So this trailer was leaked earlier and Marvel frantically had it removed anywhere they could find it (while blaming Hydra for it!). I guess they realized that since it was on the internet already, it wasn't going anywhere so they released the official trailer!
EDIT: I must of missed the source material of Hulk vs Ironman.
I don't think the full plot details have been revealed yet, but from what I understand, Tony is concerned about Hulk losing control after he sees him in action so he builds the Hulkbuster armor in case he ever needed to take him down. I'm guessing Banner finds out about it (maybe by way of Ultron because he was built by Tony in this continuity) and doesn't take too kindly to it so they fight it out.
Look at how many freaking suits of armor that Tony built in IM3....most with specialized powers/purposes.
Iron Man is kind of like Batman, at least in these movies....you know how Bats is always the "man with the plan" and has contingencies to defeat many of the other heroes in the DC universe?
TheMeanDM wrote: Look at how many freaking suits of armor that Tony built in IM3....most with specialized powers/purposes.
Iron Man is kind of like Batman, at least in these movies....you know how Bats is always the "man with the plan" and has contingencies to defeat many of the other heroes in the DC universe?
That's how I see Tony at this point in time.
His paranoia also plays in to the Civil War storyline that is supposed to featured in Captain America 3...
Looks great. Ultron looks amazing. Not sure why QS/SW are working with him though. Ultron's solution to "we need to have peace on Earth" is to annihilate humanity, so why work with two humans?
I hope breaking the shield is a big dramatic beat, and not some throwaway thing. Earth's Mightiest Heroes made a pretty big deal about Cap's shield getting destroyed, what with Loki (charged with the Odinforce) going "You have no idea what you're dealing with!", and then just blasting the shield apart. I wish they'd saved "the breaking" for something to do with the Infinity Gauntlet.
In any case, maybe the breaking of the shield will lead us into Wakanda/Vibranium and therefore Black Panther.
I hope breaking the shield is a big dramatic beat, and not some throwaway thing. Earth's Mightiest Heroes made a pretty big deal about Cap's shield getting destroyed, what with Loki (charged with the Odinforce) going "You have no idea what you're dealing with!", and then just blasting the shield apart. I wish they'd saved "the breaking" for something to do with the Infinity Gauntlet.
In any case, maybe the breaking of the shield will lead us into Wakanda/Vibranium and therefore Black Panther.
I remember Molocule man destroying Thor's hammer, Cap's shield, and Silver Surfer's board all at the same time without blinking an eye as they charged him. That stopped them dead in their tracks, and it was like, damn!
We don't see Tony in the suit so it could be AI controlled or The Vision. They also show Banner in a vehicle with the others with them all looking despondent so it wouldn't surprise me if the attack on Hulk is early on by his own. The Pinocchio reference is nice and James Spader comes across as evil as hell.
What I love about this:
Ultron's voice
Hulkbuster
Witch and Quicksilver look good
Ultron looks fething amazing
FURY IS BACK!
Cap is using the awesome TWS costume
Did I mention Ultron?
What I hate:
What do you mean I have to wait until May to see this?
I think it's pretty clear that Tony is in the suit and it looks to be pretty close to the comics version of the Hulkbuster armor; an exoskeleton add-on to the standard armor.
Also, where was the Vision in the trailer? Did I miss him?
Rusty Trombone wrote: I'm trying to figure out if I turned a corner and am 'too old' anymore, or if I'm suffering from superhero fatigue. Either way...
...Meh.
Maybe I'm just sooo over CGI every-bloody-thing. Odd. I love Cap, but....
Welcome to the dark side. Soon, indie films will suddenly become very attractive. Next stop...Bollywood! I liked the Quicksilver actor in XMen better. But he's awesome in American Horror Story so I have a soft spot for him.
I'm not saying that Tony isn't in the suit, just thinking of other possibilities. I mean, this is about a malevolent AI that comes from Iron Man's drone work. The idea that Ultron uses an Iron Man suit to attack the team isn't really that out there. I get the impression he doesn't have a body initially. Look at the team when they show him animating that other Iron Man suit, then of course there is the line "There are no strings on me" when he is in his own body. Again, all speculation. Might not be like that at all.
I remain impressed with the Avenger movies. I was never a fan of the comics, but the first Avengers movie was a lot of fun, and this one just looks epic.
Black Widow "deep striking" on a bike from the shuttle craft is pretty slick, and design of Ultron and the Hulkbuster armor make my inner child squee in delight.
As far as we know, no he isn't. However, given he is one of the most popular characters in the movies I would not be surprised to see him get a cameo at some point.
I'm not saying that Tony isn't in the suit, just thinking of other possibilities. I mean, this is about a malevolent AI that comes from Iron Man's drone work. The idea that Ultron uses an Iron Man suit to attack the team isn't really that out there. I get the impression he doesn't have a body initially. Look at the team when they show him animating that other Iron Man suit, then of course there is the line "There are no strings on me" when he is in his own body. Again, all speculation. Might not be like that at all.
Noted.
I think there is a good chance that what happens in the movie might involve something along those lines, especially in regards with Ultron commandeering an Iron Man suit, but given that a variation of the Civil War story line is going to be the plot of Cap 3, I'm more inclined to think that Tony confronts the Hulk on his own volition (or on behalf of S.H.I.E.L.D.) because he legitimately fears what he is capable of if left unchecked.
The other thing I am thinking of is that this could also remove Banner from the Avengers like in the original comics, which could prove interesting.
Goliath wrote: The Ulysses Klaw rumours would lend credence to theories regarding Wakanda, would they not?
I could see it tying in with the breaking of Cap's shield, Wakanda being the largest source of Vibrainium and all that. Part of me hopes that, if it happens, doesn't come into the A2 film much, as between Ultron and Strucker there's enough going on.
Paradigm wrote: What I love about this:
Ultron's voice
Hulkbuster
Witch and Quicksilver look good
Ultron looks fething amazing
FURY IS BACK!
Cap is using the awesome TWS costume
Did I mention Ultron?
What I hate:
What do you mean I have to wait until May to see this?
Alpharius wrote: Did you...just debunk it yourself, right in front of us?!?
No, I don't think I was all that clear...
What I'veseen points to it being a Civil War-type storyline (which makes sense to me on a number of levels), there just hasn't been any confirmation from the studio or actors involved, other than Downey saying, "It's gonna be huge."
Paradigm wrote: What I love about this:
Ultron's voice
Hulkbuster
Witch and Quicksilver look good
Ultron looks fething amazing
FURY IS BACK!
Cap is using the awesome TWS costume
Did I mention Ultron?
What I hate:
What do you mean I have to wait until May to see this?
Why no Ant man.... he made ultron not tony stark.
I just hope not to see a "Iron man 3" scenario.
Because Ant-Man hasn't been introduced as a character yet, and to wait until he's introduced would mess up Marvel's schedule?
He's getting his own movie (Michael Douglas as Pym and Paul Rudd as Lang and Evangeline Lilly as "Hope" Van Dyne - so...The Wasp?!?) later on so...no can do here!
This is a new Ultron of the Marvel Movie Universe!
That almost annoyed me when I first read about it, but it makes sense now. Firstly, it allows them to basically bring Stark full circle; he says in the trailer about this being 'the end of what he started'. Also, whether we as fans like it or not, Ant Man is probably the biggest risk Marvel have taken so far, it makes sense to leave him out from what should be their headline title for the next few years. Ultimately, Ultron's origin works just as well with Stark as the 'father/creator', with the added bonus of rounding out Stark's arc.
Guardians was a risk, but ultimately it does play on themes that have been proven to work (sci-fi, bit Western, obviously super-hero, slight comedy), the biggest risk was the setting not taking, but at the same time that was an advantage, as it could get away with a lot more without affecting the main MCU if it flopped.
Ant-man, meanwhile, is very much grounded on Earth, and with a lead role that, to non-fans, is borderline ridiculous ('so, this guy shrinks to the size of an ant and talks to them? Okaaay...'), so could have undermined AoU a bit if he didn't go down well.
As it stands, I'm confident Ant Man will be a good movie, as again they're going with a genre rather than Super-hero (heist, in this case), but to someone unfamilliar with the comics, I think GotG would be an easier sell as you can just pass it off as Avengers+Magnificent 7+Star Wars
I don't know. If the budgets are even close to the same I'd say that Ant-Man is a far greater risk. Guardians had that epic sense of adventure and scope, even in the previews. Plus it laughed at itself. I have to say that personally between the two I would put Ant-man way down the ladder in comparison.
Aye, the moment I saw the poster with 'You're Welcome' on it... I had to laugh, at that point they had to be supremely confidant in it to pull such a cocky advertising slogan... but it damn well worked.
This trailer looks amazing, I had no doubts that this would be a excellent film, hell I've not disliked any of the MCU films so far.. and that's including Norton's Hulk, although I do now prefer Ruffalo... but that was something else. My hype meter exploded about thirty seconds in... and my need to see it can only increase the closer we get to April.
Hulksmash wrote: I don't know. If the budgets are even close to the same I'd say that Ant-Man is a far greater risk. Guardians had that epic sense of adventure and scope, even in the previews. Plus it laughed at itself. I have to say that personally between the two I would put Ant-man way down the ladder in comparison.
You did see the part that said Paul Rudd is Ant-Man, right?
I think Ant-Man will have the right blend of comedy, adventure and SF to do quite well.
I think they're possible building up the next wave of Avengers here, for when the Big Stars are No Longer Interested.
Hulksmash wrote: I don't know. If the budgets are even close to the same I'd say that Ant-Man is a far greater risk. Guardians had that epic sense of adventure and scope, even in the previews. Plus it laughed at itself. I have to say that personally between the two I would put Ant-man way down the ladder in comparison.
You did see the part that said Paul Rudd is Ant-Man, right?
I think Ant-Man will have the right blend of comedy, adventure and SF to do quite well.
I think they're possible building up the next wave of Avengers here, for when the Big Stars are No Longer Interested.
Not saying that's what's going on, or even if that would 'work', but...
Agreed, AM should do well, especially given the cast, track record and the fact that, frankly, Marvel now know 100% how to make a great film on just about anything. I can just see why they left him out of A2. There's the fact that they are already bringing in 3 new Avengers in QS, Witch and Vision. Also, if Civil War is coming in some form, this could well be the 'last hurrah' for the original team before the times go a-changing, hence wanting to put Stark at the centre of the action.
I think, by the aftermath of Avengers 3, we'll have a lineup led by Bucky-cap, and with Vision, Witch, Quicksilver, Ant-man, maybe Dr Strange and possibly War Machine and a later Thor iteration (maybe Thunderstrike?). Basically, there's a lot of ways they can go when the Big 3 leave.
To be honest, I think the reason they made such a deal of him being alive at the end of TWS was that, one way or another, he still has some part to play in Cap's arc, and if Civil War happens and ends the way it should, well...
Stan's signed for six films if I recall.. tbh I'll be more surprised if he didn't get the shield at some point, though not 100% if it'll be AV3, as I can't see how Cap can buy it in AV2 and then be in Cap 3.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: Stan's signed for six films if I recall.. tbh I'll be more surprised if he didn't get the shield at some point, though not 100% if it'll be AV3, as I can't see how Cap can buy it in AV2 and then be in Cap 3.
