The Avengers: Age of Ultron [** SPOILERS FROM POST 599 ONWARD **]

aidan_walsh

... and a live action series set within the Marvel universe.

http://www.slashfilm.com/joss-whedon-signed-the-avengers-2/

Breaking news:  It was just announced on the Walt Disney Investors Conference Call that Joss Whedon will return for The Avengers sequel. Whedon is signed to both write and direct the upcoming sequel. Disney confirmed that Whedon is also involved in the development of the previously-rumored long-lead ABC live-action television series which will be set inside the Marvel cinematic universe.


Whedon had previously said that he was “very torn” about coming back:

“It’s an enormous amount of work telling what is ultimately somebody else’s story, even though I feel like I did get to put myself into it. But at the same time, I have a bunch of ideas, and they all seem really cool.”

johnny_ultimate

Fun game: if you replace every mention of 'The Avengers' with 'Serenity' in the OP, it reads like the best news ever!

As I've mentioned before, I was no big fan of The Avengers (seemingly part of the 1%), but hopefully Whedon will have settled in a bit more for a sequel and will build upon the promise shown during the film's second act particularly. If there's one thing I'd like to see it's a less excessive, more imaginative action climax. Give the colourful, charismatic team something other than characterless alien enemies to fight off.

pixelburp

Screw the film, that's a foregone conclusion and will print money for the studio, the more intriguing prospect is the TV series. A TV show set in the films universe - and I presume focusing on SHIELDs activities - would have a fairly broad scope & plenty of room for manoeuvre given the comics massive back-catalogue of B-list characters not quite good enough for cinema. Bring it on I say: superheroes have never really worked on the small-screen, have they? (Batman cartoons notwithstanding). The last effort was The Cape, which I believe wasn't the may-west.

ceegee

pixelburp wrote: »

Screw the film, that's a foregone conclusion and will print money for the studio, the more intriguing prospect is the TV series. A TV show set in the films universe - and I presume focusing on SHIELDs activities - would have a fairly broad scope & plenty of room for manoeuvre given the comics massive back-catalogue of B-list characters not quite good enough for cinema. Bring it on I say: superheroes have never really worked on the small-screen, have they (Batman cartoons notwithstanding).

Heroes season 1 was excellent imo, went downhill quite quickly though.
Smallville, the old Wonder Woman series and the old Batman were all popular (if not always high quality) plus various animated shows (batman, xmen etc)

johnny_ultimate

Heroes was good!


































:pac:

Marty McFly

Ah Heroes season 1 was great but from the get go of the second season it was terrible and I lost interest fairly quickly.

pixelburp

ceegee wrote: »

Heroes season 1 was excellent imo, went downhill quite quickly though.
Smallville, the old Wonder Woman series and the old Batman were all popular (if not always high quality) plus various animated shows (batman, xmen etc)

I dunno, I still maintain the first half of Heroes Series 1 was pretty woeful.

Superhero shows are not that common in any case, and I'd also argue that Heroes / Smallville (from what I saw of it) wasn't the kind of 'true' superhero TV show I'm thinking of here; in sense of a world where costumed superheroes fly about and save the day overtly & in the public eye, ala The Avengers.

Heroes (and latterly, Alphas) try to play them as something mysterious, covert or misunderstood, but an unabashed superhero TV show is a rare breed.

Ape X

I'm hoping Whedon gets a little more freedom with the sequel (not saying he didn't have any for the original, but it was fairly formulaic). Still, if we must have more Avengers, I'd rather he was involved than not.

wandatowell

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Fun game: if you replace every mention of 'The Avengers' with 'Serenity' in the OP, it reads like the best news ever!

Skinfull

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Fun game: if you replace every mention of 'The Avengers' with 'Serenity' in the OP, it reads like the best news ever!

As I've mentioned before, I was no big fan of The Avengers (seemingly part of the 1%), but hopefully Whedon will have settled in a bit more for a sequel and will build upon the promise shown during the film's second act particularly. If there's one thing I'd like to see it's a less excessive, more imaginative action climax. Give the colourful, charismatic team something other than characterless alien enemies to fight off.

