You forgot Potts and Hill.
Who doesn't?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When people think of Marvel female characters I don't think they consider Gemorra and her sister (that blue android thing).
I'm pretty sure that when people think of Marvel characters in general, they weren't thinking of any of the Guardians of the Galaxy before the movie. That's the brilliance of that movie - they took relatively obscure characters and made an effing blockbuster out of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the way she was "calling herself a monster" implies that she feels that she is one because she cannot have children. This has to do with the scene with Banner in the farmhouse.
You've taken quite a piling on for this one already, so I don't direct this at you. But you really can see how myopic focus on Black Widow can be. How she is treated and developed is scrutinized and criticized more than any of the other characters in the MCU.
Mark Ruffalo had a few comments about that on Reddit (further discussed here on Salon: Mark Ruffalo Defends Joss Whedon). He thinks it's because there are so few other female heroic characters in the mix to really talk about. And I think he has a point. I don't think that necessarily excuses the vitriol flying around because of the myopia, but I think it helps explain why it's there.
I'm pretty sure that when people think of Marvel characters in general, they weren't thinking of any of the Guardians of the Galaxy before the movie. That's the brilliance of that movie - they took relatively obscure characters and made an effing blockbuster out of them.
When people think of Marvel female characters I don't think they consider Gemorra and her sister (that blue android thing).
I blame it more on people like me. I didn't go see it because I wanted Marvel or superheroes, I went to see it because I'm a Sci-Fi geek and a Space fantasy/Opera Geek.
I go to most of these mainstream Space Opera (or Sci Fi) movies.
|
For the male field agents, we have Coulson, Ward, Mack, Hunter, Trip, Fury, Deathlock. They have different fighting styles, builds, and specialties. Aside from making Lucy Lawless's character special by using knives instead of guns, all the women are agility based, wear nearly identical clothing, and fight the same way.Actually...barring Deathlok (who's special because he's a super) and Mack (who's something like 50 to 100 lbs heavier in sheer muscle than anyone else on that list) I'd argue that all the male characters you list (Coulson, Ward, Hunter, and Trip) have about as agility-based a fighting style as the women in close combat (Ward occasionally relies a little more on strength, but not a whole lot). The women are just better at hand to hand and/or more inclined to use it over shooting people (and that's rather skewed by May and Bobbi being two of the women on the list...they're both kinda specialists).
As for different weapons, Bobbi's batons are sorta a signature, and May usually fights unarmed. So that's a fairly large difference right there. At least as large as between Coulson and Ward (who use identical weapon choices).
This scene demonstrates this well. The girls have sufficiently different styles given that the action in general in this show is very smooth, kung-fu agility based. May seems to be considerably more athletic than Bobby, but bobby is very good with those batons. And Sky learned to fight from May and Word so it makes sense that her fighting style has not been unique up until she got her superpower boost.
I was impressed with how much of a badass Skye has become.
Me too.
|
Shot VERY differently, however. The hallway fight was zoomed WAY out. Skye's fight kept the camera pretty tight on her (although not as exaggeratedly zoomed in as has become the action scene default).
Although one similarity in how they were shot is that both were one extended shot throughout the fights, instead of what has become the action scene default of cuts every half-second or so.
Well, I'm fairly confident we won't see Crystal since I have a suspicion that the Inhuman Royal Family in general and her in particular are part of the Fantastic Four license.
I believe Marvel has specifically said that the Inhumans would focus on the Royal Family. Just like how Black Panther was originally introduced in the Fantastic Four comments, but Marvel retains the rights.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I don't think Marvels said anything, but Crystal is almost certainly in the FF license since she was a member. T'Challa appeared in FF first, but spent most of his time in anthology and Avengers books or his own books.
I don't know if this is the case, but could it be like the Quicksilver situation, where both companies can use the character?
|
I don't think Marvels said anything, but Crystal is almost certainly in the FF license since she was a member. T'Challa appeared in FF first, but spent most of his time in anthology and Avengers books or his own books.I don't know if this is the case, but could it be like the Quicksilver situation, where both companies can use the character?
I would expect it to be that case, since Black Panther and Luke Cage and Ant-Man (Scott Lang) have also been Fantastic Four members, and they are certainly going to be in the MCU as well.
Crystal's been an Avenger at least as long as she was a member of the Fantastic Four, and an Inhuman pretty much from the get-go, and the Inhumans area already in the MCU (on Agents of SHIELD) and are getting their own MCU movie anyway.
I don't think Marvels said anything, but Crystal is almost certainly in the FF license since she was a member. T'Challa appeared in FF first, but spent most of his time in anthology and Avengers books or his own books.