Interesting, I didn't know he was on a multi-film contract. He could take over after Cap 3 (especially if Civil War is happening), but then Evans is on for 6 movies as well, so more likely he'll come in after Avengers 3.
Either way, I look forward to it, as he was perfect as The Winter Soldier and could really bring a darker edge to Cap, I think.
Ugh. This so didn't do it for me. Maybe it was the cringe inducing slow-mo Pinocchio in the background, but there was just no hint of fun of in this.I really hope this doesn't continue with the feel of Cap 2.
Chongara wrote: ...there was just no hint of fun of in this.I really hope this doesn't continue with the feel of Cap 2.
To an extent, I agree. I think one of the key elements to the success of the Marvel films is that they have been fairly light and fun, as opposed to the dark and serious of the DC films. That's one reason why I really hope we don't get the Civil War storyline in the movies (also because the idea was kind of already done in the first three X-Men movies).
EDIT: I must of missed the source material of Hulk vs Ironman.
I don't think the full plot details have been revealed yet, but from what I understand, Tony is concerned about Hulk losing control after he sees him in action so he builds the Hulkbuster armor in case he ever needed to take him down. I'm guessing Banner finds out about it (maybe by way of Ultron because he was built by Tony in this continuity) and doesn't take too kindly to it so they fight it out.
Just a guess though.
Just to play on your guess a bit here.... Tony isn't in the Hulkbuster suit, Ultron is either physically inside it, or is controlling it somehow.
Judging from the rest of the trailer clip, it seems as though Stark has built his "IM drones" because he's "retired" from the superhero game (as basically every clip of him in the trailer he's in civilian clothes.
I could see it tying in with the breaking of Cap's shield, Wakanda being the largest source of Vibrainium and all that. Part of me hopes that, if it happens, doesn't come into the A2 film much, as between Ultron and Strucker there's enough going on.
Another somewhat wild guess.... BP will show up in the after-credits scene, or after the fight someone will be talking about needing more vibranium, and a silhouetted man shows up and says, "I may know where to get Vibranium"
Well to be fair, Tony is always in his civilian clothes... I mean, he rocks a suit and tie under his armor in Iron Man 2.
Even I think he's fighting the Hulk without any outside interference, I still enjoy speculation as much as everyone so carry on!
I also saw something interesting on another site: someone took a still of the Hulk's face and it kinda looks like the blue "veins" are near his eyes similar to what Selvig and Hawkeye had when under control by Loki's staff.
Hulksmash wrote: I don't know. If the budgets are even close to the same I'd say that Ant-Man is a far greater risk. Guardians had that epic sense of adventure and scope, even in the previews. Plus it laughed at itself. I have to say that personally between the two I would put Ant-man way down the ladder in comparison.
You did see the part that said Paul Rudd is Ant-Man, right?
I think Ant-Man will have the right blend of comedy, adventure and SF to do quite well.
I think they're possible building up the next wave of Avengers here, for when the Big Stars are No Longer Interested.
Not saying that's what's going on, or even if that would 'work', but...
You did see where I said in comparison to Guardians it's more of a risk, right?
Paul Rudd hasn't had a hit movie in how long? It's not that I don't think Marvel won't make it work. I think it'll be fine. Just that Ant-man is more of a risk if the budget's the same than Guardians ever was. Guardians also, outside of the movie itself, had super easy commercial tie-in's that make most of the rest of the movies seem tame with Groot and Rocket.
He was in Anchorman 2 last year and it got good reviews and made a ton of money.
I'd still say that in comparison to Guardians, GotG was more a risk. Guardians had relatively unknown characters, an ensemble cast, and it was led by an actor who had never carried a movie before (you can't count the LEGO Movie because he was cast before that came out); it had so much working against it and they pulled it off.
Ant-Man, while not a marquee character, is more well known than the Guardians because he is an old school Avenger (hell, even the old guys I work with, who know next to nothing about comics, remember Ant-Man was from their childhood) and has two pretty big names attached to it: Paul Rudd and Michael Douglas. It is still a risk, but not near as much as Guardians was.
I think you guys are looking at it thru a prism of knowledge of comics and not actual movies and merchandising. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Hulksmash wrote: I think you guys are looking at it thru a prism of knowledge of comics and not actual movies and merchandising. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Either way Avengers 2 looks sick!
Agreed. Outside dusty comic book stores "Ant Man" sounds like a SNL spoof. Also agreed on the serious note. One of the many reasons I wasn't impressed with IM3 was that it was trying to be serious. If I want serious and vaguely depressing, I can watch better movies. Guys in spandex don't cut it for "serious."
Hulksmash wrote: I think you guys are looking at it thru a prism of knowledge of comics and not actual movies and merchandising. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Either way Avengers 2 looks sick!
Merchandising GotG was a massive risk too. Marvel was banking on being able to sell an obscure talking raccoon and tree in a movie that people may not like. That's a huge risk; if the product you offer sucks, the merchandise is worthless.
It's was bigger risk all around; the fact that Guardians featured unknown characters had a lot to do with the risk (you can't discount that), but it was an effects-laden sci-fi film with an ensemble cast led by an unknown actor. Outside of storied franchises (Star Trek, Star Wars), that is some pretty hard gak to sell.
Hulksmash wrote: I think you guys are looking at it thru a prism of knowledge of comics and not actual movies and merchandising. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Ya think? I like Paul Rudd, but no one should be pretending he's A-list or bank at the box office.
And Guardians also doesn't mean that everything that Marvel touches will be gold. I'm sure Ant-Man will be fine. But in general I think Marvel may have a harder time as they're forced to replace heroes and dip deeper into their pool of characters.
Edit: A2 looks good, I guess...another smash-em-up.
gorgon wrote: Edit: A2 looks good, I guess...another smash-em-up.
This is an Avenger's movie. What were you expecting?
Plot?
Given the single preceeding Avengers movie, what made you expect a good plot? The first movie was fantastic, but the plot was super basic. Its strength came from all of those characters playing off of each other with some pretty good performances to back it up.
gorgon wrote: Edit: A2 looks good, I guess...another smash-em-up.
This is an Avenger's movie. What were you expecting?
Plot?
Given the single preceeding Avengers movie, what made you expect a good plot? The first movie was fantastic, but the plot was super basic. Its strength came from all of those characters playing off of each other with some pretty good performances to back it up.
You're overrating the acting IMO (the film didn't exactly call for nuanced performances), but basically I'm not allowed to expect anything better?
Okay fine, that just confirms my somewhat lukewarm feelings about the thing. *shrug*
gorgon wrote: Edit: A2 looks good, I guess...another smash-em-up.
This is an Avenger's movie. What were you expecting?
Plot?
Given the single preceeding Avengers movie, what made you expect a good plot? The first movie was fantastic, but the plot was super basic. Its strength came from all of those characters playing off of each other with some pretty good performances to back it up.
You're overrating the acting IMO (the film didn't exactly call for nuanced performances), but basically I'm not allowed to expect anything better?
Okay fine, that just confirms my somewhat lukewarm feelings about the thing. *shrug*
The Avenger movies are ensemble cast action-comedy popcorn movies, I've never expected much more than explosions, jokes, and minimum plot to move things along.
The Avenger movies are ensemble cast action-comedy popcorn movies, I've never expected much more than explosions, jokes, and minimum plot to move things along.
Agreed...While movies like Die Hard or Expendables arent necessarily "ensemble cast" movies, when you see a trailer for them, or go to the theater/DVD shop, etc. you know EXACTLY what you're getting in the bargain.
The Avenger movies are ensemble cast action-comedy popcorn movies, I've never expected much more than explosions, jokes, and minimum plot to move things along.
Agreed...While movies like Die Hard or Expendables arent necessarily "ensemble cast" movies, when you see a trailer for them, or go to the theater/DVD shop, etc. you know EXACTLY what you're getting in the bargain.
Very true.
I also don't think that there is anything wrong with expecting a movie like that with the addition of a well-rounded plot, some deep morality tale, or more complex characters. I just know that The Avengers won't have that.
gorgon wrote: Edit: A2 looks good, I guess...another smash-em-up.
This is an Avenger's movie. What were you expecting?
Plot?
Given the single preceeding Avengers movie, what made you expect a good plot? The first movie was fantastic, but the plot was super basic. Its strength came from all of those characters playing off of each other with some pretty good performances to back it up.
You're overrating the acting IMO (the film didn't exactly call for nuanced performances), but basically I'm not allowed to expect anything better?
Okay fine, that just confirms my somewhat lukewarm feelings about the thing. *shrug*
I never said they were great performances. They were good, and fit the movie, which is what you want. When you've got a guy in a robot suit standing next a technomagic version of a Norse god, making fun of a super soldier from the 1940's and trying to prod a genius into becoming a big rage monster, nuanced performances aren't what you should be expecting. The performances were pretty good for, as said, popcorn action-comedy.
And I'm not saying you can't expect more, just pointing out why expecting more is flawed. Like, discussing in a discussion forum.
Spaders voice work for Ultron is amazing. Easily the best part of the trailer, but then, the trailer didn't exactly show much of the heroes except being sad and angry and big explosions. Hopefully newer trailers give us some more.
I'm not saying that Tony isn't in the suit, just thinking of other possibilities. I mean, this is about a malevolent AI that comes from Iron Man's drone work. The idea that Ultron uses an Iron Man suit to attack the team isn't really that out there. I get the impression he doesn't have a body initially. Look at the team when they show him animating that other Iron Man suit, then of course there is the line "There are no strings on me" when he is in his own body. Again, all speculation. Might not be like that at all.
Noted.
I think there is a good chance that what happens in the movie might involve something along those lines, especially in regards with Ultron commandeering an Iron Man suit.
Doesn't it look like there is a scene in there where a lot of the suits that may have been in Stark's house as it fell into the ocean come shooting out of the water?
Looks good - I am hoping for as exciting and well crafted a movie as the first one - good characterisation, snappy dialogue and an exciting plot make better films than being pretentious just to keep the film critics happy.
Updated from Agents of SHIELD (I'm guessing). Most of it is the same but the beginning is a fun scene of the different Avengers trying to lift Mjolnir*.
Spoiler:
*Cap is the only one that moves it just a little. The look on Thor's face is hilarious.
OgreChubbs wrote: SOOOOO does anyone know who the new "bad guy" is? I hope it isn't loki again or that weird....mechadragon zombie guys again.
It's Ultron, a robotic AI created by Tony Stark that develops a God Complex and believes the best way to safeguard humanity is to wipe it out. He will have an army of drones, but is also capable of going toe-to-toe with most of the Avengers.
Scarlet Witch (psychic/telekenetic/telepath) and Quicksilver (super speed) look to be on the Dark Side at least initially, and Baron Strucker (the guy with the monocle at the end of The Winter Soldier) is or was a major Agent of Hydra, and has Loki's staff, which may or may not be an Infinity Gem.
OgreChubbs wrote: SOOOOO does anyone know who the new "bad guy" is? I hope it isn't loki again or that weird....mechadragon zombie guys again.