I want to give you a thumbs up for the first part of your comment but I thoroughly enjoyed the whole Avengers movie so I cant bring myself to give it to you! (the thumbs up that is).

Yeah a better nemesis would be good and by the short at the end of the credits its very likely but as it stands, Avengers for me was so far the best movie of the year and any news that Whedon is willing to go at it again is fantastic in my book, and that he is gonna both write AND direct it... I'm very excited.

Now to avoid any and all forthcoming news until opening day!

stevenmu

pixelburp wrote: »

superheroes have never really worked on the small-screen, have they?

*ahem*

JP Liz V1

http://www.digitalspy.ie/movies/news/a480614/avengers-2-saoirse-ronan-wanted-as-scarlet-witch.html

Good on her if it happens

Mickeroo

Heard rumours about scarlett witch and quicksilver being planned for this but are they not with Fox sense they're pretty much x-men?

Deano7788

Mickeroo wrote: »

Heard rumours about scarlett witch and quicksilver being planned for this but are they not with Fox sense they're pretty much x-men?

Kevin Feige has actually spoken about it. Apparently it's complicated but both studios actually have the rights to them, Fox because they're mutants and Marvel Studios because they're long time Avengers. Theoretically, you could have two different versions of them with different actors playing them at the same time

He mentions it in the 3rd last paragraph in this.

Oh and both studios also have the rights to the skrulls, due to their Fantastic Four connection.

paddy kerins

Trailer for SHIELD show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZV3GVIoq8Q

Mitch Connor

so is this set before or after the first, given the main guy we see in the trailer...

pixelburp

Mitch Connor wrote: »

so is this set before or after the first, given the main guy we see in the trailer...

The answer is public knowledge, and part of the show's promo material, but I'll spoiler-text it to save the blushes of those allergic to such things!

it's set after the events of the film; Whedon is basically resurrecting Coulson due to his popularity, so the characters death never happened; instead it's going to be retconned

The thread dedicated to the TV show can be found here, where the subject has been oft-talked about!

JP Liz V1

Source

Loki not back

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

The answer is public knowledge, and part of the show's promo material, but I'll spoiler-text it to save the blushes of those allergic to such things!

it's set after the events of the film; Whedon is basically resurrecting Coulson due to his popularity, so the characters death never happened; instead it's going to be retconned

The thread dedicated to the TV show can be found here, where the subject has been oft-talked about!

Had a debate about Coulsen with somebody else on boards after the first movie , saying that he is alive. When somebody else was saying that he was dead. I really want to resurrect that old thread

constitutionus

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Source

Loki not back

ah i dont mind that.

be plenty of him in thor 2.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Had a debate about Coulsen with somebody else on boards after the first movie , saying that he is alive. When somebody else was saying that he was dead. I really want to resurrect that old thread

Technically he died and the plan was for him to stay dead but the out cry from some nerds made Whedon change his mind and resurrect him.

Handsome Bob

Deleted User wrote: »

Technically he died and the plan was for him to stay dead but the out cry from some nerds made Whedon change his mind and resurrect him.

Where did you hear that?

Nerd outcry never stopped Whedon from killing characters and them staying dead in Whedon world before.

Handsome Bob

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Where did you hear that?

Nerd outcry never stopped Whedon from killing characters and them staying dead in Whedon world before.

Yes but Whedon is working for Disney now and if Disney think that bringing Coulson back will appease fans then they are going to do just that. Coulson was dead, there was never any doubt of that. We saw Loki's blade pass through him then die, and the decision to delete that moment from the home release implies that a decision was made to rewrite the death.