An awful lot of characters first appeared in the FF even though they spent most of their time in other books. I suspect they're a bit stricter on the license than just having appeared in or been a temporary member (particularly for Luke Cage).
I don't think Marvels said anything, but Crystal is almost certainly in the FF license since she was a member. T'Challa appeared in FF first, but spent most of his time in anthology and Avengers books or his own books.An awful lot of characters first appeared in the FF even though they spent most of their time in other books. I suspect they're a bit stricter on the license than just having appeared in or been a temporary member (particularly for Luke Cage).
Especially since it is a lot easier to define FF members and major supporting characters than it is for X-Men and Mutants.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just saw it recently... and I liked it way more than the first Avengers.
I particularly liked the sense (and scenes) of camaraderie, which is very much appreciated for an actual team.
It was also funny throughout - and that's what I'm looking for in most of my action movies these days (especially superhero action movies like this one).
Ultron was one of the best villains ever. Interesting and - again - funny... and the fact that it was a robot/AI made it even better. (Though I admit, Loki is no slouch: "If it's all the same to you, I'll have that drink now.")
Black Widow and Hawkeye still suck and are boring - but I will concede that Hawkeye was made way better in almost every way in this one (not hard to do, admittedly) - humor up a notch, and the family part was really great as well.
I was okay with Captain America being blasted (at the truck scene, right?). It just made him look more badass, and that's what I want to see out of my superheroes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was okay with Captain America being blasted (at the truck scene, right?). It just made him look more badass, and that's what I want to see out of my superheroes.
I don't get what the big fuss is about, either. I just re-watched "Winter Soldier" with my daughter a few nights ago, and there's a scene in that one where he takes a 15-20 story fall out of an elevator, lands on his shield, and pretty much shrugs it off and runs away. MCU Cap is slightly superhuman.
That's a bit different. His shield is made of Vibranium, which absorbs and disperses impacts, hence why he can take a hit from Thor's hammer on it and not be launched over the horizon.
You could probably strap a baby to the shield, drop it off the Empire State building, and it'd be fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a bit different. His shield is made of Vibranium, which absorbs and disperses impacts, hence why he can take a hit from Thor's hammer on it and not be launched over the horizon.
You could probably strap a baby to the shield, drop it off the Empire State building, and it'd be fine.
Um...no as it would land baby side down I believe. Though I don't think we should experiment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um...no as it would land baby side down I believe. Though I don't think we should experiment.That's a bit different. His shield is made of Vibranium, which absorbs and disperses impacts, hence why he can take a hit from Thor's hammer on it and not be launched over the horizon.
You could probably strap a baby to the shield, drop it off the Empire State building, and it'd be fine.
Comic book logic: Babies can't be hurt, therefore physics will shape itself in such a way that it will bring the baby to no harm.
Comic book logic: Babies can't be hurt, therefore physics will shape itself in such a way that it will bring the baby to no harm.Um...no as it would land baby side down I believe. Though I don't think we should experiment.That's a bit different. His shield is made of Vibranium, which absorbs and disperses impacts, hence why he can take a hit from Thor's hammer on it and not be launched over the horizon.
You could probably strap a baby to the shield, drop it off the Empire State building, and it'd be fine.
I still think that the infant will require life long therapy after that event.
|
|
I don't get what the big fuss is about, either. I just re-watched "Winter Soldier" with my daughter a few nights ago, and there's a scene in that one where he takes a 15-20 story fall out of an elevator, lands on his shield, and pretty much shrugs it off and runs away. MCU Cap is slightly superhuman.
I was okay with Captain America being blasted (at the truck scene, right?). It just made him look more badass, and that's what I want to see out of my superheroes.
As others said, the invulnerability through the shield is part of the core premise for Captain America, as well as extremely high toughness, stamina, dexterity and strength. Surviving direct impact of supposedly lethal weapons without so much as a wound to show for it is not. During the entire "The Winter Soldier", the cap never took even a single bullet, for example.
|
I know, but the point is that shouldn't really be a surprise. Because of several factors.
1) They amped up Cap's power level big time, when you look back at Avengers.
2) It's a Tony Stark designed suit of armor for cap. Of course he's gonna make it bulletproof and shock proof and fireproof and other stuff proof.
3) Cap is a tough bastard as it is. Just look at what he lived through in 3 previous movies.
|
|
I think, as a comic book fan, where Ultron's blasts were capable of disintegrating *Thor* on a direct hit (it was actually a plot point, as Thor used his magic hammer to dimensionally teleport after Ultron tried to blast him, tricked Ultron (and his teammates) into thinking he'd been disintegrated), it's more of a surprise that Cap could tank a hit from Ultron.