It's Ultron, a robotic AI created by Tony Stark that develops a God Complex and believes the best way to safeguard humanity is to wipe it out. He will have an army of drones, but is also capable of going toe-to-toe with most of the Avengers.
Scarlet Witch (psychic/telekenetic/telepath) and Quicksilver (super speed) look to be on the Dark Side at least initially, and Baron Strucker (the guy with the monocle at the end of The Winter Soldier) is or was a major Agent of Hydra, and has Loki's staff, which may or may not be an Infinity Gem.
Aren't they xmen people megneto's son/daughter? eww cross overs I miss movies about the movie rather then them craming all characters into 1
If one isn't paying attention to the trailer they may miss that Ultron (in his own body) is quite tall, clocking in at 8' or so. You can tell when Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver come up behind them.
Ahtman wrote: If one isn't paying attention to the trailer they may miss that Ultron (in his own body) is quite tall, clocking in at 8' or so. You can tell when Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver come up behind them.
To be honest, I'm hoping they are going to power him up in terms of physical strength, and that he basically gets to smack down with the whole team at once, something Loki couldn't (and wouldn't, given the choice) do.
OgreChubbs wrote: Aren't they xmen people megneto's son/daughter? eww cross overs I miss movies
They are in the comics, but they are tied closely enough to the Avenger's comic that rights are owned by both. There will be no crossover as Fox owns the X-Men. It is why they will be called miracles or gifted in the Marvel films as they cannot call them mutants, which is owned by Fox.
Ahtman wrote: If one isn't paying attention to the trailer they may miss that Ultron (in his own body) is quite tall, clocking in at 8' or so. You can tell when Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver come up behind them.
To be honest, I'm hoping they are going to power him up in terms of physical strength, and that he basically gets to smack down with the whole team at once, something Loki couldn't (and wouldn't, given the choice) do.
In the cartoon, Earth's Mightiest Heroes (on Netflix), Ultron takes on the entire Avenger's and holds his own until plot steps in. In that he also controls the Iron Man suits to attack the team and takes over a Helicarrier.
Ahtman wrote: If one isn't paying attention to the trailer they may miss that Ultron (in his own body) is quite tall, clocking in at 8' or so. You can tell when Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver come up behind them.
To be honest, I'm hoping they are going to power him up in terms of physical strength, and that he basically gets to smack down with the whole team at once, something Loki couldn't (and wouldn't, given the choice) do.
In the cartoon, Earth's Mightiest Heroes (on Netflix), Ultron takes on the entire Avenger's and holds his own until plot steps in. In that he also controls the Iron Man suits to attack the team and takes over a Helicarrier.
Ultron doesn't have a set power level, either. His power is determined by which body he's using.
Good - Hiddleston's Loki is a brilliant realised character......
This looks to be great, the scene with the hammer extremely well done - a bit of humour and fun to make the next "dark bit" seem even more darker - something that I feel all the DC films lack to their detriment ..................
Any word if Pepper or Jane are in it - although it is already maybe a bit crowded with on screen actors! A Cameo from one or both would be nice - Pepper was great in the first Avengers film.
OgreChubbs wrote: In the cartoon, Earth's Mightiest Heroes (on Netflix), Ultron takes on the entire Avenger's and holds his own until plot steps in. In that he also controls the Iron Man suits to attack the team and takes over a Helicarrier.
Just wanted to say, the first season and a half of this cartoon series is awesome and should be watched.
After the Secret Wars stroyline wraps up, do not watch anymore as the show was cancelled and the last few episodes are entirely mailed in.
I decided to watch the original again last night when I was bored and there are a lot of throwaway lines and actors that didn't mean anything until Agents of SHIELD or Cap 2.
Yeah, I remember my dad trying to tell me about the avengers before the first Iron Man came out, and I was sitting there telling him that they all sounded incredibly lame.
A robot dude who doesn't use guns?!?
A Girly Man who throws a hammer whenever he tantrums?
A Dude who uses a Shield as his major weapon?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wait, Captain America, Iron Man an Thor are B-heros?
Since when?
Since a very long time... to the average person, at least.
Compared to Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, the X-men, and possibly the Hulk, even more so.
Ehh, I'd really ad Cap to the list of "A" heroes. For as long as I can remember, everyone, nerd or not, has known who Captain America is, what he looks like (generally) and usually the fact that he punched Hitler in a comic.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wait, Captain America, Iron Man an Thor are B-heros?
Since when?
Since a very long time... to the average person, at least.
Compared to Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, the X-men, and possibly the Hulk, even more so.
Ehh, I'd really ad Cap to the list of "A" heroes. For as long as I can remember, everyone, nerd or not, has known who Captain America is, what he looks like (generally) and usually the fact that he punched Hitler in a comic.
That is a fair concession.
I still wouldn't call him "A-list" because there is a difference between being "known" and being popular, but you're right, he wasn't exactly a bottom-tier name.
Slarg232 wrote: Yeah, I remember my dad trying to tell me about the avengers before the first Iron Man came out, and I was sitting there telling him that they all sounded incredibly lame.
A robot dude who doesn't use guns?!?
A Girly Man who throws a hammer whenever he tantrums?
A Dude who uses a Shield as his major weapon?
Heck, the only one I liked was the Hulk.
Interesting
I had very little idea who Iron Man / Tony Stark was until I saw the triamph that was the first film, Thor - I knew off from mythology and the slightly odd depicition I had occasionally seen in the comics - Cap A similar lack of knowledge. So for me these characters were new and fresh when I saw them in the wonderful recent movies.
I have always know about Spiderman from a range of things from comics to comdey sketches (same as Superman really)- but then I realy really dislike everything about his character.
Hulk again - hear of him alot from popular media - several disapointing films then revitalised in the Avengers film.
Batman and Superman are huge icons - that are both respected and lamponed in equal measure.
Then name "Captain America" was known but I would argue that the few actually read the comic. Iron Man was known as well, but similarly didn't have broad recognition until the films. The only really worldwide character(s) Marvel could claim before the MCU was Spider-Man, and possibly Wolverine. Batman and Superman were iconic both then and now, and seem a bit more universal. I imagine when this phase of public love of the material fades they will still be the two best known globally.
Ahtman wrote: Then name "Captain America" was known but I would argue that the few actually read the comic. Iron Man was known as well, but similarly didn't have broad recognition until the films. The only really worldwide character(s) Marvel could claim before the MCU was Spider-Man, and possibly Wolverine. Batman and Superman were iconic both then and now, and seem a bit more universal. I imagine when this phase of public love of the material fades they will still be the two best known globally.
When it comes to this sort of discussion, I think we should also throw in one more name. I'm no DC fan, but feth me the character is very well known, and not just because who he's associated with: The Joker. I think if you showed anyone a picture of a guy wearing a purple suit, with bright red lips, pasty white face and green hair, they'd all know instantly who it is
Ahtman wrote: Then name "Captain America" was known but I would argue that the few actually read the comic. Iron Man was known as well, but similarly didn't have broad recognition until the films. The only really worldwide character(s) Marvel could claim before the MCU was Spider-Man, and possibly Wolverine. Batman and Superman were iconic both then and now, and seem a bit more universal. I imagine when this phase of public love of the material fades they will still be the two best known globally.
Ahtman wrote: Then name "Captain America" was known but I would argue that the few actually read the comic. Iron Man was known as well, but similarly didn't have broad recognition until the films. The only really worldwide character(s) Marvel could claim before the MCU was Spider-Man, and possibly Wolverine. Batman and Superman were iconic both then and now, and seem a bit more universal. I imagine when this phase of public love of the material fades they will still be the two best known globally.
I would argue Hulk as well
Oh yes, good catch! I think a lot of the proliferation of the character had to do with the Bill Bixby/Lou Ferigno show.
Hulk, Spider-Man and Captain America were the three main Marvel heroes that most people would have heard of.
Hulk, due to the TV show, was part of the social zeitgeist.
Spider-Man is Marvel's most famous character.
Captain America is fairly iconic. When he died in Civil War, it made the news everywhere. It was a big deal.
Wolverine later became even bigger thanks to the X-Men movies/Hugh Jackman.
But that's it really. Everyone else is B-team or lower. Same goes for DC. People know Batman (and by extension Robin), Superman, Wonder Woman and a lot of people The Flash, but that's as far as it goes.
At the end of Dark World, Thor still believes Loki is dead, while Loki is impersonating Odin. Idris Elba specifically states he's doing scenes with Hemsworth and Hiddleston - which would mean the secret is out, otherwise it would be Hemsworth and Anthony Hopkins.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hulk, Spider-Man and Captain America were the three main Marvel heroes that most people would have heard of.
Hulk, due to the TV show, was part of the social zeitgeist.
Spider-Man is Marvel's most famous character.
Captain America is fairly iconic. When he died in Civil War, it made the news everywhere. It was a big deal.
Wolverine later became even bigger thanks to the X-Men movies/Hugh Jackman.
But that's it really. Everyone else is B-team or lower. Same goes for DC. People know Batman (and by extension Robin), Superman, Wonder Woman and a lot of people The Flash, but that's as far as it goes.
To honest the only thing I kow about the Flash and several other DC characters is from Big Bang
You know Alph, perhaps that's the idea! What if the comic book publishing houses have seen the writing on the wall, and know the death of their medium is coming? Perhaps they're planning to shift the comic books to some sort of subscription online webcomic service, existing in support of the film universe. I can see people forking out micro purchase money to view the story that bridges two of their favorite films more than buying into a serial story with monthly installments.
Particularly if they provide a much wider understanding of minor characters from the films.
It seems to indicate that soon, all the 'Next Generation' will know about comics is what they see on TV and at the Movies...
I don't think that isn't really different than what the "current generation" knows about the characters.
The average person's knowledge of Superman comes from the Christopher Reeve movies (probably more so than any of the contemporary Superman films). Depending on their age, most people's exposure to Batman is from Adam West show (which I watched a small child), the Tim Burton movies from the late 80s/early 90s (along with the spectacular animated series of the mid 90s), or the Nolan movies of the 2000s.
The Hulk had his popular TV show in the 80s (which was my first exposure to him), Spider-Man from his cartoons and movies, and the X-men because of cartoon from the 90s and the film series from the early 2000s.
It just goes along with what we've been talking about; these characters are known to the average media consumer, but it's usually pretty superficial at best. Most people could tell you that Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered (most likely by the Joker... thanks, Tim Burton!) but they aren't going to know much about the character's depth outside of that, let alone all the various story arcs from the comics. The same goes with Spider-Man; the average person could probably tell you he's a young guy from New York that was bitten by a radioactive spider, but most people have no clue the history behind any of the supporting characters in Spider-Man's world.
Gitzbitah wrote: You know Alph, perhaps that's the idea! What if the comic book publishing houses have seen the writing on the wall, and know the death of their medium is coming?
People have been saying that since the comic crash in the 90's. Comic companies are in a much better position today than they were back then. For example, Marvel isn't bankrupt anymore.
And remember how web comics were the death knell of the printed comic in the early 2000's?
People have been proclaiming that the comic industry is on the verge of collapse for almost 20 years.
It seems to indicate that soon, all the 'Next Generation' will know about comics is what they see on TV and at the Movies...
