Avengers: Age of Ultron

[Leo656]

Shazam was the f***ing WIZARD who GAVE him his powers and it does not take the wisdom of Solomon to read the words on the page which spell this out in crystal clear detail in every single issue of his comic book! Like, the first page, usually!

If people by chance are illiterate jackals, they should not be dictating the currents of popular fiction. His name is Captain Marvel. Because it was Captain Marvel for 80 years, and he's been "Shazam" for five minutes.

SO HUH.

[plastroncafe]

Shh. Shhh. It's okay. I know it hurts when the world moves on without you.
You're not the only one whose dreams and memories DC has squashed.

It will be okay.

[Leo656]

It has been foretold that one day, the Bald-Headed Dragon DiDio will be slain, and all will be set right once more. So it is written, so it shall come to pass.

[plastroncafe]

So say we all.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Leo656

But yeah, it's silly but in truth, just having her there at all is problematic. I mean it's visibly difficult for them to find ways to keep her useful, in between the guy with the do-everything cyborg armor and the invincible Chippendale with the magic hammer. Even Captain America has to work overtime to prove he can pull his weight, and he's more or less the "leader". It's just this side of impossible to believe "chick in skin-tight catsuit" has a resume of Useful Skills putting her qualifications up there with Those Guys. I know it's not "popular" to say this, but it's a very plain truth that her character is in the movies because "We Need A Chick, Or We'll Get Phone Calls". And they already DO get phone calls, because she's not on all the posters. But it's kind of a catch-22, because the fact that she's tough to market has everything to do with the fact that, in this movie universe, she's every bit an extraneous character.

I don't know who else they could have used, though, as I'm not really "up" on all the women who have been Avengers. I'm sure there must be one or two who could have seemed more at home on the team, though. That's always a tough game when it's a team-up flick, but one or two of the main characters could end the entire scenario themselves if they felt like it. Go ahead and make one of the other members a woman, with no super-powers, and now you're trying to go uphill both ways. It's tough to pull off.

Plenty. Spider-Woman, Ms. Marvel(Carol, not that wanna-be imposter), Mockingbird, Tigra, She-Hulk, Wasp....

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Well now that they have Scarlet Witch on board, we finally have a woman with actual powers. But yeah, Widow should stick to partnering with Cap... where powers aren't as important as skills and intel. And badassery.

Yeah, Wanda's a cool addition, but personally, I'm hoping for Carol to eventually show up. She'd make the perfect foil for Tony!

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

And Leo?
There are plenty of Female Avengers, we just haven't gotten them yet because Hollywood believes the male ego is so fragile that dudes won't see an action movie with a lot of chicks in it.

Me personally, I'm looking forward to Captain Marvel.

Hmm, possibly, but Ms. Marvel/Binary makes more sense. More people would know about her. Or Spider-Woman. Heck, She-Hulk would be a fun addition- she could take on Bruce on equal footing when he gets pissy!

[Leo656]

Now, She-Hulk in an Avengers movie... THAT's got possibilities! Sign me up for that one yesterday.

[CyberCubed]

Is Wasp in the Ant-man movie?

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

Hmm, possibly, but Ms. Marvel/Binary makes more sense. More people would know about her. Or Spider-Woman. Heck, She-Hulk would be a fun addition- she could take on Bruce on equal footing when he gets pissy!

When I said Captain Marvel I meant Carol Danvers, not the legacy guy. Plus we're already getting a solo movie about her, so it's kind of a given.

Though... I wouldn't be opposed to Kamala Khan, but to be honest I would prefer cartas de I'm more young adult character.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Now, She-Hulk in an Avengers movie... THAT's got possibilities! Sign me up for that one yesterday.

Noooooo. She cannot be in a Marvel movie, until she's on Daredevil in court against Matt.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

A lot of people I know were upset at the whole "sterilization" aside, but that scene didn't play out that way for me. I mean, one of the first things we hear from Banner in the first movie is, "I don't always get what I want," he says while rocking a cradle back and forth.

For me it makes sense for Widow to point that out in that heart-to-heart moment with Bruce. They're very similar, in many regards.

Always wondering which face is the real one, Natasha/Bruce or Widow/Hulk. Both of them have a violent past they can't escape. Banner literally, and Widow because in Cap 2 she's gone and posted every single horrible thing about herself she's ever done out for the world to read.

Everyone else in the group can easily fade back into regular life if they want to, but not Banner and Romanov. They're forever stuck with what they've got.

No, the plot line in that movie that bothered me the most was that there was no real connection between Ironman 2 and this movie.

