Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the MCU

[ottoDbusdriver]

It sounds like Whedon himself isn't ducking talking about this, so I think it's fair to post this now (since he's on record saying this now)

SHIELD agent Phil Coulson had to stay dead for Avengers 2, says Joss Whedon

 

Wow, that really makes no sense.

 

Is Nick Fury going to remain dead in Avengers 2 -- because he supposedly 'died' in Captain America 2: TWS ?  Even though they went to the trouble of setting up a funeral plot complete with tombstone.  Survey says no, so why does Coulson have to remain dead in Avengers 2 ?

 

Come on, even Lady Sif knows that he's alive.

[Raja]

Sounds like Weldon is acting like a movie director and forgetting he used to be a show runner and for these types of decisions he's not the man like Martin Scorcse would be in a stand alone film but is working for Kevin Feige like any episode director on Buffy was working for him.

[VCRTracking]

Fury being alive is more easier to explain than Coulson. You'd have to bring up alien Kree blood and all that.

[anna0852]

They could be saving that for CA:Civil War. Something to use to make peace between Stark & Cap? Just a thought.

Edited April 23, 2015 by anna0852

[Kromm]

They could be saving that for CA:Civil War. Something to use to make peace between Stark & Cap? Just a thought.

Whedon's statement (and the logic he used--"If you come back in the sequel and say Coulson's alive, it's like putting f**king John Gielgud in the sequel to Arthur.") holds just as strong for any future movies as it does the current one.

 

Fury's apparent death seems slightly different, mostly in the sense that I don't think we're ever really supposed to think Fury really IS dead.  We're always supposed to think it was a trick of some sort, I think.

[FurryFury]

Yeah I guess Coulson being alive was never the plan and really, it doesn't work well that he was resurrected, narration-wise. He really should have stayed dead - but the show happened. Ironically, I think AoS would have been much better without Coulson. And now there's no way to explain this situation during the movies because it's just too long and not that interesting. Easier to let him stay officially dead.

Edited April 24, 2015 by FurryFury

[teenj12]

I don't see why a quick throw away line explaining Coulson being alive wouldn't suffice. If people want more details, they can just watch the show.

Edited April 28, 2015 by teenj12

[sinkwriter]

 

I don't see why a quick throw away line explaining Coulson being alive wouldn't suffice.

 

A quick throwaway line within the Ultron movie? I don't think that would suffice, mainly because Coulson's death was such a big thing in the first film. To have a quick line saying "Oh by the way he's actually still alive" would be very confusing to anyone not watching the TV series. The films need to stand on their own, just like the TV series generally needs to stand on its own. If someone's not watching the TV series and just prefers to see the films, they'll want to know how on earth Coulson's alive.

 

(Or Coulson needs to stay dead in the films, and treat the TV series as if it has nothing to do with the films. But since they seem to be intertwined now and the TV series seems so dependent upon what happens in the films, I'd say it's a little too late to keep Coulson dead. They made it complicated by bringing him back from the dead, and by creating this series in the first place, when it's so connected to the films and can't seem to tell its story properly without waiting for the films to do their thing first. That's the only thing I'm finding a little frustrating about the AoS storytelling process, that things seem to stall until the films get to deal with it first.)

Edited April 28, 2015 by sinkwriter

[kennyab]

Unless they want the movie to actually deal with it, I think it's best for them to generally ignore Coulson's return. There are a couple of ways I could see it thematically working in a movie:

 

1) It's Fury vs everyone else because of all his secrets, in which case Coulson is one of Fury's big secrets (not that his continued existence itself is that important to the Avengers, just that it's a personal issue to them)

 

2) He's fighting against Stark in Civil War, and his resurrection informs his role in the movie.

 

In either case they could explain it pretty quickly (I'm picturing a voiceover with some super-cool shots recreating some key scenes with higher production values), as the details don't really matter that much. With these scenarios, though, the fact that he's alive could actually impact and inform the story without being central to the plot, and I think it'd be much more emotionally satisfying than "hey, great, he's alive."

Edited April 28, 2015 by kennyab

[Raja]

So I wonder how they will deal with Nick Fury being dead but Captain America and Falcon knowing that he is not?  Don't answer this I'll wait.

[anna0852]

It's not just Cap and Falcon. Maria Hill and Black Widow know as well.

[Tim Thomason]

Well, as of right now and probably the first five minutes of tomorrow's episode, Coulson's a prisoner of a splinter group claiming to be in charge of SHIELD (and I don't think Nick Fury will agree with them). So it makes sense for him not to show up in the movie, since he's busy with his own thing. I expect a sanctimonious speech along the lines of "Why are we bickering over formalities when the real enemy is out there? You know, the robots!"

 

I think Joss Whedon is viewing his franchise (the Avengers franchise) as a series of two movies: Avengers 1 and Avengers: Age of Ultron. Viewed together, it wouldn't make sense for Coulson to show up with no explanation. He could probably get away with showing up in the next Thor movie, maybe the next Captain America, and perhaps even the next Avengers films (since those will be more of a culmination of the entire MCU and not just a part of a trilogy/quadrilogy).

 

I've really been wanting Coulson to publicly announce himself at some point, so that his next appearance could have the implied understanding that everyone knows he's alive. If they could afford it, they could have one of the A-listers film a credits scene for the show reacting to the news, but otherwise years have passed since his death (2012), so by the next time we seem him with an Avenger, it should be water under the bridge.

[John Potts]

OK, fair warning: this post contains info from Avengers 2, so fair warning for those who haven't yet seen it.

