Marvel Cinematic Universe

[Clone OPatra]

The only thing I am worried about Thor being on Earth is that Cap 2 takes place about a year after Thor 2, and some of the battles look really public. Like with all the Helicarriers. So it may be hard to explain why Thor doesn't swoop over and find out what is wrong.

The same thing was totally a problem in IM3. Firstly, why couldn't Tony Stark call up an Avenger buddy? We know he knows where Bruce Banner is from the post-credits scene, so he could have easily gone there with his smashed suit instead of traipsing around in the middle-of-nowhere. Secondly, SHIELD/Captain America doesn't respond when the president is kidnapped? Really? That seems to be a big deal. Feige has conveniently explained away that one with 'you'll see later why they were busy,' but you can't just cover over plot holes with that type of explanation IMO. It sounds like a bad excuse.

Thor 2 at least worked well enough. I never thought while watching it 'why isn't one of the other Avengers here?' But Thor is a special case because he didn't really like them anyway.

[The Legonater]

Thor 2 at least worked well enough. I never thought while watching it 'why isn't one of the other Avengers here?' But Thor is a special case because he didn't really like them anyway.

He didn't? I never picked up on that. Sure at first, but wasn't the whole point of the movie that everyone resolved their differences? Other-wise you could use the same point with Stark, as at the beginning of the movie he wasn't too fond of a lot of the Avengers himself.

[Ultron]

The same thing was totally a problem in IM3. Firstly, why couldn't Tony Stark call up an Avenger buddy? We know he knows where Bruce Banner is from the post-credits scene, so he could have easily gone there with his smashed suit instead of traipsing around in the middle-of-nowhere. Secondly, SHIELD/Captain America doesn't respond when the president is kidnapped? Really? That seems to be a big deal. Feige has conveniently explained away that one with 'you'll see later why they were busy,' but you can't just cover over plot holes with that type of explanation IMO. It sounds like a bad excuse.

Thor 2 at least worked well enough. I never thought while watching it 'why isn't one of the other Avengers here?' But Thor is a special case because he didn't really like them anyway.

There was just no way any of the avengers could have gotten to london in time either. The battle took place in the matter of 15 minutes. I don't think Thor necessarily disliked any of the avengers. At the end of the movie they all departed as equals and seemingly friends

[Mr Man]

I think Thor still sees himself and his problems as above the Avengers. It makes sense to me that he would rather try defeat Malaketh on his own that ask for their help.

[Im a brickmaster.]

Yeah, he has the whole "brave warrior" thing going on. I think where ever you go therewill always be whiners! Every week I watch Agents of Shield and the Goldbergs. I quite like the show, if you have that much hate against ONE show that Marvel is trying to use to broaden there fan base, handle your self for lords sake!

As for Thor not flying to the aid of his fellow Avengers, if Iron Man can't handle a cheap actor with a bun wearing a bathrobe, then maybe it would be time to bring in some more heros! Same goes for Cap, as the trailers demonstrate he can more then handle him self in a bad situation.

And of thesis.

Boy.

[Clone OPatra]

There was just no way any of the avengers could have gotten to london in time either.

This sounds like you're disagreeing, but that's actually what I said. It made sense in Thor 2 that nobody else was there. It didn't make sense in IM3, though, what with the president being kidnapped and all. It just didn't work for me that Stark didn't at least go to Bruce Banner for help, and IMO it would've made it a much better movie since the Stark/Banner dynamic was one of the best things in Avengers.

[Mr Man]

This is the only problem with having the Avengers so early on, it becomes a bit annoying trying to have to justify where the Avengers are in events. Having Hulk in IM3 would have been great as it seems unlikely we will get a Hulk film before 2016.

[BrickG]

The Hulk is believable because that guy tends to keep to himself. They don't seem to attempt to summon him unless absolutely necessary because of all the collateral damage he's capable of.

Iron Man? Harder to justify. He's got a flying suit that can get anywhere in the world in a matter of hours...