Ironman 2 really resonated with me, and I just can't see Tony Stark, the PTSD survivor who at the end of that movie blew up all of his extra iron man suits, not only making MORE, but Betty, and then dreaming up Ultron.

I feel like there are scenes out there that would bridge this gap that ended up on the cutting room floor, and I'm hoping that the Director's Cut of the film bridges the gap.

And Leo?
There are plenty of Female Avengers, we just haven't gotten them yet because Hollywood believes the male ego is so fragile that dudes won't see an action movie with a lot of chicks in it.

Me personally, I'm looking forward to Captain Marvel.

I felt the same way about the empty cradle.

As far as being completely disconnected from Iron Man 3, I liked that but only because I really REALLY did not like Iron Man 3. It was nice that AoU touched on a lot of the same thematic points (PTSD, trying to protect people) as IM3. Just without Extremis, Trevor, and that awful Killian. I did like Iron Patriot though...

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

It's sad how many great female characters there are that Marvel is doing nothing with (or at least took a LONG time to use).

Wasp, She-Hulk, Scarlet Witch, Captain Marvel... although it does seem like a lot of the awesome female characters are in the X-Men: Rogue, Storm, Jean Grey, Emma Frost, X23, Kitty Pryde...

[plastroncafe]

Which, because PEOPLE ARE AGAINST MAKING MONEY and BECAUSE THEY HATE ALL THINGS THAT ARE GOOD AND AWESOME, won't let join the Marvel Movies because: mutants.

Stupid stupid rat creatures.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Which, because PEOPLE ARE AGAINST MAKING MONEY and BECAUSE THEY HATE ALL THINGS THAT ARE GOOD AND AWESOME, won't let join the Marvel Movies because: mutants.

Stupid stupid rat creatures.

BONE QUOTE!!!!!! You just became that much more awesome to me.

But I dunno, I don't think mutants belong in the Marvel universe... "mutants bad superpowers good" never made sense to me. I do like having them as separate cinematic universes, I just wish we could get an actual good X-Men movie with actual good renditions of Rogue, Storm, Cyclops, and NO MORE Mystique or Wolverine.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Which, because PEOPLE ARE AGAINST MAKING MONEY and BECAUSE THEY HATE ALL THINGS THAT ARE GOOD AND AWESOME, won't let join the Marvel Movies because: mutants.

Stupid stupid rat creatures.

[plastroncafe]

!

I loved Bone like burning.

With regards to Marvel....

I've always dug the divide between the Powered Humans and the Humans Have Powers in the Marvel Universe. It lends itself to some great exploration of trends in bigotry.

My very first Big Two comics were X-books, and so I'm already heavily biased regarding them...just right out of the gate.

[Leo656]

It's a great exploration of Trends In Nonsense Storytelling, too.

"Guy who sticks to walls and shoots webs, because of an accident of science = Good. Guy who grew wings because he was born like that = Bad." This tells us that society prefers people who become "freaks" by accident or through scientific meddling, over people simply being born "different". And that's pretty weird.

There's zero logic to why anyone in the Marvel Universe would prefer one type of super-powered human over another, just because some of them were born that way. I mean if anything, the fact that some of them (Mutants) were born that way means they ought to be LESS hated and more accepted, over someone like say, Captain America, who let the Army pump him full of steroids so he could donkey-punch Hitler. But like I said, none of it makes any real sense if you really pick at it. It's just a way to get some artificial "angst" in certain characters' stories... "They're hated by the world they're sworn to protect!"... even though there's really no reason for it.

Huge reason I've always preferred DC's approach to super-heroes. "Oh, so these colorful characters are simply the modern-day 'Titans' of yore, and some people fear and mistrust them because they're so powerful and influential, while others look up to or even worship them for those same reasons." Simple. Consistent. You don't get silly stuff like, "I like Superman because he's a white alien, but I dislike Martian Manhunter because he's visibly green." You'll get stuff like, "Well, I trust Batman, because he's a human being, but I don't trust those Aliens he hangs out with," but that's at least a point of view that makes sense to some degree. I'unno.

It's hard to take the Marvel and X-Men books seriously as any kind of examination of prejudice when the people portrayed in the books don't even have a consistent point of view, is all. I know that's the general idea of it but it's always felt false to me because of the execution. You can't have people "fear and hate" Wolverine in a world where they (mostly) cheer for Spider-Man. Just doesn't work.

Works fine in the movies where Mutants are the only super-powered characters, though. In a comic book where people who spit fireballs are a dime a dozen, though? Ehhhhhhh.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Is Wasp in the Ant-man movie?

