Avengers sequel will be called Age of Ultron

[NinjaPug]

Just announced by Whedon at SDCC.

[Slap-Happy]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1069390_572169486174395_797496507_n.jpg

[tmnt transformer]

Awesome! Ultron will finally be in a movie!

[CyberCubed]

So a movie about fighting an artificial intelligence....a lot like almost every sci-fi movie ever made that doesn't have aliens.

[Donatello19]

Another Avengers movie? I didn't think they'd make another one.

[tmnt transformer]

So a movie about fighting an artificial intelligence....a lot like almost every sci-fi movie ever made that doesn't have aliens.

What are you talking about?! Ultron is possibly one of the bast villains ever!

[Zany Orange Dude]

Another Avengers movie? I didn't think they'd make another one.

When something makes the amount of money Avengers did, it's bound to get a sequel.

[oldmanwinters]

They may be fighting Ultron, but Batman-Superman will be the real adversary at the box office!

[Ninjinister]

So a movie about fighting an artificial intelligence....a lot like almost every sci-fi movie ever made that doesn't have aliens.

You're a damn idiot, you know that?

Another Avengers movie? I didn't think they'd make another one.

Seriously? Avengers 2 was confirmed a long, long time ago. That's why they're doing "Phases" of movies.

[CyberCubed]

Ultron is an extremely boring villain, especially for a movie. Thankfully it won't be all about him but its a lackluster choice.

[TigerClaw]

We can also expect Ant-Man in Phase 2. You cant have Ultron without Antman being involved since hes Hank Pym.

[snake]

What? I thought Thanos was in Avengers 2

[NSP]

Ultron is a cool villian. Im sure theyll tie this into the new ANT-MAN movie.

[Raph's Girl]

The real question is will the movie follow the same plot as the recent Age of Ultron story in the comics??? I certainly hope not...

[NSP]

Ultron is a cool villian. Im sure theyll tie this into the new ANT-MAN movie.



wow! i turned from a 'random punk'....to a 'THUG!' (AVATAR)

:trazz:

[ZariusTwo]

Another Avengers movie? I didn't think they'd make another one.

And the award for "least sharpest tool in the hollywood buisness manifesto" goes to...

[NinjaPug]

We can also expect Ant-Man in Phase 2. You cant have Ultron without Antman being involved since hes Hank Pym.

This is what concerns me. Ant-Man is technically part of Phase 3 and comes out after Avengers 2. You gotta have Pym create Ultron. Maybe Pym is just a scientist in Avengers 2 that creates Ultron and then his movie revolves around him creating the Pym particle technology.

[TigerClaw]

The thing is, If you bring in Hank Pym, Then you gotta have The Wasp, Whose his Wife. Then again, He kinda has a reputation for beating his wife, And that might not sit very well for movie audience if they showed that aspect.

[Candy Kappa]

The thing is, If you bring in Hank Pym, Then you gotta have The Wasp, Whose his Wife. Then again, He kinda has a reputation for beating his wife, And that might not sit very well for movie audience if they showed that aspect.

which is odd since I'm pretty sure Mr. fantastic have hit his wife more then Hank ever have in all of the multi-verse versions.

Buuut. Ultimate Hank is a cold SOB, more then the rest of the so called "heroes" that inhabit the Ultimate Universe. Hopefully, if Ant-Man ever comes on the silver screen, I hope he is as well handled as the rest of the characters in the Movie-verse.

[MikeandRaph87]

Is this an adaption to the event going on right now in a corner of the Marvel universe?

Where does that place Thanos who was shown at the end of the film to be the one manipulating the movie's events?

[TigerClaw]

Is this an adaption to the event going on right now in a corner of the Marvel universe?

Where does that place Thanos who was shown at the end of the film to be the one manipulating the movie's events?
I heard that Thanos will be a part of Guardians of the Galaxy.
http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/07/20/marvel-head-talks-thanos-ultron-comic-con-2013

[NinjaPug]

No, they are only borrowing the name Age of Ultron. It won't be based on the recent comic book arc.

They said Thanos would appear in the Guardians movie as a puppet master. Sounds like they're holding off on him being the main villain until Avengers 3.

[TurtleTitan97]

Sweet! I can't wait for this! Ultron is one of my favorite Avengers villains, looking forward to seeing him on the big screen. I do hope that Ant-Man and Wasp will appear also.

[NinjaPug]

Whedon confirmed Pym won't be in the movie. Damn. Guess that means Stark creates Ultron.

[sdp]

shame, but I hope this means they won't rush Pym and they'll make him interesting.

Ultron will probably be Jarvis, I got that vibe during Iron Man 3 for some reason.

[NSP]

Whedon confirmed Pym won't be in the movie. Damn. Guess that means Stark creates Ultron.



Thats lame. Alot of peeps wont be happy with that...including me.

[NinjaPug]

Ultron will probably be Jarvis

Yep, definitely think that's the route they're going.

[CyberCubed]

He better not be.

[The Stryker]

He better not be.

Or what? You'll beat them up?

[CyberCubed]

Or what? You'll beat them up?