Maybe but I am past 40 if that makes a difference and I knew virtually nothing about Cap A or Tony Stark before the films - I also far prefer the film versiosn from the bits and pieces of comics stuff I have read about them - I think prior to the films I had only really seen Cap in an old Xmen comic set when he and Wolverine rescued a child by the name of Natasha Romanov...............
Gitzbitah wrote: You know Alph, perhaps that's the idea! What if the comic book publishing houses have seen the writing on the wall, and know the death of their medium is coming?
People have been saying that since the comic crash in the 90's. Comic companies are in a much better position today than they were back then. For example, Marvel isn't bankrupt anymore.
And remember how web comics were the death knell of the printed comic in the early 2000's?
People have been proclaiming that the comic industry is on the verge of collapse for almost 20 years.
Yeah, I think some people here have it entirely backwards.
Comics are relatively niche things that will keep selling to their niche audience. Big-budget feature films need general, non-geek audiences to be interested in order to make money. And I think it's reasonable to question how much desire there'll be for superhero films after Marvel and WB bombard us for the next 5-6 years.
Again, Marvel's significant risk here is whether audiences will even be interested in Bucky Cap, Scarlet Witch, etc. after all the current actors have left. WB, on the other hand, will be content to reboot or mothball and move onto the next thing. Like I've been saying for while now, some people (Marvel fanboys especially) seem to want to turn this a Marvel vs. DC thing. But the two studios are in very different positions taking different strategies for their different businesses.
gorgon wrote: . And I think it's reasonable to question how much desire there'll be for superhero films after Marvel and WB bombard us for the next 5-6 years.
Again, Marvel's significant risk here is whether audiences will even be interested in Bucky Cap, Scarlet Witch, etc. after all the current actors have left. WB, on the other hand, will be content to reboot or mothball and move onto the next thing. Like I've been saying for while now, some people (Marvel fanboys especially) seem to want to turn this a Marvel vs. DC thing. But the two studios are in very different positions taking different strategies for their different businesses.
No real risk, I don't think. The analogy I like to use is whenever someone goes on about 'too many comic book movies' is that they are, in terms of target demographic, popularity and repeat production, to the 00s and 10s, what war movies and westerns were to the 60s and 70s. Dozens made, some great, some crap, but ultimately the model endures for a good long while. The only risk will be if one of the films directly part of the 'main' universes for Marvel and DC is a complete flop. What I mean by that is that if, for argument's sake, Ant-man flops, it's not really a big deal as he can easily be written out/made a tertiary character in future Avengers films. If, on the other hand, Age of Ultron or Dawn if Justice flop, that could be a death knell, as those are the movies the rest will springboard out from. Even then, both studios can rebuild, and both know the risk enough to make sure it never happens.
Incidentally, I have faith that Marvel Disney and WB will easily be able to keep these franchises going long past their announced movies up to 2020.
I think a lot of people in the general populace know about Uncle Ben and the "great power comes great responsibility" line too. - I seem to remember some jokes about "the worlds most famous dead uncle" in something.
Of course, going to ultra geeky, he is quoted when you use the sudo command in Unix.
One of the sorta mean jokes I played on my 60 year old parents last Christmas was. "I've got a film about a person who came to Earth from the heavens as a baby to save mankind."
It was about 35 minutes into the film (Crashed scout ship) when my mother asked me. "Wait... Are you making us watch Batman?"
With a completely straight face I replied, "no, of course not."
I think most heroes are known from their TV shows/films from earlier decades. So, Batman, Hulk (I think my mother had a thing for Lou Ferrigno), Wonder Woman, and Superman. Spiderman seems to be the only one really that people knew enough entirely through comics. And general merchandising too, probably moreso. - that's probably the biggest thing overseas
I'm pretty sure Captain America and iron man wasn't much of a thing at all growing up in Scotland in the 80s. Wolverine grew in popularity with the Xmen cartoon though.
Compel wrote: I'm pretty sure Captain America and iron man wasn't much of a thing at all growing up in Scotland in the 80s. Wolverine grew in popularity with the Xmen cartoon though.
The 90's Iron Man cartoon was pretty popular, too. And that one regularly featured Scarlet Witch and Hawkeye. Also Julia Carpenter Spider-Woman.
Thor's kind of a tough one to gauge as far as comic book characters; being based on an actual deity and all. You can say he's a B list character, but people have been talking about Thor for a couple millennia longer than Superman.
Bromsy wrote: You can say he's a B list character, but people have been talking about Thor for a couple millennia longer than Superman.
The comic book character is not the same person, nor do they have the same place in history or culture.
There's at least some bleedover. If someone familiar with prechristianised Norse beliefs wandered into a comic book store with no knowledge of Marvel's Thor they'd at least be able to pick up on some stuff.
Bromsy wrote: You can say he's a B list character, but people have been talking about Thor for a couple millennia longer than Superman.
The comic book character is not the same person, nor do they have the same place in history or culture.
There's at least some bleedover. If someone familiar with prechristianised Norse beliefs wandered into a comic book store with no knowledge of Marvel's Thor they'd at least be able to pick up on some stuff.
Oh I agree, and I think that is part of the issue facing that character. It was created in a time and place where they either didn't think anyone gave the diety much thought or they just didn't care. Nowadays it would be tougher to reappropriate a character in such a way.
Bromsy wrote: You can say he's a B list character, but people have been talking about Thor for a couple millennia longer than Superman.
The comic book character is not the same person, nor do they have the same place in history or culture.
There's at least some bleedover. If someone familiar with prechristianised Norse beliefs wandered into a comic book store with no knowledge of Marvel's Thor they'd at least be able to pick up on some stuff.
Oh I agree, and I think that is part of the issue facing that character. It was created in a time and place where they either didn't think anyone gave the diety much thought or they just didn't care. Nowadays it would be tougher to reappropriate a character in such a way.
True. Although I think it's still safe for a couple of decades to beg borrow or steal from European paganism. Give it fifty years or so and I think Neo Druidism or something along those lines is going to make great inroads.
Slarg232 wrote: Yeah, I remember my dad trying to tell me about the avengers before the first Iron Man came out, and I was sitting there telling him that they all sounded incredibly lame.
A robot dude who doesn't use guns?!?
A Girly Man who throws a hammer whenever he tantrums?
A Dude who uses a Shield as his major weapon?
Heck, the only one I liked was the Hulk.
Strangely, I still like you described them. A good sniper Greater Than all of them but Iron Man...
Frazzled wrote: A good sniper Greater Than all of them but Iron Man...
Maybe Cap or Tony wihtout the armor on, but how would a sniper be better than the other two? He/she can't even kill them or even wound them. It is established in the comics and films that if you shoot Banner he just turns into the Hulk and the Hulk is immune to puny weapons, and Thor would be invulnerable to them as well.
Edit: Forgot to mention they have a sniper already: Hawkeye. Black Widow is a pretty good shot as well.
Frazzled wrote: A good sniper Greater Than all of them but Iron Man...
Maybe Cap or Tony wihtout the armor on, but how would a sniper be better than the other two? He/she can't even kill them or even wound them. It is established in the comics and films that if you shoot Banner he just turns into the Hulk and the Hulk is immune to puny weapons, and Thor would be invulnerable to them as well.
Edit: Forgot to mention they have a sniper already: Hawkeye. Black Widow is a pretty good shot as well.
Archer boy's just a humie Red haired chick is just a gal thats really easy on the eyes.
Can Banner survive a brain shot when he's not Hulk? Has Thor ever taken a brain shot ? What if his GF is brain splatted - is he going to keep coming back?
Can Banner survive a brain shot when he's not Hulk?
Banner tried to blow his own brains out per the movie, but turned into the Hulk and spit the bullet out.
Now, I guess it could be argued that Banner/Hulk knew that the bullet was coming since he is the one that pulled the trigger. But I think the comics have established that any mortal injury results in him becoming the Hulk.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wolverine later became even bigger thanks to the X-Men movies/Hugh Jackman.
IIRC there's a joke that Wolverine must have been cloned or something, because he used to appear in so many comics and on so many teams, even on covers of comics that he didn't appear in, to sell said comic. This was looong before the X-Men movie came out, before even the '90's cartoon I think. The movie might've brought Wolverine to the awareness of some of the non-comic reading world, but there's a big reason he was up front and centre for all of that series, and his own spin-off.
Gitzbitah wrote:You know Alph, perhaps that's the idea! What if the comic book publishing houses have seen the writing on the wall, and know the death of their medium is coming?
Marvel, at least, is trapped in crappy writing. They're like GW in a way: pumping out poorly-thought fight-obsessed rubbish to sell to sweaty fanboys, scratching their heads as to why readership is dwindling. (With added problems in the vein of the most common superpower or Jhonen Vasquez's Meanwhile...[language warning], and the resulting, minor tempering caused by shrill PC comics bloggers. It's painful to read a lot of 'badazz' dudebro posturing with sniffy moralising clumsily shoehorned in. Maybe they were always like that, but it hasn't seemed so bad. Not even in the '90's...)
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The average person's knowledge of Superman comes from the Christopher Reeve movies (probably more so than any of the contemporary Superman films). Depending on their age, most people's exposure to Batman is from Adam West show (which I watched a small child), the Tim Burton movies from the late 80s/early 90s (along with the spectacular animated series of the mid 90s), or the Nolan movies of the 2000s.
The Hulk had his popular TV show in the 80s (which was my first exposure to him), Spider-Man from his cartoons and movies, and the X-men because of cartoon from the 90s and the film series from the early 2000s.
I saw the live-action Hulk and Batman shows when I was wee, but I'm still of an age that the '90's superhero cartoons wowed me too. Batman at the top, obviously, with the Superman spinoff afterwards. But there was an awful lot of Marvel stuff on the screen at the time too. I remember the Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man, Hulk, two Fantastic Four, and even a Silver Surfer cartoon. Cap turned up in at least one, IIRC.
People have been saying that since the comic crash in the 90's. Comic companies are in a much better position today than they were back then. For example, Marvel isn't bankrupt anymore.
I'd say being bought out by Disney might've helped a wee bit. Under that kind of circumstance I'd guess it's easy for a crappy business and service to stay buoyant, for the IP mill.
People have been proclaiming that the comic industry is on the verge of collapse for almost 20 years.
Again, it's like GW. Just because it's taking a while, doesn't mean it can't or isn't happening.
Can Banner survive a brain shot when he's not Hulk?
Banner tried to blow his own brains out per the movie, but turned into the Hulk and spit the bullet out.
Now, I guess it could be argued that Banner/Hulk knew that the bullet was coming since he is the one that pulled the trigger. But I think the comics have established that any mortal injury results in him becoming the Hulk.
There was a pretty good Hulk miniseries a while back, titled Banner! An exploration of Banner's torture, I guess a deconstruction of the kind that became popular thanks to Alan Moore et al. (And using the logical assumption, that, yeah, the Hulk is a danger to human life when he throws a paddy) Anyways. Banner tried to commit suicide in that. Here's what happened when he tried to eat a bullet.