Not that I'm aware of, though it's possible, given that Hank is in it. (Though an older Pym, and he's not in the suit.)

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

When I said Captain Marvel I meant Carol Danvers, not the legacy guy. Plus we're already getting a solo movie about her, so it's kind of a given.

Though... I wouldn't be opposed to Kamala Khan, but to be honest I would prefer cartas de I'm more young adult character.

Noooooo. She cannot be in a Marvel movie, until she's on Daredevil in court against Matt.

Ah. There have been sooo many Captain Marvels now that I tend to only think of the guy(s). But, yeah, Carol would be SO great in an Avengers flick, no matter what she's going by! And she's getting her own film?! Yay, happy dance!!

And I would SO be all over seeing She-Hulk in court against Matt.

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

It's sad how many great female characters there are that Marvel is doing nothing with (or at least took a LONG time to use).

Wasp, She-Hulk, Scarlet Witch, Captain Marvel... although it does seem like a lot of the awesome female characters are in the X-Men: Rogue, Storm, Jean Grey, Emma Frost, X23, Kitty Pryde...

All the best Marvel gals are mutants, apparently. Not surprising, as they seem to be more equal-opportunity than the rest of the MU.

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

BONE QUOTE!!!!!! You just became that much more awesome to me.

But I dunno, I don't think mutants belong in the Marvel universe... "mutants bad superpowers good" never made sense to me. I do like having them as separate cinematic universes, I just wish we could get an actual good X-Men movie with actual good renditions of Rogue, Storm, Cyclops, and NO MORE Mystique or Wolverine.

I liked most of what we've had except X-3 and the last half of Origins. (Both for obvious reasons I won't go into.) And okay, I wish they hadn't shoved Darwin and Angel into First Class- that decision never made any sense to me. Neither did Havok, for that matter. Why have Scott's BROTHER BEFORE him??! The other two were third-gen mutants, and had NO place in that timeline! Banshee, I was okay with, and even Azazel, since it left him open to become Kurt's father later.

But mutants are "bad" in the eyes of the general populous because they represent their own extinction, given enough time. So it makes sense that they are "hated" for being the future of humanity, which is a scary thought.

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's a great exploration of Trends In Nonsense Storytelling, too.

"Guy who sticks to walls and shoots webs, because of an accident of science = Good. Guy who grew wings because he was born like that = Bad." This tells us that society prefers people who become "freaks" by accident or through scientific meddling, over people simply being born "different". And that's pretty weird.

There's zero logic to why anyone in the Marvel Universe would prefer one type of super-powered human over another, just because some of them were born that way. I mean if anything, the fact that some of them (Mutants) were born that way means they ought to be LESS hated and more accepted, over someone like say, Captain America, who let the Army pump him full of steroids so he could donkey-punch Hitler. But like I said, none of it makes any real sense if you really pick at it. It's just a way to get some artificial "angst" in certain characters' stories... "They're hated by the world they're sworn to protect!"... even though there's really no reason for it.

Huge reason I've always preferred DC's approach to super-heroes. "Oh, so these colorful characters are simply the modern-day 'Titans' of yore, and some people fear and mistrust them because they're so powerful and influential, while others look up to or even worship them for those same reasons." Simple. Consistent. You don't get silly stuff like, "I like Superman because he's a white alien, but I dislike Martian Manhunter because he's visibly green." You'll get stuff like, "Well, I trust Batman, because he's a human being, but I don't trust those Aliens he hangs out with," but that's at least a point of view that makes sense to some degree. I'unno.

It's hard to take the Marvel and X-Men books seriously as any kind of examination of prejudice when the people portrayed in the books don't even have a consistent point of view, is all. I know that's the general idea of it but it's always felt false to me because of the execution. You can't have people "fear and hate" Wolverine in a world where they (mostly) cheer for Spider-Man. Just doesn't work.

Works fine in the movies where Mutants are the only super-powered characters, though. In a comic book where people who spit fireballs are a dime a dozen, though? Ehhhhhhh.

Well the idea for the mutants in Marvel was that the ones who got their powers by accident or science meddling at least were "normal" ONCE. Mutants being the future evolution of humanity is just a whole other ballgame. That represents that humans aren't as "special" as they like to think, and that there is something "higher" on the evolutionary ladder, which most people would NOT want to think about. Thus mutants are hated because humans would eventually fall by the wayside and die out- and they KNOW this. It's why some mutants embrace that future so avidly (Magneto, Shaw, and others of their ilk) while others would like to ease the world into that same future more gently and without the fear and despair it seems to generate in the "obsolete" model. (IE, Xavier and his students.) So it DOES make sense, when looked at as a larger picture of what the MU is. No one wants to be told they are "last year's model", but no one really minds if some random Joe accidentally gets himself irradiated to stick to walls. Because in the end, he'll be the only one doing it, while the mutants will just keep reproducing MORE OF THEM!!!