It'll be like "The Mandarin" incident from Iron Man 3 all over again.

[sdp]

The Mandarin thing disappointed me however I'd like Jarvis being Ultron. I mean they already changed Jarvis into a machine AI instead of a human and he's had a few movies to interact with people, for the program to be corrupted or it forming its own morality would be better than just having someone who is not Pym (stark?) create a robot AI like Jarvis and it go rogue. It really is the best option..

[Coola Yagami]

The Mandarin thing disappointed me however I'd like Jarvis being Ultron. I mean they already changed Jarvis into a machine AI instead of a human and he's had a few movies to interact with people, for the program to be corrupted or it forming its own morality would be better than just having someone who is not Pym (stark?) create a robot AI like Jarvis and it go rogue. It really is the best option..

What heroes are gonna be in Guardians of the Galaxy? Never head of them.

Also it makes more sense for Pym to create Ultron since he wouldn't know how to created a good AI like Stark did and that caused it to go rogue?

[CyberCubed]

Guardians of the Galaxy is more of a sci-fi story rather than traditional superhero stuff.

[The Sewer Lord]

So, no Thanos?

http://media.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/15539/ThanosTears.jpg

[Zulithe]

So, no Thanos?

http://media.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/15539/ThanosTears.jpg

They are building towards it, he should show up in Guardians in some form and maybe be the big bad in Avengers 3?

[Hero]

Will an X-Men tie-in (even a loose connection) now be likely? I read that Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch will be in Avengers 2.

[JakeSully]

Sounds promising, i can't wait.

[CyberCubed]

Will an X-Men tie-in (even a loose connection) now be likely? I read that Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch will be in Avengers 2.

They're using completely different actors for both movies so its unlikely. Why they want to use X-men characters in Avengers doesn't even make sense.

These two are Magneto's children, why would they be in Avengers?

[Cure]

These two are Magneto's children, why would they be in Avengers?

Because they're Avengers.

[NinjaPug]

Will an X-Men tie-in (even a loose connection) now be likely? I read that Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch will be in Avengers 2.

Unfortunately no. Marvel doesn't own the movie rights to the X-Men. Fox does. There are certain characters that both studios can use (like Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch) but with limitations. For example, Fox can use Quicksilver but can't make mention to him being an Avenger. Marvel can also use him but can't mention that he's a mutant or Magneto's son.

They're using completely different actors for both movies so its unlikely. Why they want to use X-men characters in Avengers doesn't even make sense.

These two are Magneto's children, why would they be in Avengers?

Because both characters have been Avengers since the 60's.

[Leo656]

Man, I wish the guys behind the Marvel movies had more foresight back in 2000 or so. By letting the rights to Spider-Man and others slip away before Marvel Studios was formed, they completely shattered their film universe and made it impossible for all the Marvel characters to be under one corporate film banner. It's as dumb as when Warner Bros. let the rights to Superman get licensed by the Salkinds beck in the 70s, to the point where WB didn't even own the rights to their biggest character's films until 2000 or so.

I know back in 2000 there was no Marvel Studios yet, and in fact just getting the Spider-Man and X-Men movies made at all was the biggest challenge, but I find it hard to fathom they weren't at least thinking about the *possibility* of one day doing joint films, and that maybe having their characters all licensed to different companies wasn't a great idea.

I mean, it's not world-breaking, or anything, but it sucks that we can never, ever see stuff like Spider-Man join the Avengers, or an X-Men/Avengers movie. Sony has flat-out said that the world will perish in flames before they even think about letting go of Spider-Man, and you can't really blame them. It's just the usual corporate nonsense.

[CyberCubed]

It's not a big deal. Most of the X-men and Spider-Man movies have been good, with the obvious exception of a few duds.

But they seem to be reaching their stride now. The Wolverine is getting great reviews and X-men First Class was excellent. Spider-Man 2014 looks good as well.

[Leo656]

It's not a HUGE deal, but it still has relevance. Ask any Marvel fan if they would want to see, say, "X-Men Vs. Avengers" as a film, or have Spider-Man join the Avengers like in the comics, or maybe even adapt "Civil War" into a film, and the obvious answer is "YES, of course I would LOVE to see that!" And it's disheartening that it can never happen because of short-sightedness and corporate greed.

Do they NEED to do any of that for the individual movies to be good? No, but it would be terrific all the same. To make a very broad point, it's like if one film studio had the rights to TMNT, and another studio had the rights to do movies based on the Casey Jones character by himself (obviously that would never happen, just bear with me here). It would be stupid and frustrating to watch, knowing that these characters will never interact on-screen even though they really belong together by design.

But whatever, it is what it is. It's entirely possible (if unlikely) that one day a Spider-Man movie bombs so badly that Sony sells the rights back, but I would never hold my breath waiting for it.

[CyberCubed]

But whatever, it is what it is. It's entirely possible (if unlikely) that one day a Spider-Man movie bombs so badly that Sony sells the rights back, but I would never hold my breath waiting for it.

That would have been Spiderman 3. If that movie didn't cause Fox to give up the license, then nothing will.

They'll go for another reboot.

