs heroes on a big scale. Honestly, the aftermath and events of TWS should have had more Avengers jumping in.

That's why the Avengers falling out over the defence of Asgard would work - it means leaving the earth vulnerable, creating a dispute that affects everyone whilst retaining a lot of the themes from the comics. And there is a precedent - a synthesis of "Civil War" and "Siege". It could tie in with the idea you floated of Ultron being cast off into space and encountering the Kree, who could then attack Asgard.
For Siege to be part of the story woud require some major events with Asgard in Age of Ultron. Part of me wonders if it will turn out that Thor in AoU is not really Thor, or if something happens to Thor and Stark creates a clone (Ragnorak) to defeat Ultron.

I could see a scenario similar to yours where Thor must return to Asgard before AoU is concluded, Stark creates a Thor clone, and that clone returns to Asgard, believing itself to be Thor. Only it finds out it isn't and becomes Ragnorak. I'm not sure how that affects CW though.

Depending on how the contracts play out Hemsworth might not have room to be in Civil War. The Thor clone may not play a part, which fits the CA solo title.



OK, new thought process: What if Stark leads SHIELD. In Civil War he is just a side character implementing some form of registration act. SHIELD is divided and the movie just follows Cap's efforts with his few buddies that we've met by this point. Depending on how AOS plays out there could be room for bit characters (as far as the movies are concerned) to show up with Coulson. If you bring Black Widow, Hawkeye, Agent May (I could totally see her disagreeing with someone violently), Mockingbird, Agent 13, and so forth into the mix you get a universe-wide cast of heroes that aren't main solo acts.
 
CW would only work if the heroes are fighting one another over the means to an end, rather than the ends itself. Both factions would want the same thing, but where they differ is in how they go about it. That's why I think a division over the defence of Asgard would work - both factions want to protect earth, but one feels that the best way to do that is to join in the defence of Asgard, but the other thinks that doing so would leave earth vulnerable if Asgard were to fall.
 
Think the first one was better because of just how things came together. The selection of song (which was appropriate for the main antagonist), the way the footage was put together AND the intimidating lines with the voice over (of which there were more of), all of it which overall sold just how dark and perilous this is going to be. In a way, it felt more like a massive build up in itself.
 
I don't think that's the problem. I think they just really produced a trailer that amounts to "Oh, hey, remember us? Yeah, we're still releasing soon" without any further thought pit into it.
 
There's quite a few nods to expanding the MCU. It doesn't have quite the impact of the first one, sure, but a good chunk of the first trailer's impact is likely due to just that: it was the first. The handful of Black Panther tie-ins make me wonder how many balls the movie is juggling, though.
 
The handful of Black Panther tie-ins make me wonder how many balls the movie is juggling, though.
If anybody can handle it, it's Joss Whedon. When he was working on "Buffy" and "Angel", he was setting things up years in advance. There are reference to Dawn in the second season of "Buffy", even though she didn't appear until the fifth.
 
I'm sorry if this is slightly off topic but I'm not sure in which thread to post this cool video from Flite Test.

 
Schmoes Know is confirming what you, me and quite frankly everyone else who is a fan already knew. Citing sources inside Marvel, they have "confirmed" that Andy Serkis is playing the Black Panther foe Ulysses Klaw in Age of Ultro

Offering up some further details... (possible spoilers)

Offering up some further details, the website reports that the Klaw that will appear in Avengers: Age of Ultron will have a history that blends the comic book origins of Klaw and his father, Fritz Klaue, including the latter’s relationship with Hydra mastermind Baron Von Strucker.

If the information is true, count on Serkis having a multi-film deal as he will appear in the Black Panther film as well as Age of Ultron.
 
For those who haven't heard yet: the Sony leaks showed that Marvel was in discussions with the company on how to best handle Spiderman. Last night, they announced that it will be happening, that we will be getting a (likely) newly-cast Parker joining as early as Civil War (which makes sense). What is surprising about all this is news here:

http://screenrant.com/marvel-phase-3-spider-man-release-dates/

Spidey gets his own movie in 2017 (I swear it better not be another reboot with a green villian), but the shifting of the movies means Black Panther won't get his own movie until after Avengers 3.1 (despite the original intent of him showing up in Cap 3 next year, and Wakanda seemingly playing a part in Ultron), and rather more worringly, the Inhumans movie now won't show up until after Avengers 3.2 wraps up.

Has Marvel stretched themselves too thin trying to fit Spidey in? Can Agents of Shield really run with an Inhumans plot for the next four years?
 