But this is movie Ultron, not comic Ultron, and for all we know, his blasters carry a charge slightly upscale from Widow's wrist-blasters.
This Ultron shouldn't be judged by the comic book Ultron, any more than Trevor Slattery should be measured against the comic book Mandarin. Similarly, this version of Captain America is significantly stronger and faster and tougher than the comic-book version, who is 'as strong as a dude can get,' but not technically superhuman. (This version of Cap can throw motorcycles at people, and punch people across the room!)
That all said, I do think having Ultron, the big bad of the show, straight up shoot one of the *weaker* Avengers in the chest and it have no real effect, kind of makes him seem like a crappy foe for a team that includes powerhouses like Hulk, Thor and Iron Man. It was, IMO, a bad call to include that scene. A sense of danger, such as when Cap was blown out of the building in the first Avengers movie and clearly injured by the Chitauri grenade after landing on that car, is, IMO, better at presenting a sense of heroism, since heroes who can't lose feel less like the plucky underdog we should be rooting for, all David and Goliath, and more like the 150 lb. 6th grader picking on the scrawny kids.
Eventually I'll see this movie again, when it hits Netflix or whatever, but right now, it's *not* among my favorite MCU movies.
(Which would start with the two Captain America movies, the first Iron Man movie, the first Avengers movie and Guardians of the Galaxy.)
|
|
That all said, I do think having Ultron, the big bad of the show, straight up shoot one of the *weaker* Avengers in the chest and it have no real effect, kind of makes him seem like a crappy foe for a team that includes powerhouses like Hulk, Thor and Iron Man. It was, IMO, a bad call to include that scene. A sense of danger, such as when Cap was blown out of the building in the first Avengers movie and clearly injured by the Chitauri grenade after landing on that car, is, IMO, better at presenting a sense of heroism, since heroes who can't lose feel less like the plucky underdog we should be rooting for, all David and Goliath, and more like the 150 lb. 6th grader picking on the scrawny kids.
This really is the main point about this. In like 3 seconds, the movie looses what little suspense a movie of its sort can aspire to have. If nothing the villain does can harm the heroes than the battle is just a string of pictures with sounds and not a significant event. Dodges and parries only matter when a hit has some impact.
And, I still maintain, it just seems wrong. Captain America is supposed to be vulnerable - that is the main reason the shield is there - and him shrugging those blasts off undermines his character as well as the movie.
Well, other than those times Bucky shot him in the back. The first of which he reacted to by grimacing a little. (The additional ones were worse, admittedly.)
Oh, right, in the final battle scene. Forgot about that. But, it is still evident there that he is taken to his extreme, to the very limit of his capabilities, and that he is seriously wounded (even if he does heal fast after that). That feels very different from just barely noticing when the bad guy scores a critical.
People are missing the point about what makes Ultron so dangerous...which is surprising since they touched on it in the movie constantly.
Uoltron is dangerous because everytime you destroy him he learns and build a better body. The Ultron blast that destroy Thor could not do that on his first apperarence.
As the movie Ultron is a very early form of Ultron it is not surprising at all that he is not as powerful as Ultron in the Comics because he simply has not gone through enough new upgraded bodies yet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think, as a comic book fan, where Ultron's blasts were capable of disintegrating *Thor* on a direct hit...Happened in Secret Wars, but ... considering from whom Thor has taken direct blasts—Galactus, the Celestials, the Destroyer, Odin, Zeus, Gladiator, Bor et al., any of whom dwarfs Ultron in power—I tend to dismiss the idea that comic book Ultron could with a single blast disintegrate him. As I recall, he withdrew because to fight at that point served no real purpose.
I agree with the rest of your post.
Ultron's built-in weapon was specifically a molecular disintegrator. He could even disintegrate adamantium, IIRC. (Oh, Pym? Why did you build a peacekeeper with a molecular disintegrator? Silly man!)
And I'm not familiar with Secret Wars, I was thinking of the original appearance of Ultron, I think. (Late '60's, early '70's?)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Captain America surviving a blast from Ultron ruined the movie for you, then you were trying to not like it.
|
|
People are missing the point about what makes Ultron so dangerous...which is surprising since they touched on it in the movie constantly.
Uoltron is dangerous because everytime you destroy him he learns and build a better body. The Ultron blast that destroy Thor could not do that on his first apperarence.
As the movie Ultron is a very early form of Ultron it is not surprising at all that he is not as powerful as Ultron in the Comics because he simply has not gone through enough new upgraded bodies yet.
This bit of comic book lore is nice, but shouldn't stand in the way of the movie being good on it's own. There's no reason that movie Ultron shouldn't have attacks that pose some actual danger to the protagonists.