Cantona's Collars

Robert Downey Jr. has signed up for Avengers 2 and 3.

http://www.digitalspy.ie/movies/news/a491944/robert-downey-jr-signs-up-for-avengers-2-avengers-3-as-iron-man.html

krudler

zerks wrote: »

Robert Downey Jr. has signed up for Avengers 2 and 3.

http://www.digitalspy.ie/movies/news/a491944/robert-downey-jr-signs-up-for-avengers-2-avengers-3-as-iron-man.html

johnny_ultimate

It's kind of like a game of financial chicken between Downey Jr and Marvel. A really stubborn game of chicken with 100s of millions of dollars being thrown around.

Coutinho 10

Robert Downey Jr really was always going to be the winner on this one he is the star of the Marvel Universe. There was no way Marvel were going to cut of their nose to spite their face.

The Billions they are making from these movies started with and continues to grow from the attraction of Robert Downey Jr to the cinema going public. They weren't going to risk changing the headline star now.

pixelburp

Crazy money they're throwing around; I'd wonder if this will cause a precedent and Downey's co-stars will follow in his footsteps. Clearly he's the biggest conventional box-office draw, but perhaps Evans, Hemsworth et al will realise there's a few increases to be had if they use a little brinksmanship. The wage bill could become quite hefty quite quickly.

Handsome Bob

I think Marvel realise how much of a hard time they'll have recasting the character of Stark, it'll be much more difficult job that WB will have recasting Batman. RDJ owns the role in so many ways it's ridiculous.

paddy kerins

Officially titled 'Avengers: Age of Ultron'

Mickeroo

paddy kerins wrote: »

Officially titled 'Avengers: Age of Ultron'

So no Thanos? Wonder does this mean we'll have Hank Pym, Wasp and The Vision showing up.

horgan_p

I'm not going to spoil it but as someone who has read the comic books - either work out how to fix or do away with the ending from the funny books. Please please please

Deano7788

horgan_p wrote: »

I'm not going to spoil it but as someone who has read the comic books - either work out how to fix or do away with the ending from the funny books. Please please please

I'm hoping it has nothing to do with that storyline other than the same name.

brianregan09

I think they confirmed its nothing to do with the ongoing storyline , It's just a title, I'm betting Jarvis goes wonky, he did have a moment in Iron Man 3 where he started to think for himself so....

I really hope that it's Age of Ultron in name only as AOU is one of the worst things that I have ever read. An awful piece of crap whose last issue was so poor that Marvel released it in a sealed bag just in case anyone looked inside and realised just what crap it was.

Seems that Thanos will be appearing in Guardians of the Galaxy, Djimon Hounsou announced that his character would be close to Thanos. Have to hand it to Gunn, he's only been shooting the film two weeks yet was able to show several minutes of footage.

Turtyturd

Still holding out for one of them to be called Avengers Dissassembled....although as with AOU just take the name rather than the terrible story. I really hope they don't over saturate it with new characters though.

Turtyturd

A few small plot details here from Whedon, and some speculation..

http://www.newsarama.com/18454-report-joss-whedon-says-avengers-age-of-ultron-is-origin-story-no-hank-pym.html

Galvasean

brianregan09 wrote: »

I think they confirmed its nothing to do with the ongoing storyline , It's just a title, I'm betting Jarvis goes wonky, he did have a moment in Iron Man 3 where he started to think for himself so....

According to Whedon:
"We're crafting our own version of it where his origin comes more directly from The Avengers we already know about.”

So looks like you're on to something there.

Corholio

I don't like that they took a title that was already there and then say its nothing to do with it. Surely they can make up an original title?

Handsome Bob

No Pym is disappointing. I really don't like the idea of Tony being involved in Ultron's creation as IM3 left the character in a reasonable place where he had achieved some inner peace.

So it'd just seem a bit redundant to give Stark the turmoil and guilt associated with Ultron's creation when he's just gotten over some turmoil and guilt already. That's for Pym; that's basically what the character is known for.

horgan_p

Bendis ( The Writer on AOU) tweeted this earlier :
"Etiquette question: What do you get a very successful director who just spiked your trade paperback sales through the roof? :-)"

I'll bet he's laughing all the way to the bank

Mickeroo

Handsome Bob wrote: »

No Pym is disappointing. I really don't like the idea of Tony being involved in Ultron's creation as IM3 left the character in a reasonable place where he had achieved some inner peace.