...that we will be getting a (likely) newly-cast Parker joining as early as Civil War (which makes sense).

I wouldn't rule out Spiderman showing up in the Avengers AOU post credits scene. These can apparently be shot at the last minute, and Civil War is due to start shooting in April so Parker would probably be cast by that stage.

http://comicbook.com/2015/02/10/could-new-spider-man-make-his-debut-in-avengers-age-of-ultron-af/

Very exciting news though, think it is the right decision from Sony who have been trying to make a mountain out of a molehill for far too long. They will still get to call shots on how Spiderman is represented in the Marvel universe as well.
 
I don't like it. How many Spiderman movies have we had over the past two decades?

And how many Black Panther movies? Or Inhuman movies?

If the Marvel Cinematic universe is going to thrive, it needs to diversify. Big names can be big draws, but the declining numbers for Spiderman over the past five movies show that there is such a thing as overmillking a cow.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Spider-Man

Do note... the reboot was actually pretty good. I mean, we can argue about it, but they did Spiderman right, and it was generally well received after the disaster that was Spiderman 3, but it still didn't fare all that well.

Maybe Marvel's Mighty Movie-hype Machinery can Sling the Sinking Spider-Series up, but it's not a guaranteed thing.

Throw some other stuff at the screen. See what sticks. Let the series rest for another few years...
 
I've never really like Spider-Man, so I'm not that excited about this. Than again, a decade ago I also wasn't huge on Captain America so I'll give them a chance.
 
The problem is that Sony only had 1 character to throw... They're problem was that they set off wrong, killing Green goblin in the very first movie. As a one off, good move - but not when you want to milk it as a series. They then killed off Doctor Oc after that and sealed the fate of Spiderman 3.

That's when they should have paused. It was in that moment where someone stood up and said "we can make this work if we start all over" and felt that enough years had passed. I'm a big fan of the reboot, but it is growing thin now. Will wait and see on this. I'm not up to date with many of the comics, but I know Spiderman is important to the story of Civil War. Maybe it will be productive for Sony to see what Marvel do with their character, and the base they set for yet more standalone Spiderman films.
 
I'm guessing Marvel wouldn't offset their schedule for Spiderman unless they felt that it was either absolutely necessary, or worth it. And there is a bit of a gap in the Avengers' line-up - Joss Whedon has said that the line-up in the first film had superpowers that amounted to "basically punching". He tried to change that up for Age of Ultron, introducing the likes of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, but I think he'd go for every available hero with a broad range of abilities, especially a flagship character like Spiderman.
 
I keep thinking that this might be too much for them to wrap up cohesively - especially with Inhumans now taking place after Avengers 3.2. But I suppose, if Whedon is still the guy in charge of making sure all the plotlines within the MCU tie together nicely, any of these movies could take place in a earlier time period than their chronological release dates suggest. There's nothing stopping, say, the Black Panther movie being set around the events of Ultron, showing a different angle.

Either way, I'm still more cautious than anything. If Ant-Man isn't the first comparative dud of the MCU, I wouldn't be terribly surrpised if the new Spiderman is. It's too fresh in peoples' minds, it requires another reboot to avoid trying to fit the established canon of the ASM movies into the existing MCU stuff, and to be honest, I still think Garfield was an absolutely stellar casting choice.
 
Apparently, they did consider keeping him, but they didn't.

I suppose the idea is that they have to reintroduce the character, and rather than retconning several years of Marvel Movie history, he turns out to be a normal high school kid who becomes Spiderman right around the time everything else is happening.

I disagree with that. There's no reason a shared Universe has to reference itself every other scene. I think it would be easier to simply insert a working-level Peter Parker, ace photographer, freshly transplanted to New York City after the events of Avengers.

-

Not my property, though. And they've got a successful thing going, so I hope they know what they're doing. Still, it's a daunting task... trying to keep a multi-year plan going, hoping your core audience doesn't age out of your demographic zone before the last movie runs. :D
 
Isn't Sony still behind the helm of the Spiderman (new) movies? and they're still doing the sinister six and venom movies? how did they approve of Garfield's absence.
 
A couple of key players have left the company - most notably Amy Pascal, who managed their franchise rights. And with Rise of Electro suffering from serious mismanagement (the script was clearly written by a dozen different people), not to mention their mishandling of other IPs - most notably Quantum of Solace - they probably had no choice but to release the rights back to Marvel. Especially in the wake of the hacking attack.
 
Back