Avengers 2: The SPOILER thread (warning: spoilers NOT in tags)

[lancerman]

How so? Avengers Quicksilver had a character arc. It might not have been extensive, but it was an arc. It blows my mind that people actually think the Evan Peters Quicksilver was a "character." He showed up for one sequence. All we know about him is that he's fast, quippy, and he lives with his single mother. Avengers Quicksilver was given a past, recounted by him during his initial meeting with Ultron, thus he was given motivation for being involved in the movie. Someone who initially hated the Avengers died to save one. Villain becomes hero. A cliche arc, but an arc, nonetheless. What kind of character arc did DoFP Quicksilver have?

He didn't have a character arc. But he had a character. It's very easy to describe the character traits of the Days of Future Past Quicksilver. He was impulsive, reckless, had a compulsion for breaking into places and stealing things, gleefully nonchalant about high risk situation, yet throurough to take precautions (he checks out Logan and Xavier's car and documents, he knows to protect Magneto from Whiplash) etc.

He had a character. Quicksilver in the Avengers didn't. He was sort of just tagging along with Wanda. We know why he is doing things. But those are generic reasons. His family died so he wants revenge on Stark. Something a million comic characters have had. He switches sides because he realizes he's working for a genocidal maniac who wants to kill everyone, something anybody in his position would do. The one defining thing you can say about him is that he values human life. He had no problem saving people. But that's really it. I couldn't begin to describe his personality with any depth.

Both were very much used as plot devices. But the one with more defined character and the one with the more entertaining screen time was, imo, definitely the Days of Future Past one.

[lancerman]

So what sort of character does Thanos have in the comics? I'm worried that he's just going to turn into either a gag or another Ronan.

He has an obsession with pleasing his one true love, death.

[Jon AS]

In the comics, Thanos is a pretentious psychopath who is in love with the anthropomorphic personification of death. He tries to win Death's affections, usually by killing people (luckily for him this is also his biggest hobby), she usually tells him that he's being an idiot.

Turning him into more than a powerhungry and/or genocidal warlord will require a bit of work. Of the characters that have close connections with him, only his adopted daughter Gamora has been introduced, his species (the Eternals) hasn't even been mentioned, his greater adversaries like the original Captain Marvel (who will presumably be skipped in the MCU) or Adam Warlock haven't been seen (though we may have gotten a hint of Warlock in Guardians of the Galaxy).

Overall, I wouldn't expect to be blown away by Thanos as a character. The best we can probably hope for is that he'll be entertaining in the vein of Loki and Ultron.

[lancerman]

I think the key to Thanos is that the Infinity Gautlet storyline makes him a pretty much invincible threat that can cause so much more damage so easily compared to anyone else in the MCU that the stakes will be as high as they have ever been. Like I wouldn't rule out lots of major characters dying. If not damn near all of them. I wouldn't even be surprised if that vision of all the Avengers dead comes true at some point.

[Bastard of Boston]

He didn't have a character arc. But he had a character. It's very easy to describe the character traits of the Days of Future Past Quicksilver. He was impulsive, reckless, had a compulsion for breaking into places and stealing things, gleefully nonchalant about high risk situation, yet throurough to take precautions (he checks out Logan and Xavier's car and documents, he knows to protect Magneto from Whiplash) etc.

He had a character. Quicksilver in the Avengers didn't. He was sort of just tagging along with Wanda. We know why he is doing things. But those are generic reasons. His family died so he wants revenge on Stark. Something a million comic characters have had. He switches sides because he realizes he's working for a genocidal maniac who wants to kill everyone, something anybody in his position would do. The one defining thing you can say about him is that he values human life. He had no problem saving people. But that's really it. I couldn't begin to describe his personality with any depth.

Both were very much used as plot devices. But the one with more defined character and the one with the more entertaining screen time was, imo, definitely the Days of Future Past one.

To me, a character isn't a character unless there's development. If a character doesn't undergo change in a story, then he's not relevant to the story. DoFP Quicksilver had no arc, thus he was a special effect. Mind you, he was a great special effect, but he was a special effect. You can call Ultron QS generic, but that doesn't negate the fact that he did end the movie undergoing a change and showcasing character development.

Beyond that, he was relevant to this story because he introduced the idea that the world did not love the Avengers. I actually found his scene with Ultron, describing being trapped under rubble for days with a bomb that could go off at any moment, to be a poignant bright spot which got somewhat lost in the overall scheme. It would've worked better if QS got to relay the story to Stark, instead of Ultron. The twins never getting to articulate their beef with the Avengers to the Avengers was a hole.

Different strokes, I guess.

[SpaceChampion]

This is an interesting take. In short: Black Widow was bad storytelling because the whole thing was bad storytelling, shortcuts for every single thing happening.

[Jace, Extat]

Just watched this for the second time, and I'm pretty sure that the whole Black Widow sterilization=monster thing is a product of the willfully indignant. She's clearly talking about having been crafted specifically to be an efficient killer, down to the point of having had her reproductive system removed, in relation to Banner believing he'll never be able to have a relationship because he's a 'monster'.

That said, Black Widow totally blew in this movie. I've heard/read that there were a lot of cuts and edits on her, and I think that could explain why she's just all over the place in every other scene. It's like SJ had no idea what the character was supposed to be thinking or doing. The party scene where she 'flirts' with Banner is particularly egregious in my mind. Taking into account that SJ was cool as fuck in the first Avengers movie, I'm willing to chalk this one up to a misfire from Whedon and his writers/editors.

[felice]

Just watched this for the second time, and I'm pretty sure that the whole Black Widow sterilization=monster thing is a product of the willfully indignant. She's clearly talking about having been crafted specifically to be an efficient killer, down to the point of having had her reproductive system removed, in relation to Banner believing he'll never be able to have a relationship because he's a 'monster'.