Thor? We haven't seen his private life. Though I can't see a logical reason he wouldn't be available and he can fly fast too, maybe faster than Iron Man.

Captain America? Okay he could be on missions and doesn't have the mobility to get somewhere as fast as Iron Man and Thor. So he's a bit believable.

But still, it feels like Star Trek trying to bull crap a reason for Worf being in the movies, but opposite. :P

Why is Worf there? He works on Deep Space Nine now!

[Ultron]

Guardians of the Galaxy teaser trailer is coming on Feb. 18th. Also, Kevin Feige stated a Black Widow movie is in the works. This is good, hopefully her and Hawkeye will split the movie. I'm still waiting for a Ms. Marvel movie but I like Scar Jo as Black Widow so I'm perfectly alright with this. Also, Whedon has also reiterated that BW will have a large role in Avengers 2. Although I'm not sure what exactly she can do against Ultron...but we'll see. I still find it amusing that Black Widow gets her own movie and we have characters like Rocket Raccoon about to take the spotlight when Wonder Woman hasn't even gotten her own movie yet even though she's arguably the most popular female superhero. That's the power of Marvel.

[Lord Rahl of Clannad]

I'm not sure if I am really happy about the prospect of a Black Widow movie, or of her having a large role in AoU. I'll reserve judgement for now though. On the other note, it's great that we finally have confirmation of when we will see our first GotG trailer. I can't wait to see what is in store for us in the summer with this film.

[TenorPenny]

Joss Whedon is well known for preferring the power of human ingenuity and spirit over superpowers and mutants. He said the same stuff about Black Widow and The Avengers to begin with, that her role would be integral, etc.

[Tanma]

Okay, I need everyone's help with remembering something. In Episode 5 of Agents of SHIELD, there is the character Scorch. Everyone else remembers him having no origin, but I recall a line about a nuclear fire. Coulson said they didn't know why only Chan would have been affected, but it still was a possible origin. Does anyone else remember this moment? Or am I alone in recalling this?

Edited February 13, 2014 by Tanma

[Ultron]

I'm not sure if I am really happy about the prospect of a Black Widow movie, or of her having a large role in AoU. I'll reserve judgement for now though. On the other note, it's great that we finally have confirmation of when we will see our first GotG trailer. I can't wait to see what is in store for us in the summer with this film.

Hopefully we get a shot of Rocket Raccoon talking/shooting and of Ronan or Thanos. A Black Widow movie could be good, but I think her and Hawkeye should split it if anything.

Okay, I need everyone's help with remembering something. In Episode 5 of Agents of SHIELD, there is the character Scorch. Everyone else remembers him having no origin, but I recall a line about a nuclear fire. Coulson said they didn't know why only Chan would have been affected, but it still was a possible origin. Does anyone else remember this moment? Or am I alone in recalling this?

I believe he was a nearby resident when a nuclear power plant caught fire which gave him his powers. No other people were reported having them though.

[Tanma]

Hopefully we get a shot of Rocket Raccoon talking/shooting and of Ronan or Thanos. A Black Widow movie could be good, but I think her and Hawkeye should split it if anything.

I believe he was a nearby resident when a nuclear power plant caught fire which gave him his powers. No other people were reported having them though.

That is what I thought, a lot of people on the internet just seem to think he had no origin, and they use it for the "Skye is an Inhuman theory," by suggesting he might be one too.

On Black Widow, I am glad that she is getting a movie, but I wish Wasp had one first.

I find myself getting more worried that MCU Wasp is going to be regulated to sidekick or love interest rather than partner, assuming she is the character in planning for Ant-Man.

[Ultron]

That is what I thought, a lot of people on the internet just seem to think he had no origin, and they use it for the "Skye is an Inhuman theory," by suggesting he might be one too.

On Black Widow, I am glad that she is getting a movie, but I wish Wasp had one first.

I find myself getting more worried that MCU Wasp is going to be regulated to sidekick or love interest rather than partner, assuming she is the character in planning for Ant-Man.