If Captain America surviving a blast from Ultron ruined the movie for you, then you were trying to not like it.
It was not remotely close to ruining the movie for me, it just detracted from it when it seems such an easy thing to not include in it. Movie was incredibly awesome, like a 8.5/10, but this is a forum for nerdy overthinkers. Of course I will talk more about the one little detail that bothered me then I would about the 99% the was cool.
People are missing the point about what makes Ultron so dangerous...which is surprising since they touched on it in the movie constantly.
Uoltron is dangerous because everytime you destroy him he learns and build a better body. The Ultron blast that destroy Thor could not do that on his first apperarence.
As the movie Ultron is a very early form of Ultron it is not surprising at all that he is not as powerful as Ultron in the Comics because he simply has not gone through enough new upgraded bodies yet.
This bit of comic book lore is nice, but shouldn't stand in the way of the movie being good on it's own. There's no reason that movie Ultron shouldn't have attacks that pose some actual danger to the protagonists.
The movie Ultron represented the comic book threat of Ultron really well. Think for a moment. When he first fought the Avengers on the derelict ship he barely did anything to any of the Avengers. The next time when faced off with Cap. America he did hurt him...but not enough. The last time he went toe to toe with Thor. Now if in the final battle he blasted Cap. America in the chest with the same effect as their first battle I would be inclined to agree with you...but that did not happen.
One of the strengths of the MCU is that they keep the spirit of the comic book which I think they did a great job of capturing the threat of Ultron. Also...not all threats can be overcome by physical force which Ultron does not always represent.
Also it fits...think back to the first movie...how much did Loki threaten the Avengers in a physical fight? I mean the Hulk and Iron Man pasted him pretty easy...Captain America was holding his own....and Thor had issues but I think that more stemmed from him still trying to reach his brother and not going full force on him.
Also it fits...think back to the first movie...how much did Loki threaten the Avengers in a physical fight? I mean the Hulk and Iron Man pasted him pretty easy...Captain America was holding his own....and Thor had issues but I think that more stemmed from him still trying to reach his brother and not going full force on him.Actually, Captain American was clearly no match for him, he made no effort to combat Iron Man because he wanted to be captured, he didn't have his weapon when the Hulk pummeled him, and Thor is always trying to reach him.
If he'd actually chosen to fight Iron Man, I imagine Loki would have defeated him rather easily, just as he pretty much went through the motions with Cap. It's my impression that only Thor and perhaps the Hulk could have won when he was armed with the scepter.
Did you miss the look of surprise when Captain America punched him? I am not saying Cap would of won the fight...but Loki in a fight was more evenly match than he thought going into the fight.
Iron Man one shot him at the end...after he got thrown out of the window...than had to deal with the invasion.
Loki is not know for his combat prowess...again his threat his more to do with his trickery and plans.
Also it fits...think back to the first movie...how much did Loki threaten the Avengers in a physical fight? I mean the Hulk and Iron Man pasted him pretty easy...Captain America was holding his own....and Thor had issues but I think that more stemmed from him still trying to reach his brother and not going full force on him.Actually, Captain American was clearly no match for him, he made no effort to combat Iron Man because he wanted to be captured, he didn't have his weapon when the Hulk pummeled him, and Thor is always trying to reach him.
If he'd actually chosen to fight Iron Man, I imagine Loki would have defeated him rather easily, just as he pretty much went through the motions with Cap. It's my impression that only Thor and perhaps the Hulk could have won when he was armed with the scepter.
Even in the first move, if Loki was not too arrogant to realize the danger that Hulk represented, he still would have come out okay.
Had Loki still had his scepter, most likely the Avengers would have had another problem [url](similar to what Scarlet Witch had Hulk do)[/url].
|
|
Did you miss the look of surprise when Captain America punched him? I am not saying Cap would of won the fight...but Loki in a fight was more evenly match than he thought going into the fight.
I viewed that more as Loki being surprised that a normal human (It's doubtful Loki kept up with 40's Earth superheroes) could hit that hard. Still not actually hard enough to really phase him, but a hell of a lot harder than he expected.
|
|
Loki can lift over 50 tons just by virtue of being an "asgardian" <giant>.
I always chalked it up to one of three things. One that someone dared to stand up against him (unlikely), two, he felt it (possible, but seeing Loki in action in Thor 2, doubtful), or three he wanted to get caught. That was the plan.
He did go toe to toe with Thor, (and without his scepter), so I agree, he would have destroyed Ironman and Cap if he wanted too. He probably should have put up much more of a fight with the Hulk, but it was getting close to wrap up and that would have pushed it even longer, but being slammed into the ground repeatedly shouldn't really have hurt him that much, (unless he was altered a lot for the movie).