He got shot in the head as Banner, more recently. That didn't kill him but resulted in brain damage. Tony Stark tried to fix him with Extremis hocus-pocus. So now he's a smart Hulk, again, which almost inevitably means he's a bigger dick than stupid Hulk.
People have been saying that since the comic crash in the 90's. Comic companies are in a much better position today than they were back then. For example, Marvel isn't bankrupt anymore.
I'd say being bought out by Disney might've helped a wee bit. Under that kind of circumstance I'd guess it's easy for a crappy business and service to stay buoyant, for the IP mill.
Marvel crawled out of the hole well before being bought by Disney. In fact, they survived thanks to Toy Biz merging with Marvel in 1997 and the surge in comic popularity around 2000/2001. You don't pay $4.2 billion for a bankrupt company, you pay that for a company doing well.
People have been proclaiming that the comic industry is on the verge of collapse for almost 20 years.
Again, it's like GW. Just because it's taking a while, doesn't mean it can't or isn't happening.
Taking a while? Marvel was talking themselves about shutting down in the '96. If they didn't go away then, they're not going away soon. The fluctuation of North American comic book sales over the past 5 years isn't very big: it goes up and down between $420 and $475 million, with the exception of 2013, which stands out due to $517 million in sales, and that's JUST the data from Diamond, it doesn't include other distributors. Sales are actually better than they were, the early 2000's fluctuated in the $200-300 million area. It probably helps that 2 companies don't make up 80% of the industry anymore.
Vermis wrote: Marvel, at least, is trapped in crappy writing. They're like GW in a way: pumping out poorly-thought fight-obsessed rubbish to sell to sweaty fanboys, scratching their heads as to why readership is dwindling. (With added problems in the vein of the most common superpower or Jhonen Vasquez's Meanwhile...[language warning], and the resulting, minor tempering caused by shrill PC comics bloggers. It's painful to read a lot of 'badazz' dudebro posturing with sniffy moralising clumsily shoehorned in. Maybe they were always like that, but it hasn't seemed so bad. Not even in the '90's...)
You gonna qualify that with some evidence? Or just dismiss a large portion of comic readers as 'sweaty fanboys'? because a) rule #1, and b) How can you know that the writing is no good if you haven't deigned to descend from your mighty tower and rub shoulders with the unwashed, sweaty, fanboy masses that comprise Marvel's readership?
I personally would say that a lot of Marvel's writing is very good; stuff like X-Men Legacy, Superior Spiderman or Uncanny Avengers all have excellent storylines, and manage to avoid the ''badazz' dudebro posturing with sniffy moralising' that evidently plagues every single one of the authors in Marvel's roster, then again I'm probably a sweaty fanboy though, and unworthy to even attempt to debate with my intellectual superiors, such as yourself.
ON a divergent note, I told my 10 year old daughter that they were going ot make a Black Panther movie, and she was super excited. Black Panther is her favorite Avenger.
Easy E wrote: ON a divergent note, I told my 10 year old daughter that they were going ot make a Black Panther movie, and she was super excited. Black Panther is her favorite Avenger.
Bleh. I'm more excited for Luke Cage. I just have trouble relating to foreign monarchists I suppose.
Easy E wrote:I'm just glad she didn't say someone like Yellowjacket, Wasp or Ant-Man! I would have had to kick her out of the house.
Janet is awesome!
Ahtman wrote: I just have trouble relating to foreign monarchists I suppose.
You racist!
Bromsy wrote:I wonder if Cable will be in the upcoming Deadpool movie?
Rob Liefeld seems to think so, but Rob Liefeld seems to think that you can have pectoral muscles larger than the rest of your torso combined and that every surface that isn't muscle must be a pouch of some description.
Bromsy wrote:I wonder if Cable will be in the upcoming Deadpool movie?
Rob Liefeld seems to think so, but Rob Liefeld seems to think that you can have pectoral muscles larger than the rest of your torso combined and that every surface that isn't muscle must be a pouch of some description.
I don't know what you mean...
Also they're doing an XForce movie, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Cable turn up in that.
Rob Liefeld seems to think so, but Rob Liefeld seems to think that you can have pectoral muscles larger than the rest of your torso combined and that every surface that isn't muscle must be a pouch of some description.
Also that guns just sit on top of fists and everyone is en pointe with their tiny, pointy feet constantly
They really are doubling-down on that "Gritty Pinocchio" vibe. I'm still assuming I'm going to like this given how many of the other marvel movies I liked. These trailers sure are doing their darnedest to convince me otherwise though.
Slarg232 wrote: Can I just say that I still get chills hearing him say "I'm going to show you something beautiful.... The whole world, screaming for mercy."
It's quite chilling... To me, about on par with Brando's speeches in Apocalypse Now.
I have to say, I expected... more. All that was different there was the speed at which Ultron speaks and a few extra clips that amount to maybe 10 seconds if that. Don't get me wrong, I still can't wait to see this, but if they're going to spend the next 6 months adding/changing 10 seconds of the same trailer every few weeks, I'm liable to get a little bored of them.
Easy E wrote: I swthey hadd an Iron Fist action figure for te Disney Infinity game. I was surprised. Talk about going a bit obscure on that one.
They're making an Iron Fist TV show. He won't be obscure for long.
Slarg232 wrote: Can I just say that I still get chills hearing him say "I'm going to show you something beautiful.... The whole world, screaming for mercy."
It could be cut to all hell. Remember all the inspirational words Robert Redford was saying in the Cap 2 trailers? Made it sound like he was talking to Cap... but he wasn't. They could be two separate speeches.
Conclusion: Trailers can be misleading.
Paradigm wrote: I have to say, I expected... more. All that was different there was the speed at which Ultron speaks and a few extra clips that amount to maybe 10 seconds if that. Don't get me wrong, I still can't wait to see this, but if they're going to spend the next 6 months adding/changing 10 seconds of the same trailer every few weeks, I'm liable to get a little bored of them.
This was borne of necessity. The first trailer was meant to air with Agents of SHIELD, but it leaked early, so Marvel bit the bullet and released it (which is a feather in their cap - most companies close ranks and try to shut down the Internet when that happens). But they still had the AoS thing to worry about, so they made a few version of the trailer with part of the scene they showed at SDCC this year.
And speaking of AoS, it appears they just found the city of Attilan.
Paradigm wrote: I have to say, I expected... more. All that was different there was the speed at which Ultron speaks and a few extra clips that amount to maybe 10 seconds if that. Don't get me wrong, I still can't wait to see this, but if they're going to spend the next 6 months adding/changing 10 seconds of the same trailer every few weeks, I'm liable to get a little bored of them.
This was borne of necessity. The first trailer was meant to air with Agents of SHIELD, but it leaked early, so Marvel bit the bullet and released it (which is a feather in their cap - most companies close ranks and try to shut down the Internet when that happens). But they still had the AoS thing to worry about, so they made a few version of the trailer with part of the scene they showed at SDCC this year.
Yeah, I have no issue with that second one, it was well handled and the first extended trailer was great. This last one, though, was just a few extra clips that really added nothing. Basically, I got excitend when I saw there was a new one, but then came away rather dissapointed. As much as anything else, it was too soon after the first two; I'd rather they waited a few months, let the hype build on its own, and hit us with an all-new one in the new year (which they may well do anyway)
Paradigm wrote: I have to say, I expected... more. All that was different there was the speed at which Ultron speaks and a few extra clips that amount to maybe 10 seconds if that. Don't get me wrong, I still can't wait to see this, but if they're going to spend the next 6 months adding/changing 10 seconds of the same trailer every few weeks, I'm liable to get a little bored of them.
Wait for SuperBowl in the USA. Guaranteed extra goodies..
H.B.M.C. wrote: And speaking of AoS, it appears they just found the city of Attilan.
Yeah I noticed that as well. More grist for the mill that AoS will be used to usher in The Inhumans, and that they will be the X-Men of the MCU. Of course since they can't use 'mutants' as Fox owns all that it makes sense, but it does make me wonder if they are going to make Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch essentially Inhumans, hybrids, or if 'miracles' will be something else.
Spoiler:
Of course Ward name dropped Baron Von Strucker and the fact he was overseas.
Iron Fist in the Infinity 2.0 set belongs to the Ultimate Spiderman set which is from the Ultimate Spiderman cartoon which teams up Spidey with younger versions of Power Man, Iron Fist, Nova, and White Tiger. They are tied together by Nick Fury which is why he is listed as part of the Spidey set but is one of the few that can be used in more playsets than one, in his case the other being The Avengers play set.
I've also put an embargo on behind-the-scenes and trailers I don't see in theaters for Age of Ultron as I don't want to wear myself out before the movie gets here.
Fo some reason, the Bzzzzt really bugs me in these trailers. However, at least they are at a different pitch than we ususaly hear in sci-fi trailers nowadays.
Slarg232 wrote: Can I just say that I still get chills hearing him say "I'm going to show you something beautiful.... The whole world, screaming for mercy."
It's quite chilling... To me, about on par with Brando's speeches in Apocalypse Now.
Or the Mandarins voice-over from the Iron Man 3 Trailers!
Vermis wrote: Marvel, at least, is trapped in crappy writing. They're like GW in a way: pumping out poorly-thought fight-obsessed rubbish to sell to sweaty fanboys, scratching their heads as to why readership is dwindling. (With added problems in the vein of the most common superpower or Jhonen Vasquez's Meanwhile...[language warning], and the resulting, minor tempering caused by shrill PC comics bloggers. It's painful to read a lot of 'badazz' dudebro posturing with sniffy moralising clumsily shoehorned in. Maybe they were always like that, but it hasn't seemed so bad. Not even in the '90's...)
You gonna qualify that with some evidence? Or just dismiss a large portion of comic readers as 'sweaty fanboys'? because a) rule #1, and b) How can you know that the writing is no good if you haven't deigned to descend from your mighty tower and rub shoulders with the unwashed, sweaty, fanboy masses that comprise Marvel's readership?
I personally would say that a lot of Marvel's writing is very good; stuff like X-Men Legacy, Superior Spiderman or Uncanny Avengers all have excellent storylines, and manage to avoid the ''badazz' dudebro posturing with sniffy moralising' that evidently plagues every single one of the authors in Marvel's roster, then again I'm probably a sweaty fanboy though, and unworthy to even attempt to debate with my intellectual superiors, such as yourself.
The problem i have with Marvel writing is the writer arcs syndrome, you get an awesome story-line going then the next writer comes along throws all the previous characterization and story line out of the window and starts something new, that and when i stopped reading comics you had, 20 different X-man comics with overlapping story lines, 6 spider-man comics etecetera, started killing my favorite characters.
They used to be. They were the original Marvel family. Nobody really cares anymore, the comics have become stagnant, and the movies were a bomb to most. And the new suggested one is looking to be terrible for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum, in another thread.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The red suits they got recently were pretty snazzy though.
And I've always loved the Human Torch's power set. It'd be fun to be able to do all that.
You mention the snazzy red suits, but you also mention Johnny Storm having powers of some sort...
Also, I agree that FF needs a rest. They've gone from fantastical adventures to just cycling the same few story lines, with a bit of an effort to shake it up.
'Oh look, one of the FF has lost their powers; how will they cope?'