[The Sewer Lord]

They are building towards it, he should show up in Guardians in some form and maybe be the big bad in Avengers 3?

I know. I was just so disappointed of Darkseid and Galactus' potrayals in the films I fear for Thanos. He looked promising.

[Cure]

That would have been Spiderman 3. If that movie didn't cause Fox to give up the license, then nothing will.


That made $890 million dollars worldwide. Your definition of a bomb is pretty askew.

And don't give me sh*t about a score with critics or something. Money is money.

[Leo656]

That movie didn't bomb, it made lots of money. It was like "Fantastic 4" or "X-Men 3"; people were so distracted by the SFX it took them about a month or so to realize they'd actually gone and paid to see a bad movie 2 or 3 times. Spider-Man 3 was the same thing; lots of people liked it *at first*, then they realized they'd been had.

But the movie had already made tons of money, so it was in no way a "bomb". They were never completely happy with Raimi's old-school reverence for the 60s comics and complete disinterest in using any of the newer, more popular villains, and they had also never been completely happy with Maguire or Dunst, either, as both were rumored to be replaced several times in between movies for various reasons (Toby got hurt while Dunst just sucked). From the very beginning, the Spider-Man franchise was built on shaky ground and about halfway through watching the second film, you somehow got the idea that it was already coming undone. Part 3 was just the final implosion on-screen of a bunch of elements that never really came together right, and they'd already more or less planned to reboot the franchise with the fourth film, anyway (if for no other reason than Maguire, Raimi and co. were too expensive to keep).

It was a bad movie, but in no way was it "Batman & Robin" bad, or a "bomb", especially since it made so much money. And since they were already thinking reboot, its quality (or lack thereof) really wasn't a deciding factor in anything. Just an affirmation of what they already knew, that the formula they had in place wasn't working.

[Galactus]

Man, I wish the guys behind the Marvel movies had more foresight back in 2000 or so. By letting the rights to Spider-Man and others slip away before Marvel Studios was formed, they completely shattered their film universe and made it impossible for all the Marvel characters to be under one corporate film banner. It's as dumb as when Warner Bros. let the rights to Superman get licensed by the Salkinds beck in the 70s, to the point where WB didn't even own the rights to their biggest character's films until 2000 or so.

I know back in 2000 there was no Marvel Studios yet, and in fact just getting the Spider-Man and X-Men movies made at all was the biggest challenge, but I find it hard to fathom they weren't at least thinking about the *possibility* of one day doing joint films, and that maybe having their characters all licensed to different companies wasn't a great idea.

I don't think it's really hampering them. If anything necessity has encouraged Marvel to actualy put effort into boosting up their other franchises. If anyone suggested back in 2000 that an Iron Man movie would be making more money than a Spider-Man one or that Avengers would be consdered a bigger franchise than the X-Men we'd be calling them insane but there it is.

Marvel now have a thriving cinematic universe and made huge household names of characters that your average joe might only be vaguely familiar with such as Iron Man, Captain America and Thor.

Whereas it shouldn't be an issue with the DC heroes as they are all under the same company but the WB is struggling with any comic book property that isn't Batman or Superman.

I mean, it's not world-breaking, or anything, but it sucks that we can never, ever see stuff like Spider-Man join the Avengers, or an X-Men/Avengers movie. Sony has flat-out said that the world will perish in flames before they even think about letting go of Spider-Man, and you can't really blame them. It's just the usual corporate nonsense.

There's quite a few Avengers fans who feel that Spidey shouldn't be an Avenger either in movies or publishing since he's not really a member from what is condered the traditional or 'classic' era.

I disagree but for now Marvel is ticking along fine without Spider-Man or Wolverine for that matter as Avengers in the movies. Not to mention things change over time. A few years down the line a deal could be made with Sony that can have Spider-Man or a version of him in the Avengers movies. It's a small step but if it can happen with Quicksilver then it's a start.

[Leo656]

Again, not saying it's mandatory they do it or catastrophic that they can't do it. The point is, they flat-out cannot make certain things happen that every comic fan would love to see on film, and that's just sad any way you look at it. A "Civil War" adaptation would be even bigger than Avengers was, and don't think they aren't kicking themselves over the business decisions that will prevent it from ever happening. 10 years ago, no, it wouldn't have even been a consideration. But you can bet they wish they could do it now.

And Warner Bros. has always been run by the exact type of corporate-minded imbeciles that led to that kind of scenario, that's why they can't figure out how to do their DC properties as films. Logically, it should be the easiest thing ever, but they can't figure out how to even do Batman right, and even then they screw it up half the time. It's why they release a dozen Batman animated films for every Wonder Woman or Green Lantern one, for example. They're hamstrung by a very corporate mindset and thus are afraid to do anything even slightly risky.

It's also the prime motivator for the Man of Steel "Sequel"; I promise you, the following conversation took place in an office the day before Comic-Con: "Well, 'Man of Steel' made a lot of money... BUT, it only made $600 million worldwide, so technically, it's a failure, because 'Avengers' made over a billion. What do we do?" "Put Batman in the next one, Batman fixes everything."