As I recall it was very clumsily handled, though, mixing up the "I can't have kids either" and "I'm a monster too" messages in a way that made it very, very easy to get the wrong impression. And while viewed on its own, her wishing she could be a mummy is perfectly reasonable (she didn't exactly chose her career, after all), it's pretty problematic when she's the sole token female on the team.

[Jace, Extat]

As I recall it was very clumsily handled, though, mixing up the "I can't have kids either" and "I'm a monster too" messages in a way that made it very, very easy to get the wrong impression. And while viewed on its own, her wishing she could be a mummy is perfectly reasonable (she didn't exactly chose her career, after all), it's pretty problematic when she's the sole token female on the team.

Oh, you won't get an argument from me about the clunky nature of the scene. But I'm scratching my head to figure out how that particular 'message' is what people got from that scene. It's one thing to say 'that was poorly handled' and quite another to decide that Joss Whedon is a horrible sexist pig who only thinks women are worthwhile if they can breed. Such is the nature of the internet, I suppose.

My personal take was that she felt a connection to Banner because they'd both had their humanity stripped from them and were trying to find a place in the world. Her being upset that she'd been sterilized seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially in the context of it being done to make her a better murderer without her consent.

[The Reckoner]

I believe it was Joe Abercrombie and Sam Sykes that said nuance and context are the first casualties of the internet. I took the scene as a kind of clunky way of getting across an idea that needed more time to develop properly.

Felice, it could be problematic though as you say there's nothing wrong with Widow having wanted to become a mother. On the other hand, you can also view Widow as being someone who wanted motherhood, and despite her more domestic leanings, proved her worth and met the high standards set by Nick Fury for joining the Avengers. It makes her a bit more impressive. I can see where either interpretation of her place in the Avengers is valid.

Maybe these critiques will get me a Widow/Hawkeye movie. Or individual movies for both characters.

[Winterfell is Burning]

I believe it was Joe Abercrombie and Sam Sykes that said nuance and context are the first casualties of the internet. I took the scene as a kind of clunky way of getting across an idea that needed more time to develop properly.

Felice, it could be problematic though as you say there's nothing wrong with Widow having wanted to become a mother. On the other hand, you can also view Widow as being someone who wanted motherhood, and despite her more domestic leanings, proved her worth and met the high standards set by Nick Fury for joining the Avengers. It makes her a bit more impressive. I can see where either interpretation of her place in the Avengers is valid.

Maybe these critiques will get me a Widow/Hawkeye movie. Or individual movies for both characters.

The movie doesn't even say BW wanted to be a mother, just that she's unhappy that her womb was forcibly removed by the same people that turned her into a killing machine. OMG, that's SO anti-feminist!

[Jace, Extat]

Anyone think that Ultron might have survived? It sucks to lose such an interesting character in a single movie, and like 2 weeks isn't much of an 'Age'.

[RumHam]

Anyone think that Ultron might have survived? It sucks to lose such an interesting character in a single movie, and like 2 weeks isn't much of an 'Age'.

It's possible, if they decide they want to use him again later. Vision deleted him from the internet, but whose to say he didn't back himself up to a hard drive and have it unplugged and kept in a safe or something.

I also recently saw someone suggest that he could at one point somehow take over Vision once Thanos takes the Mind Gem from him. Infinity War probably will have at least one secondary villain.

[Calibandar]

Reading up on Infinity War storylines I came across this piece on Den of Geek:

http://www.denofgeek.us/books-comics/avengers/240996/what-to-expect-from-avengers-infinity-war

Which I thought was interesting in its predictions.

[red snow]

Anyone think that Ultron might have survived? It sucks to lose such an interesting character in a single movie, and like 2 weeks isn't much of an 'Age'.

On the brightside he featured a lot more than he did in the comic with the same name!

[Winterfell is Burning]

On the brightside he featured a lot more than he did in the comic with the same name!

Do yourselves a favor and DON'T read the Age of Ultron comic storyline, people. It has nothing to do with the film, and trust me, it makes the movie look like if Citizen Kane and 2001: A Space Odissey had a baby.

[The Anti-Targ]

Anyone think that Ultron might have survived? It sucks to lose such an interesting character in a single movie, and like 2 weeks isn't much of an 'Age'.

I'm hoping that Ultron was smart enough to leave a copy of himself in a very innocuous electronic device (a USB stick perchance?), that at least for plausibility purposes is not internet connected (so that he wouldn't be found by a sweep of the interwebs), and that it will take some time for that copy of Ultron to get back into shape corporeally speaking.

It is certainly easier to resurrect an AI programme without blowing all continuity, or having to do a DOFP reboot, than it is to resurrect a dead person.

I'm with you 100% on the whole Black Widow monster scene interpretation thing. Seemed like people looking for a reason to hate JW for race / sex indiscretions.

[Jace, Extat]

The secured-away hard drive sounds reasonable to me, though I think the time to show us that passed when there was no end-trailers scene.

After watching Ultron for the second time, I'm tempted to watch more of The Blacklist just to hear James Spader's silky smooth voice.

[red snow]

Don't forget Ultron was downloading himself into Vision. There's a good chance there's some Ultron code lying latent in vision. With an infinite gem to boot. If Thanos decides to outsources in Infinity War I think we might get at least a brief Ultron appearance.

[Maithanet]

Was anyone else annoyed by the amount of random cleavage in the movie? I mean, I understand that the movie was at least somewhat egalitarian with its contstant ogling of Evans and Hemsworth, but the random blonde woman in Sokovia with her shirt open was pretty offputting. She even made it into the previews! And couldn't we see Elizabeth Olsen crying about her dead brother without also looking down her shirt?

I mean, fun is fun, but at times this movie just seemed kinda gross.