'Wait, the government thinks Reed and Sue might be bad parents! Will they be allowed to keep their kids?'
'Oh no! Ben is depressed about looking like a monster! Will his friendship with Reed survive?'
'Uh oh! Reed is getting too involved in his work again, will his family be able to convince him to make things back to normal?'
(Surprisingly well, after losing them temporarily they'll get them back, yes, yes)
H.B.M.C. wrote: Reboot the comics universe, or the cinematic one?
Why would they reboot the films? - they are brilliant AND popular money coming in and they now have a reasonably coherent universe. Not up to date with comics.
Alpharius wrote: They need to reboot the whole MU and start it all over again!
Marvel tried that.
It didn't work out so well.
They have the Ultimate Universe, which isn't really a reboot, and some writers have tried individual changes (One More Day) but those were still in continuity. The have never had anything on the scale of a Crisis on Infinite Earths or New 52. They just start over but it is part of existing lore and makes the whole thing convoluted.
That's why Marvel has that "sliding continuity" thing, whereas DC just acts like its The Simpsons, where everyone is part-way into their careers no matter what year it is.
Alpharius wrote: They need to reboot the whole MU and start it all over again!
Marvel tried that.
It didn't work out so well.
They have the Ultimate Universe, which isn't really a reboot, and some writers have tried individual changes (One More Day) but those were still in continuity. The have never had anything on the scale of a Crisis on Infinite Earths or New 52. They just start over but it is part of existing lore and makes the whole thing convoluted.
I actually meant Heroes Reborn, which was an attempt to reboot many of their more popular franchises(who just happened to be killed during the Onslaught event) which then were stated to exist in pocket dimensions that were folded into 616 because Franklin Ex Machina.
Which honestly, Franklin Richards is more than enough reason to wipe 616 clean and start over.
It'd be easy to make a comment about the tail wagging the dog, but we're already far past the point at which the movies dictate to the comic books. Especially with Marvel.
I wouldn't want to write for Marvel. There's nothing wrong with changing Wanda and Pietro's background, per se. Shake-ups can be good, healthy and interesting. But when you trace back the reasons for this particular change...eh.
Loving the Pinocchio references because at least in my mind there's a parallel or two. It also adds a kind of depth to Ultron's evil, like eventhough he was created by a Human he's declaring himself completely independent and not owing them anything. It's his way of saying zero given.
Of late, Brian Bendis has given us two specific plot points that seem to contradict what has been dubbed the Marvel Rolling Continuity, set in place since the seventies, to keep characters from ageing too much. That the Marvel Universe started around ten to fifteen years ago and that will always be the case, real life events switching to reflect that. So Mister Fantastic and Ben Grimm now fought alongside each other in Desert Storm rather than World War II. You get the picture.
But even in that there have been oddities. The Punisher remains a Vietnam veteran. Nick Fury still still fought in World War II – the latter explained away by a health serum.
But now we have the All-New X-Men, brought back from the past, but reacting in a way inconsistent with coming from only ten-to-fifteen years ago.
Which ties in with a scene from X-Men: Schism #3 from a few years ago.
With a speech balloon covering up an unfortunate date…
And just now a time travelling Eva Bell established the Fantastic Four’s battle with Galactus in 1966.
All three written by Brian Bendis. So what’s going on?
Well, Bleeding Cool poster Patrick Gerard has a proposal and I rather like it. He writes,
So what if “Time Runs Out”/”Time is Broken” ends up revealing that there was an in-universe reasdon for the sliding timeline?
And just for controversy… What if the “reboot” involves the sliding timeline being broken. For some people. FF and X-Men debut in the 60s. Most are dead now. Avengers formed 5 years ago.
It could be the JSAing of the FF and X-Men.
Heck, add bonus?
You could introduce Evangeline Lily’s Hope Van Dyne into the 616. (There’s even a built in rationale for disconnecting Hank Pym from the sliding timeline: he’s a temporal pressure point because of Age of Ultron.)
Introduce non-mutant kids (grandkids?) of the X-Men and Franklin Richards’ kids. In a non-X-Men or Fantastic Four book.
I might have to see the exact agreement with Fox to be sure but I think if Scott and Jean had a non-mutant grandchild who debuted outside the X-Men comics and Franklin Richards had kids outside of an FF comic, Marvel Studios would have a clear line to those characters.
I’m just saying, intentionally dating some of the characters would allow Marvel to sideline the ones it doesn’t have rights to while also exploiting the popularity of X-Men: First Class.
Snap the elastic timeline for a few characters. Shove them back into the 60s.
You could do it with FF (and much of their history would make more sense), X-Men (movie tie-in with a twist and no issues with why they don’t cross over), and maybe a few select characters like Ant-Man (movie tie-in, again).
The Avengers debuted five years ago. The X-Men and FF meanwhile aged in real time from the 60s and died before the Avengers debuted.
Well, you have Franklin and Valeria’s kids pop up in Avengers and form their own team obviously. As an Avengers spin-off that frequently crosses over with Fantastic Four’s plotlines but whose movie rights are squarely at Marvel/Disney.
I’m not talking about just doing this with X-Men and FF after all. Hank Pym, as I say, is a prime candidate for a variety of reasons. Not JUST to match the films.
With all of these, I think the interesting thing is making the alterations part of the story. Maybe as one poster suggested, Franklin was trying to anchor people together in time from different eras and the sliding timeline was a real thing in universe. Maybe there’s a crisis event in 2039 and the Marvel heroes have all been set on a gently sliding timeline as a means of making sure there will be heroes to deal with the 2039 crisis. But like a plane whose load is too heavy, some of the heroes need to be released from the sliding timeline so that the others can continue on that course — and those who continue do so aware that their timeline is sliding, that there are a dozen Christmases for every year they age.
But the FF, X-Men, Wasp, Hank Pym… Maybe a few others? They volunteer to leave the sliding timeline and, in doing so, snap back into the 60s, with their descendants appearing in the ongoing Spider-man and Avengers books.
And then laying out how it could happen in the comic books…
Imagine…
Mr. Fantastic: I noticed a funny thing when reviewing records in my quantum database. How old was your father when he died, Tony?
Iron Man: 75
Mr. Fantastic: Last year, he died at 74. The year before that, he died at 73.
Iron Man: What are you saying?
Mr. Fantastic: The details of how our parents died are in flux. The details of how they met are in flux. I’ve analyzed our family trees. What is your relationship to Howard Stark, Sr?
Iron Man: He’s my great-great-grandfather.
Mr. Fantastic: Your family tree has gained two generations since you became Iron Man. Your brother, Arno Stark? He used to be your son. And according to my calculations, in a few years he’ll become your uncle. We’re being pulled through time and not all of us at the same rate.
Iron Man: What are you saying?
Mr. Fantastic: Sue and I were reminiscing. Going through old library footage. The story of how we met has been changing. Right now, we remember meeting as graduate students. Both of us were in grad school.
Iron Man: I thought you met through the boarding house you stayed at. Her aunt Susan’s place?
Mr. Fantastic: She doesn’t have an Aunt Susan. She has a great-aunt Susan now. And before that, records show we met when I was her graduate teaching assistant. Our ages haven’t been stable relative to each other.
Iron Man: Well, I always wondered how she maintained such a nice figure after two children. Yoga only accounts for so much.
Mr. Fantastic: Our timelines are being stretched at an uneven rate. Our family trees are in flux. Something — or someone — is pulling the details of our lives forward through time.
Iron Man: That seems troubling. Granted, that might explain the fantastic returns my portfolio saw last quarter. Five times the market rate ever since I became Iron Man. That shouldn’t be possible, come to think of it…
Mr. Fantastic: I think it would be unwise to upset the applecart too much here but some of us have determined that this temporal fluke can’t sustain all of us anymore. Some of us need to revert back to normal time.
Iron Man: What are you saying? Are you saying you’ve cut the link?
Mr. Fantastic: Tony, by this time tomorrow, I’ll probably have been dead before you ever became Iron Man. And there will come a day when I was dead before you were born. This is the last day the Fantastic Four and the Avengers coexist as contemporaries. You’re on a collision course to the future and we’ll be snapping back to the past. We won’t be contemporaries anymore.
Iron Man: Don’t be silly, Reed. There’s always time travel. I’m sure we’ll find a way to stay in touch. Great minds tend to end up in the same room. King Arthur sends Christmas cards now and then; archaeologists dig them up in Glastonbury and I always make sure to read them in order.
Mr. Fantastic: I’m glad you can take this in stride.
Iron Man: Give my regards to Einstein, Reed.
So what do people reckon? Would you be onside? Or should it be kicked into touch? To mix my sporting metaphors…
"First discovered as a simple computer program hidden among the ruins of the Chitauri invasion of New York, the being known as Ultron soon completed it's development into a sophisticated artificial intelligence after some experimentation by Tony Stark. Ultron's first shocking ultimatum upon gaining consciousness was to declare the human race its enemy. Setting out to exterminate all life on the planet, the unstable and emotional Ultron seeks to upgrade its mechanical body to an ultimate, unstoppable form. With an army of robotic drones and the ability to enter and corrupt any computer network, Ultron will stop at nothing to see humanity wiped out."
The art and background for The Vision all seem good.
Well, I like the costume and how the ant-bits look from those brief shots, but I still find it hard to get overly excited about. Probably because this is meant to be a heist movie, and I generally don't like those. I'll still watch it, but I'm not overly excited. I doubt it will be a bad film, though.
The next evolution of the Marvel Cinematic Universe brings a founding member of The Avengers to the big screen for the first time with Marvel Studios’ “Ant-Man” when master thief Scott Lang must embrace his inner-hero and help his mentor, Dr. Hank Pym, protect the secret behind his spectacular Ant-Man suit from a new generation of towering threats.
Which isn't found on the Marvel Entertainment video.
I recall Marvel saying something to the effect that there would be a bit of a revelation in the film about Pym (Douglas) and Ultron. My guess is that in the film we will find out he helped a bit with the AI and perhaps it is the motivation to remove other elements of his research from unwanted hands. It would make sense if he helped in some capacity create a robot that tries to eliminate everyone that he would have some trepidation as to allowing others to use his research. They have to be careful what they show in general, even if this guess isn't true, because Marvel still can't show how it relates to the aftermath of Avengers 2 in any capacity.
I don't know how excited I am about Ant-man - I feel like the whole "shrinking humans down" thing has been done to a point where it's gonna be hard for this film to do anything new - But I will say that the costume looks awesome.
I'll probably see it, but I won't be queuing up for opening night, put it that way.
Dark Apostle 666 wrote: I don't know how excited I am about Ant-man - I feel like the whole "shrinking humans down" thing has been done to a point where it's gonna be hard for this film to do anything new - But I will say that the costume looks awesome.
I'll probably see it, but I won't be queuing up for opening night, put it that way.
Really? It's a concept that hasn't really been explored for anything other then comedic value AFAIK. Gonna be amusing to see how they handle the action.
Aye, only movie that really comes to mind is Honey, I shrunk the Kids.
I wonder, since this is obviously an Older Hank (And as such Wasp has already been done as his wife), if we will see the Wasp in this movie. Could be that blonde or brunette shown, but Idunno.