So it'd just seem a bit redundant to give Stark the turmoil and guilt associated with Ultron's creation when he's just gotten over some turmoil and guilt already. That's for Pym; that's basically what the character is known for.

Even stranger when you consider the Ant Man film will be out a few months after this, seems like it would have been a better option for Avengers 3 that way Pym could still be involved.

Galvasean

I'm guessing that they're keeping Thanos for A3 (via GotG) and simply needed a powerful villain for A2. Ultron fitting that bill.

Turtyturd

Mickeroo wrote: »

Even stranger when you consider the Ant Man film will be out a few months after this, seems like it would have been a better option for Avengers 3 that way Pym could still be involved.

Is that based on Pym?....would have preffered a Scott Lang version....especially if Edgar Wright is directing it.

Mickeroo

Turtyturd wrote: »

Is that based on Pym?....would have preffered a Scott Lang version....especially if Edgar Wright is directing it.

Not entirely sure now you mention it, but on the imdb page the storyline says it's Hank Pym. It's early days yet though so no guarantee that's accurate.

Handsome Bob

I think the original treatment from Wright had an older Pym mentoring Lang, who I think robs the Ant Man suit and technology. But Pym ends up "officially" handing the Ant Man mantle to Lang anyway.

However, this would have been before Whedon established influence over the direction of all MCU properties. I actually think Wright mentioned recently that he had met Whedon to discuss his current treatment for Ant Man and how they're going to have to make it fly with the wider universe.

Bullseye1

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm guessing that they're keeping Thanos for A3 (via GotG) and simply needed a powerful villain for A2. Ultron fitting that bill.

I always thought it was too early for Thanos. Ultron is perfect. Is Antman coming out before A2? If so there might be a chance that Pym will appear in A2.

Deano7788

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I always thought it was too early for Thanos. Ultron is perfect. Is Antman coming out before A2? If so there might be a chance that Pym will appear in A2.

No it's going to be part of Phase 3, so it's after A2.

Zero-Cool

I wonder if Hugh Jackman, saying he would love to be in the next Avengers film, has enough pull to convince Fox to loan Wolverine to Disnet for a large amount of money.

I'm not a big fan of Jackman but would be great to see him on the same screen as RDJ as Tony.

irish_stevo815

sheehy83 wrote: »

I wonder if Hugh Jackman, saying he would love to be in the next Avengers film, has enough pull to convince Fox to loan Wolverine to Disnet for a large amount of money.

I'm not a big fan of Jackman but would be great to see him on the same screen as RDJ as Tony.

This would be a pretty epic move by both sides. I'd love to see it happen. I think if X-men:Days of Future Past is a success, it will reboot the Xmen franchise and Wolverine will be staying solely with Fox.

johnny_ultimate

One thing that has gotten me thinking - based, partially, on the title Age of Ultron - is whether these films run the risk of becoming overly 'geeky' and inaccessible. There is a risk that as they continue to embrace comic lore, they will get mixed up in the convoluted universe that has long since made Marvel comic books themselves a relatively inaccessible medium, instead the domain of relatively dedicated fans or at least slightly more dedicated than your average moviegoer. Obviously 'Avengers 2' is a big enough selling point, but I read 'Age of Ultron' and simply think Ultron is a ridiculous name. I say that, admittedly, as someone generally naive of comics culture and Marvel lore.

It will be curious to see how audiences react as the movie universe grows more complicated, especially with the far less commercially certain projects like Guardians of the Galaxy on the horizon. I think one of the things that have made these films so successful in the mainstream thus far is their accessibility and the way they more-or-less standalone. As they weave a more interconnected thread while concurrently delving into the lesser known character depths, one wonders if they'll leave people behind in the process.