[CyberCubed]

Yeah, the X-men never really fit in with the rest of the Marvel universe to me. The people in the world hating the X-men for their powers but then loving the Avengers or Fantastic Four for their superpowers makes zero sense.

I know people love crossovers and Wolverine and the other X-men with the Avengers but it still makes no sense.

[Leo656]

Duckie: Oh I'm quite familiar with how it's "supposed" to work. I just don't think they sell it very well.

It's kinda like how in Batman movies, he's usually the world's one and only super-hero. It's just a less-complicated way to put the story over. His entire storyline just kind of works a little better that way, and a guy being so intensely driven to be a hero just seems a little more realistic in a world where there's not already Superman and Green Lantern and all these other demigods flying around keeping tabs on things. I'm always a comics-first type, and I absolutely love a Batman who is part of the JLA and all that. But there's no denying that HIS story gets a lot more complicated and a little less plausible in any universe where he's NOT the only super-hero.

Likewise, the whole thing with the X-Men definitely works a lot better in their movies, where there's no Iron Man or Spider-Man or Captain America to complicate the whole "Freaks vs. Normies" angle. For the angle to work and make sense, you can't really have any other super-beings BUT the X-Men, or it undoes the entire conceit. Nah'mean?

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Yeah, the X-men never really fit in with the rest of the Marvel universe to me. The people in the world hating the X-men for their powers but then loving the Avengers or Fantastic Four for their superpowers makes zero sense.

I know people love crossovers and Wolverine and the other X-men with the Avengers but it still makes no sense.

Cubed- see above post for the explanation to that issue. It CAN work and make sense, but not many writers actually go into WHY they are so hated for having powers. It's not the powers themselves, or even the fact that they HAVE them, it's WHY they have them, and what that MEANS.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Duckie: Oh I'm quite familiar with how it's "supposed" to work. I just don't think they sell it very well.

It's kinda like how in Batman movies, he's usually the world's one and only super-hero. It's just a less-complicated way to put the story over. His entire storyline just kind of works a little better that way, and a guy being so intensely driven to be a hero just seems a little more realistic in a world where there's not already Superman and Green Lantern and all these other demigods flying around keeping tabs on things. I'm always a comics-first type, and I absolutely love a Batman who is part of the JLA and all that. But there's no denying that HIS story gets a lot more complicated and a little less plausible in any universe where he's NOT the only super-hero.

Likewise, the whole thing with the X-Men definitely works a lot better in their movies, where there's no Iron Man or Spider-Man or Captain America to complicate the whole "Freaks vs. Normies" angle. For the angle to work and make sense, you can't really have any other super-beings BUT the X-Men, or it undoes the entire conceit. Nah'mean?

I think it's more a matter of who's doing the writing. I've seen some incredible issues where it drives home exactly WHY people hate the X-Men, but not other heroes, and it really CAN work in the comics, even with everyone else flying around or swinging on webs or whatever. House of M was one of the best arcs that's ever looked at it in depth, and it was so great in part BECAUSE it was all about what made the mutants different from the other heroes. And it was all touched off by- Scarlet Witch- a mutant. The aftermath of M-Day went even further, when she herself decided to settle the issue once and for all by flipping the "off switch" on mutants everywhere, thus turning THEM into the "endangered species" that humans had been in fear of becoming. So it certainly CAN be done "right", it's just not often that anyone tries.

As for Batman, well, I guess I feel like he just has a huge problem letting go of the past that keeps him from seeing that he doesn't NEED to do what he does, because there are already so many others doing exactly that. Then again, he seems to be constantly in need of some serious therapy anyway, so..... I dunno. I've always liked his villains better than Bats himself. But I see him as being like the Tony Stark of DC, so there's that.

[Leo656]

More like Tony Stark is the Bruce Wayne of Marvel, since, y'know, HE's the one who was... "liberally borrowing from" the Batman character, and not t'other way 'round.

I do think it's kind of funny, though... Bruce Wayne has more money than God, and builds himself one of everything EXCEPT a rocket-propelled suit of armor. Tony Stark, meanwhile, has more money than God, and decides that rocket-propelled suits of armor is ALL he'd ever want or need. Those two would have some interesting conversations over tea.

Batman: "You're an imbecile."
Iron Man: "Wow. Dick."

...Okay, maybe it wouldn't be all that interesting after all.