I feel like, "I'm already going to see this movie. It will make a billion dollars. So, thanks for realizing there's no need to show us the whole plot. Or any of it, really."
trexmeyer wrote: So. it's basically a guarantee this will be the highest grossing movie of all time, right?
If Avengers Assemble is anything to go by, very likely to be yes. I feel bad for DC though, they've not really managed to do the super hero ensemble yet.
$2.8 billion (Avatar) is a really, really big number. To even finish second (Titanic), it'd have to do $2.2 bil. I predict that it'll top the original ($1.5 bil), but still fall short of Titanic. Some people just don't like superhero films, you know.
I guess the new trailer was okay, if you like lots and lots of shots of actors slowly and/or dramatically looking around.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: They should have got Sam Neil. No one looks around slowly as dramatically as he does.
Very true.
The trailer's not doing it for me, but I said same about Man of Steel and liked that one. I haven't really liked a comic movie since the disappointing IM3, but then again I can't think of a tentpole movie I liked since 2013.
Michael Keaton won Best Actor for his Birdman performance.
Compel wrote: I still find it utterly hilarious that this is one of the first marvel films that has really sort of embraced the union with Disney.
And the result? It's intentionally creepy as all heck.
Yeah, it's pretty cool how they did it. Ultron is the badass Avenger villain, when he's done properly and not made into a mustache twirling villain. Would his mustache be made of copper wiring, btw?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: They should have got Sam Neil. No one looks around slowly as dramatically as he does.
Very true.
The trailer's not doing it for me, but I said same about Man of Steel and liked that one. I haven't really liked a comic movie since the disappointing IM3, but then again I can't think of a tentpole movie I liked since 2013.
Michael Keaton won Best Actor for his Birdman performance.
I agree on the point of Iron Man 3. Was NOT impressed with how they did the Mandarin. They could have totally done a Thor with him and had magic being technology. Extremis was interesting though.
angelofvengeance wrote: I agree on the point of Iron Man 3. Was NOT impressed with how they did the Mandarin. They could have totally done a Thor with him and had magic being technology. Extremis was interesting though.
Didn't they make a short with Ben Kingsley's character that established that the real Mandarin wasn't happy with how his name was usurped for Guy Pearce's characters benefit?
I liked GotG, but I didn't *love* it the way some people did. Maybe it spread the fun/quirkiness/irreverent thing on a little too thickly? I dunno. And underneath that stuff, I'm not sure that the story was that great or the characters that compelling. It was fun brain candy, kinda like the Avengers dialed up to 11. *shrug*
For me, GotG beats out Avengers (just), and 3rd place is tied between Cap/Thor 2. With the exception of IM 2 and 3, though, I'd give them all 9/10 at minimum, with most being 10.
Paradigm wrote: For me, GotG beats out Avengers (just), and 3rd place is tied between Cap/Thor 2. With the exception of IM 2 and 3, though, I'd give them all 9/10 at minimum, with most being 10.
Of all the movies you mentioned the only one I thought was worth the money was IM2. Admittedly I was dragged to the thor films and CAI by wifey because she likes da Eye Kandy.
From just the perspective of enjoyment only I'd rank Iron Man, Cap 1&2, Thor 2, Avengers and Guardians a 10/10. The others hover between 5 (Iron Man 2) and 9 (Thor/I. Hulk).
That's just from a for fun perspective. I genuinely enjoy watching them. And Guardians is at the top of that list. Followed by Cap 2 and Avengers.
angelofvengeance wrote: I agree on the point of Iron Man 3. Was NOT impressed with how they did the Mandarin. They could have totally done a Thor with him and had magic being technology. Extremis was interesting though.
Didn't they make a short with Ben Kingsley's character that established that the real Mandarin wasn't happy with how his name was usurped for Guy Pearce's characters benefit?
Yes. That was the Hail To The King short on the Thor 2 DVD/Bluray.
I still remain one of the few people who really liked Iron Man 2. It just had the ending I wanted - Iron Man + War Machine vs tons of robots. It was perfect. Plus Black Widow.
nels1031 wrote: Didn't they make a short with Ben Kingsley's character that established that the real Mandarin wasn't happy with how his name was usurped for Guy Pearce's characters benefit?
Yup. An agent of the Mandarin even broke Trevor out of prison so he could answer for his impersonation.
Frazzled wrote: Of all the movies you mentioned the only one I thought was worth the money was IM2.
Cap 2 was worth every damned penny. That was my fav film of last year.
Hulk vs. Ironman. Ultron has gone rogue. Some girl on a SHIELD Motorbike (sorry, limited knowledge). Captain America's shield gets broken. Fragmented depressing images of guys shooting, and girls running and/or crying. Are all trailers like this?
lliu wrote: Hulk vs. Ironman. Ultron has gone rogue. Some girl on a SHIELD Motorbike (sorry, limited knowledge). Captain America's shield gets broken. Fragmented depressing images of guys shooting, and girls running and/or crying. Are all trailers like this?
I am so going to watch this. A civil war between Superheroes. And Ultron is behind it. One question. How does Ultron turn from that half-broken robot that is suddenly reactivated to a tron-like robot with Ironman like powers? Oh, yeah, and one problem. Ultron doesn't need a suit. Ironman does.
lliu wrote: I am so going to watch this. A civil war between Superheroes. And Ultron is behind it. One question. How does Ultron turn from that half-broken robot that is suddenly reactivated to a tron-like robot with Ironman like powers? Oh, yeah, and one problem. Ultron doesn't need a suit. Ironman does.
That's not the Civil War storyline. Ultron can however mind control people.
Ultron was designed by Hank Pym and modified by Tony Stark. So repulsor tech and the various other toys come built in with Ultron.
I still don't know if Stark is in the suit fighting Hulk. The second one shows a flash of Tony Stark inside a suit during the fight but there isn't anything specific to say where that shot came from and I have seen enough trailers to know they splice and edit them differently so as to create hype and don't necessarily show the final product.
Ahtman wrote: I still don't know if Stark is in the suit fighting Hulk. The second one shows a flash of Tony Stark inside a suit during the fight but there isn't anything specific to say where that shot came from and I have seen enough trailers to know they splice and edit them differently so as to create hype and don't necessarily show the final product.
Feels like Stark was definitely in the Hulkbuster in this trailer.
Paradigm wrote: For me, GotG beats out Avengers (just), and 3rd place is tied between Cap/Thor 2. With the exception of IM 2 and 3, though, I'd give them all 9/10 at minimum, with most being 10.
I agree except with iron man 3.I hated that movie. I thought the first and second were really good but number 3 just bored me to tears.
And I definitely feel like Ultron is attacking the Hulk through the suit. Clever editing doesn't tell me Stark is in the suit, just that at some point he is in a suit.
KingCracker wrote: That would make sense. I know the hulk is known for losing his gak and just attacking anything, but Ultron can take control of any machine right?
For the most part. In other iterations he has controlled other machines, including the Iron Man armor, to his own ends. The Hulk is probably one of the few physical threats to Ultron's his big ass body (shown in the movie as towering over humans) so it makes sense that he would do something to try and remove him from the equation. This is all speculation of course but right now it seems more likely to me that Ultron would control the suit and attack the Hulk than Stark alone. Now Stark might be blamed for it...
gorgon wrote: I liked GotG, but I didn't *love* it the way some people did. Maybe it spread the fun/quirkiness/irreverent thing on a little too thickly? I dunno. And underneath that stuff, I'm not sure that the story was that great or the characters that compelling. It was fun brain candy, kinda like the Avengers dialed up to 11. *shrug*
i thought Guardians was ok but I was blown away by the quality of Iron Man, Avengers, Thor 2 and Cap 2 - simply brilliant films in all respects - IMO
For the most part. In other iterations he has controlled other machines, including the Iron Man armor, to his own ends. The Hulk is probably one of the few physical threats to Ultron's his big ass body (shown in the movie as towering over humans) so it makes sense that he would do something to try and remove him from the equation. This is all speculation of course but right now it seems more likely to me that Ultron would control the suit and attack the Hulk than Stark alone. Now Stark might be blamed for it...
Indeed - and even if Stark is in the suit - he may not have any control over it - which would be nasty.............
Guess its a good job Ultron does not have to worry about Magneto as he is different set of films
KingCracker wrote: That would make sense. I know the hulk is known for losing his gak and just attacking anything, but Ultron can take control of any machine right?
For the most part. In other iterations he has controlled other machines, including the Iron Man armor, to his own ends. The Hulk is probably one of the few physical threats to Ultron's his big ass body (shown in the movie as towering over humans) so it makes sense that he would do something to try and remove him from the equation. This is all speculation of course but right now it seems more likely to me that Ultron would control the suit and attack the Hulk than Stark alone. Now Stark might be blamed for it...
The very first trailer, it shows the Hulkbuster suit wrapping itself around another Iron Man suit (when the helmet comes down, it's over another Iron Man helmet). Logical conclusion is it's Stark in an Iron Man suit that's in the Hulkbuster. There's no other reason for it. If it the smaller suit was a drone or AI controlled, then it's simpler to just make the Hulkbuster a drone.
Cue memes of wearing power armour over your power armour so you can power armour while you power armour.
lliu wrote: I am so going to watch this. A civil war between Superheroes. And Ultron is behind it. One question. How does Ultron turn from that half-broken robot that is suddenly reactivated to a tron-like robot with Ironman like powers? Oh, yeah, and one problem. Ultron doesn't need a suit. Ironman does.
That's not the Civil War storyline. Ultron can however mind control people.
Ultron was designed by Hank Pym and modified by Tony Stark. So repulsor tech and the various other toys come built in with Ultron.
Sorry 'bout that. It's behind that superhero registration act. I was just not clear. About Ultron, in the first seen, he's half broken, and he walks into the Starks' home or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can Ultron take control of human beings, or just machines?
The registration act won't be introduced in Age of Ultron, that's what Captain America: Civil War is all about. Rumour is it's in reaction to the devastation caused by Ultron.
I'd be super surprised if Ultron could control living beings. That said, he's intelligent, so reasoning with people to get them on his side (which it appears he does with Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch at least temporarily) isn't out of the question.
I doubt he'd really personally control anything other than his own body, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some 'cloud' based transferring to keep him alive in the MCU while still allowing the Avengers a victory by destroying his body.
I get the feeling that it is some sort of situation where, Tony in his normal Iron Man suit is trapped inside the Hulkbuster suit, which is controlled by Ultron and is used to attack Hulk.
It very much fits the Pinocchio theme of the film for that to happen.
Even if Ultron can't control people, don't forget Scarlet Witch is in this movie as well, and seemingly on his side, or at least against the Avengers for a bit of it, so who knows what kind of crap could go down.
Also I'd wager the Registration Act would be less a reaction to Ultron and more to Hulk v Iron Man duking it out downtown. I think I heard we're supposed to see that or some other fallout from Avengers start to come up in Ant Man?
Ahtman wrote: And I definitely feel like Ultron is attacking the Hulk through the suit.
In some shots Hulk's eyes are red. He's being controlled/deluded/artificially enraged.
-Loki- wrote: I'd be super surprised if Ultron could control living beings.