I doubt Joss Whedon would allow that. I'm not sure how much say he would exactly have in the movie (if any) but Wasp is one of his favorites so I doubt he'd let her be used as a side-kick. Plus if she and ant-man make it into the avengers, you can expect her to have a large role and be more than just a love interest if she's portrayed that way.

[Tanma]

I doubt Joss Whedon would allow that. I'm not sure how much say he would exactly have in the movie (if any) but Wasp is one of his favorites so I doubt he'd let her be used as a side-kick. Plus if she and ant-man make it into the avengers, you can expect her to have a large role and be more than just a love interest if she's portrayed that way.

I hope so.

You know, I've heard about Cap 3 and Thor 3, but I haven't really heard anything definitive about an Iron Man 4. I mean, I know they are going to keep using the character, he is too popular, they won't kill him off. but a part of me wonders if he actually has retired, and will remain so for a while. Like, he will just appear in Avengers and other superhero movies as a scientist and inventor, not as Iron Man.

By the way, since Scott Lang seems to be our Ant-Man and that means Cassie; does Marvel have the rights to Kang, or is he with the Fantastic Four? Because they already will have to adapt Wiccan and Speed's origins (can't be mutants), and I worry that if they ever want to do Young Avengers they will have to change the majority of their backstories.

[The Brigante]

I hope so.

You know, I've heard about Cap 3 and Thor 3, but I haven't really heard anything definitive about an Iron Man 4. I mean, I know they are going to keep using the character, he is too popular, they won't kill him off. but a part of me wonders if he actually has retired, and will remain so for a while. Like, he will just appear in Avengers and other superhero movies as a scientist and inventor, not as Iron Man.

By the way, since Scott Lang seems to be our Ant-Man and that means Cassie; does Marvel have the rights to Kang, or is he with the Fantastic Four? Because they already will have to adapt Wiccan and Speed's origins (can't be mutants), and I worry that if they ever want to do Young Avengers they will have to change the majority of their backstories.

I honestly don't know about IM 4. I know RDJ only signed a 2 film contract (Avengers 2+3). Whether he'll show up as Iron Man or just Stark is something I've been wondering a while. The theory (assuming it's correct) that JARVIS becomes Ultron makes me think he would, but only for a short while, to sort out 'his problem'. But then, Don Cheadle is also supposedly in it.

As for Young Avengers, I'm not sure exactly what the deal is with Fox and Marvel regarding the whole mutant issue is, but they might get away with being able to say they were born with abilities. I dunno, might have the same issue with Hulkling. Either way, they'd probably have to tweak Wiccan and Speed's origin anyway, having teen kids that are somehow Wanda's reincarnated kids might work in comic book storytelling, but I'm not sure how well that would translate onto screen.

[Ultron]

I hope so.

You know, I've heard about Cap 3 and Thor 3, but I haven't really heard anything definitive about an Iron Man 4. I mean, I know they are going to keep using the character, he is too popular, they won't kill him off. but a part of me wonders if he actually has retired, and will remain so for a while. Like, he will just appear in Avengers and other superhero movies as a scientist and inventor, not as Iron Man.

By the way, since Scott Lang seems to be our Ant-Man and that means Cassie; does Marvel have the rights to Kang, or is he with the Fantastic Four? Because they already will have to adapt Wiccan and Speed's origins (can't be mutants), and I worry that if they ever want to do Young Avengers they will have to change the majority of their backstories.

I'm sure after avengers 2 comes out we'll hear something about iron man 4. People will be craving more iron man so I'm sure marvel will answer that. Idk if RDJ will still want to be iron man after avengers 3 but even if he doesn't they'll probably just recast iron man unfortunately. And I'm pretty sure marvel owns Kang the Conqueror because he first appears in the Avengers so I'd assume so. And Idk much about the young avengers so I'm not gonna be much use there

[Tanma]

I'm sure after avengers 2 comes out we'll hear something about iron man 4. People will be craving more iron man so I'm sure marvel will answer that. Idk if RDJ will still want to be iron man after avengers 3 but even if he doesn't they'll probably just recast iron man unfortunately. And I'm pretty sure marvel owns Kang the Conqueror because he first appears in the Avengers so I'd assume so. And Idk much about the young avengers so I'm not gonna be much use there

The reason I am suspicious about Kang is that his real name is Nathaniel Richards, as in Reed Richards. But they got Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, so it could work.

Also, apparently Namor's license was with Universal, at least according to a chart I saw. I am honestly surprised someone bought those rights, he isn't exactly a major character.

[Ultron]

The reason I am suspicious about Kang is that his real name is Nathaniel Richards, as in Reed Richards. But they got Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, so it could work.

Also, apparently Namor's license was with Universal, at least according to a chart I saw. I am honestly surprised someone bought those rights, he isn't exactly a major character.

Yeah I saw that chart too. Idk why you would exactly want only Namor. He's not exactly the most exciting character.

[Tanma]

Yeah I saw that chart too. Idk why you would exactly want only Namor. He's not exactly the most exciting character.

Well, from what I hear Universal originally had the rights to the Hulk. If they had both Namor and the Hulk, maybe they could have done the Defenders? Filled in the ranks with members of their supporting casts?

As I grow more and more convinced that SHIELD will be the villains in Cap 2, I wonder what that will mean for AoS. They have shown the affects of Thor 2, and to a greater extent Iron Man 3 with Extremis, they won't ignore the movies. And since Whedon is in charge of plotting the MCU he already knows what will happen, even if he isn't the main writer. I wonder how the Team will react to the news, how Coulson will feel if Cap does fight SHIELD, and if they will be forced to deal with a new status quo for the rest of the show.

[The Legonater]

I don't really want an Iron Man 4. I know a lot were disappointed, but I thought it was the perfect end to a trilogy, and it would be awkward to keep extending it.

[Ultron]

I don't really want an Iron Man 4. I know a lot were disappointed, but I thought it was the perfect end to a trilogy, and it would be awkward to keep extending it.

Well seeing as how Tony isn't exactly done being Ironman yet I don't think it'd be that awkward. I can see where you're coming from though.

[Clone OPatra]

I don't really see these films as trilogies or their own series. Only Iron Man 1 and 2 felt like they went together because they were the only Marvel movies out, but for the rest of them I don't see them as direct sequels since they rely on information from other MCU films as well. Captain America 2 is certainly not going to feel like a follow-up to the first one, at least I don't think so. Thor 2 is sort of a sequel to Thor, but then again it's also a sequel to Avengers as far as Loki and Thor are concerned.

That's why I see each of these as just another story with whatever character. They're all part of one big series.

[Faefrost]

I don't really see these films as trilogies or their own series. Only Iron Man 1 and 2 felt like they went together because they were the only Marvel movies out, but for the rest of them I don't see them as direct sequels since they rely on information from other MCU films as well. Captain America 2 is certainly not going to feel like a follow-up to the first one, at least I don't think so. Thor 2 is sort of a sequel to Thor, but then again it's also a sequel to Avengers as far as Loki and Thor are concerned.

That's why I see each of these as just another story with whatever character. They're all part of one big series.

In tone Cap2 will be different from Cap1. But story wise, a lot of both key and some subtle elements will come directly from the first movie. Not the least of which being that Cap is simply a man out of time. He's experienced a jarring shift from 1943 or 44 to the present day. But there will be a few other things there that have more direct critical story ties to the first one.

Just as a minor (non spoiler) example. We know that Cap2 revolves around SHIELD. What it is, what it stands for, what it is becoming, and who the players are. What we somewhat subtly know from Cap1, IM2 and AoS is that we saw SHIELD form in CAP1. It literally formed for and around Captain America. And as hinted at by Skye reading the memorial plaque. Bucky Barnes was their first loss. So yeah lots of important stuff there.