Just a theory based upon a toy, but...
Spoiler:
Lego toys show the attack on Avengers tower involves Ultron, or a drone of his, flying off with Loki's staff. That might explain why he's allied with QS/SW and has made Hulk go nuts.
So the movie order appears to be:
1. Avengers free "test subjects" from Strucker. 2. They get Loki's staff back in the process. 3, Some drones get busted up during the fight. 4. They're celebrating when Skynet goes active and flips out. 5. One of Ultron's drones or he himself takes the staff. 6. He takes QS/SW and mind-warps them. 7. SW messes with the team. Thor heads back to Asgard. Rest of the team flees to Hawkeye's farm. 8. Somehow they end up in Wakanda, Hulk fights Stark, and Klaw's involved, and I don't know what happens after that.
-Loki- wrote: I'd be super surprised if Ultron could control living beings.
Just a theory based upon a toy, but...
Spoiler:
Lego toys show the attack on Avengers tower involves Ultron, or a drone of his, flying off with Loki's staff. That might explain why he's allied with QS/SW and has made Hulk go nuts.
So the movie order appears to be:
1. Avengers free "test subjects" from Strucker.
2. They get Loki's staff back in the process.
3, Some drones get busted up during the fight.
4. They're celebrating when Skynet goes active and flips out.
5. One of Ultron's drones or he himself takes the staff.
6. He takes QS/SW and mind-warps them.
7. SW messes with the team. Thor heads back to Asgard. Rest of the team flees to Hawkeye's farm.
8. Somehow they end up in Wakanda, Hulk fights Stark, and Klaw's involved, and I don't know what happens after that.
Seems logical, but I'll be a bit disappointed if the staff is used to make more people bad for a limited time again. Worked once, let it go and do something new.
-Loki- wrote: The very first trailer, it shows the Hulkbuster suit wrapping itself around another Iron Man suit
It shows a suit being wrapped up in it, not Tony Stark. He could be in the suit as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is in control.
-Loki- wrote: Logical conclusion is it's Stark in an Iron Man suit that's in the Hulkbuster.
When you know someone is trying to keep secrets then you already know they are trying to trick you.
-Loki- wrote: There's no other reason for it. If it the smaller suit was a drone or AI controlled, then it's simpler to just make the Hulkbuster a drone.
It is a comic book movie, there are a multitude of reasons for it, not just meta one like making a toy line. The Hulk-buster suit may not work to it's full potential without a suit in it, especially if actually fighting the Hulk.
AduroT wrote:Even if Ultron can't control people, don't forget Scarlet Witch is in this movie as well, and seemingly on his side, or at least against the Avengers for a bit of it, so who knows what kind of crap could go down.
Well last we saw Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver they were under the care of HYDRA who had Loki's staff.
H.B.M.C. wrote:In some shots Hulk's eyes are red. He's being controlled/deluded/artificially enraged.
That could work as well. If anything is going to get Tony into the suit again it would be an Angry Rampaging Hulk I suppose. And an out of control robot he designed trying to kill everyone, but mostly the Hulk thing. I honestly try not to think to much about it until the film comes out. It would also give them a reason to either have everyone hate on Hulk and/or make the public really turn against him.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well since I got to thinkin 'bout it we have two issues here"
Ultron can control suits/drones including his own suit.
The Loki Scepter with the (most likely) Gem of the Mind can control people.
So you have a guy that can control machines and a group that can control people. They both may be made to fight each other in a public area to make the Avenger's look bad.
-Loki- wrote: The very first trailer, it shows the Hulkbuster suit wrapping itself around another Iron Man suit
It shows a suit being wrapped up in it, not Tony Stark. He could be in the suit as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is in control.
People keep coming back to this and I just don't think it's the case. The "you can't see Tony in the Iron Man armor" case ignores the fact that there is also a scene in the trailer where Black Widow is seen trying to calm the Hulk down (she reaches out her hand to him and he does the same). Given Hulks propensity to become a boundless rage-monster, it makes more sense for that to happen (for a couple of reasons that I pointed out much earlier in this thread) and Tony to lead the rest of the team to stop the Hulk instead of a cheap fake-out using a Ultron-controlled Iron Man suit inside another Iron Man suit (especially if H.B.M.C.'s theory is correct).
I get that these are comic book movies, but a what looks like a major fight in the movie between two prominent characters boiling down to a supervillian-controlled superhero suit picking a fight with another superhero is just a little too comic bookish. Of course like I said earlier, we could all be wrong too.
So... Spider-Man in Infinity War 1. That's the report today. The report has spoilers for other characters, so I'm avoiding it, but yeah, that's today's word.
So long as we still get Spidey 3, Sinister 6, Venom and possibly Black Cat movies from either Disney or Sony, and the current and awesome Spidey series isn't scrapped/retconned/whatever.
It is neither because claiming something to be a comic book but to much of a comic book is a bit silly. Some comics are serious others are goofy; some comic storylines are good and others are bad; leaping to the big screen doesn't change much as far as the nature of the stories go. You would be better off arguing that you are worried that it will be bad storytelling than saying a comic will be a comic.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Really? You want to continue Sony's train-wreck movies?
Yep. Loved the first, second was even better, they're easily as good as anything Marvel have done. Which is why merging the two would be just about perfect.
It is neither because claiming something to be a comic book but to much of a comic book is a bit silly. Some comics are serious others are goofy; some comic storylines are good and others are bad; leaping to the big screen doesn't change much as far as the nature of the stories go. You would be better off arguing that you are worried that it will be bad storytelling than saying a comic will be a comic.
It is entirely possible to adapt a story from a comic book into a movie without using all the stupid and ridiculous gak that is often in comic books. The MCU movies have done this already: take the good, leave the garbage. I expect them to do it with Civil War too, because most of that storyline was utter gak.
To me, a mind-controlled Iron Man inside another Iron Man fighting another the Hulk is weak. It would be meaningless in terms of story:
"Oh sorry, Bruce... That was Ultron fighting you with me inside an Iron Man inside of another Iron Man."
"No biggie, Tony, it's all good. Do you want to go get shawarma?"
Let's not forget that they already tried it in the first Avengers with Loki mind-controlling Hawkeye... and it was the weakest part of the movie.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: It is entirely possible to adapt a story from a comic book into a movie without using all the stupid and ridiculous gak that is often in comic books
Because non-comic book movies have never been ridiculous either? It is a guy in what is basically a magic suit, a re-appropriated god, a super human, Jekyl and Hyde man, a super spy, and improbable sharpshooter in the same movie but now you are worried it might be a bit ridiculous and over-the-top if there is mind control and/or wi-fi control of computer systems?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: It is entirely possible to adapt a story from a comic book into a movie without using all the stupid and ridiculous gak that is often in comic books
Because non-comic book movies have never been ridiculous either? It is a guy in what is basically a magic suit, a re-appropriated god, a super human, Jekyl and Hyde man, a super spy, and improbable sharpshooter in the same movie but now you are worried it might be a bit ridiculous and over-the-top if there is mind control and/or wi-fi control of computer systems?
Straw man much?
I never said there was no ridiculousness in comic book movies. What I said, and was pretty clear about, is that there is a level of ridiculousness in actual comic books that would be out of place if it made the translation to movies. In my opinion (which I have also made clear), Tony stuck in an Iron Man suit inside of another Iron Man suit fighting it out with the Hulk in a pointless fight with would be a let down: with no tension between the characters and no implications to the team, it would just be a showy fight for giddy fanboys. If it happens the way you seem to think it will... okay? I'll watch it, enjoy it for what it is, and in the end I'll say, "That was cool, but it could have been better," and then move on.
But please continue to make it sound like I want the next Avengers movie to be ultra grounded and realistic with no fantastical elements at all.
Sony has denied Spidey's presence in Infinity War, in case anyone was wondering about that latest report.
Paradigm wrote: Yep. Loved the first, second was even better, they're easily as good as anything Marvel have done. Which is why merging the two would be just about perfect.
I mean I liked the first one, but yikes, that second one was not good. And as good as anything Marvel has done? You remind me of a friend who said Avengers was about as good as Battleship.
Edit: Needless to say I think Scooty and I are talking passed eachother when we are both just discussing possibilities and still seemingly getting steamed about it when neither of us are absolutely sold on an idea of the plot. Therefor it is easier to just:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sony has denied Spidey's presence in Infinity War, in case anyone was wondering about that latest report.
Paradigm wrote: Yep. Loved the first, second was even better, they're easily as good as anything Marvel have done. Which is why merging the two would be just about perfect.
I mean I liked the first one, but yikes, that second one was not good. And as good as anything Marvel has done? You remind me of a friend who said Avengers was about as good as Battleship.
No accounting for taste, as they say.
Purely out of interest, what were your issues with the second one? I thought the acting was great all round, Electro was almost Loki-levels of good as a villain, the ending was brilliant (I was really hoping they would stick with the actual death rather than a cop-out, and so glad when they did), and I think it could happily sit alongside any Marvel film and feed into the MCU without an issue.
To be honest, the only Spider-Man I enjoyed was the first outing with Tobey Maguire and Willem Dafoe. Had all the right stuff in it. Dafoe's Goblin/Norman Osborne is a really tough performance to beat IMO.
What would be cool is if they put Spidey into the Avenger-verse and gave him the Iron Spider suit-courtesy of Tony Stark!
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sony has denied Spidey's presence in Infinity War, in case anyone was wondering about that latest report.
Paradigm wrote: Yep. Loved the first, second was even better, they're easily as good as anything Marvel have done. Which is why merging the two would be just about perfect.
I mean I liked the first one, but yikes, that second one was not good. And as good as anything Marvel has done? You remind me of a friend who said Avengers was about as good as Battleship.
No accounting for taste, as they say.
Might not be a stretch to say it'd fit comfortably alongside the average MCU film, though. After you get past Avengers, Iron Man, Guardians, and Cap 2, it's a whole lot of 'meh' IMO.
angelofvengeance wrote: To be honest, the only Spider-Man I enjoyed was the first outing with Tobey Maguire and Willem Dafoe. Had all the right stuff in it. Dafoe's Goblin/Norman Osborne is a really tough performance to beat IMO.
What would be cool is if they put Spidey into the Avenger-verse and gave him the Iron Spider suit-courtesy of Tony Stark!
Need I say more?
It will continue to bother me that the Iron Spider suit only has three extra limbs...
I figured as much... Probably the best we could have hoped for given they can't use the Mutant origin.
On a side note, this month's Empire magazine has a big feature n AoU, some very minor spoilers but also some interesting hints on what we'll see. Apparently, the film opens with a 'Bond-ian' pre-credits sequence with The Avengers
Spoiler:
attacking Strucker's fortress in Europe, in which Banner has a 'Code Green'... I expect awesomeness!
Marvel as it stands cannot say, use or reference Mutants so long as Fox have the X-men licence (which thankfully, they seem to have covered for quite a while). It's why at the end of TWS, Strucker refers to them as 'Miracles'.
Banner is not a mutant in the evolutionary sense, he gains his powers through exposure to Gamma radiation. While this may cause his cells to 'mutate', he's not a Mutant in Marvel terms.