 

 

 

By the end of the A2, not only has (MAJOR SPOILER) the world not ended, but SHIELD seems to be re-established. And not in some "operating covertly out of a Nevadan bunker" but from a giant glass fronted office block. Does this mean that by the end of S2 of "Agents of SHIELD" We'll see a single SHIELD officially re-established?

 

(I should also mention that being in the UK, I'm a few weeks behind in AoS, so it's possible this has already happened for you guys)

 

ETA: Sorry, I didn't know the film hadn't opened everywhere. Besides it should be obvious that

the world didn't end, because that would make it very hard to make future movies!

Edited May 1, 2015 by John Potts
Movie spoilers have to be tagged until it's opened in North America -- thanks!

[MarquisDeCarabas]

Avengers 2 spoiler

I could be wrong but I thought it was considered an Avengers base not a Shield base. Clearly though not all the recruits Coulson was grabbing joined him. Not sure how many people it takes crew a Helicarrier but it's not a small amount. I'm guessing Fury's people are now essentially the Avengers support staff. I'm sure Fury's existence isn't common knowledge but everyone who cares about it knows by now

[kennyab]

Yep, apparently Coulson was working directly for Fury this whole time to expand the Avengers Initiative -- getting a Helicarrier staff up-and-running and setting up the new facility. So Coulson's SHIELD is basically the espionage arm of the Avengers (or the Secret Avengers, if you will). It's kind of awesome that Coulson is STILL basically doing his old job and know one even knows it.

[Bruinsfan]

Which again makes me wonder, who controls the Helicarrier that was featured in The Avengers? Was it decommissioned in advance of the Project Insight Carriers going online, or did the government or Hydra manage to seize it? I mean if Bobbi was sent to blow up a regular aircraft carrier, was the same order given for a helicarrier? 

Between what Hawkeye, Thor, and the Hulk did to it SHIELD might not have had any option other than decommissioning it after the movie. Fury also smeared a nuke-carrying fighter jet across the flight deck, so it's possible the whole thing was contaminated with weapons-grade uranium or plutonium.

 

They might also want to rethink having the turbines vent into a central lab overlooking the command deck in future versions.

[Boundary]

Yep, apparently Coulson was working directly for Fury this whole time to expand the Avengers Initiative -- getting a Helicarrier staff up-and-running and setting up the new facility. So Coulson's SHIELD is basically the espionage arm of the Avengers (or the Secret Avengers, if you will). It's kind of awesome that Coulson is STILL basically doing his old job and know one even knows it.

 

 

I love the idea that the money and the secret mission Coulson and Maria Hill was basically to set up a permanent Avengers base. I think the Avengers brand has super ceded the SHIELD brand at this point, and making SHIELD an espionage arm is logical. Basically agreeing with all your points. So someone like Jane Foster would now contact Avengers instead.

[xqueenfrostine]

Saw the Avengers last night and really enjoyed it, but was pretty horrified by the way Black Widow was handled. I'd get into why here, but that would probably be considered off topic. But I'm so glad Jed and Maurissa are doing a better job with their Marvel women than the elder Whedon,

I liked that this year's "gotta leave to catch a boat" moment was essentially Coulson sending the Avengers to retrieve Loki's staff using the intel he retrieved from Hydra's base.

Edited May 1, 2015 by xqueenfrostine

[Raja]

I am guessing spoilers have been disabled for this thread? If its aired in US its fair game?

I love the idea that the money and the secret mission Coulson and Maria Hill was basically to set up a permanent Avengers base. I think the Avengers brand has super ceded the SHIELD brand at this point, and making SHIELD an espionage arm is logical. Basically agreeing with all your points. So someone like Jane Foster would now contact Avengers instead.

I was think more that Avengers base has Tony Stark as its public face and funding source. Stark Tower becoming Avengers tower after the Battle of New York. and a gray Maria Hill being both white open with Stark/Avengers and dark undercover with SHIELD.

 

Stark does seem to be the Gonzales side of this. Again his focus, aliens. Humans had been fighting as long as we have lived but an extraterrestrial force was something on an entire different level.

 

Unless I missed something the Agents of SHIELD TV show presence on Age of Ultron was actually a Hydra one. Only the TV audience knows that Coulson developed the intel which lead to the opening attack. Which goes further to the theory that Hydra was even further degraded then Coulson's SHIELD has done in the recent past  and in the immediate future they will be like Ward a wild card that pops up and not the big bad that they were around The Winter Soldier and the beginning of season 2 of Agents.

[kennyab]

I was think more that Avengers base has Tony Stark as its public face and funding source. Stark Tower becoming Avengers tower after the Battle of New York. and a gray Maria Hill being both white open with Stark/Avengers and dark undercover with SHIELD.

 

That's how it had been running, but not anymore. Coulson and Hill (without Stark's knowledge) were setting up the new Avengers compound, and the Avengers Initiative is back under Fury's supervision and running off of SHIELD's funding, or rather the funding that Fury had left Coulson to work with. I think that by the end of the movie Tony is totally hands-off with SHIELD, and Maria's left his employ and is back under Fury. So now Fury has the Avengers as the superhero team with Captain America heading it up and SHIELD as his covert ops with Coulson in charge.

[ottoDbusdriver]

Was anyone else underwhelmed by the fact

that the 'Age of Ultron' lasted 3 maybe 4 days tops.  The 'Age of Dinosaurs' lasted millions of years and the 'Age of the Sailing Ship' lasted about a few thousand years.  More like 'Long Weekend of Ultron'.

[xqueenfrostine]

Was anyone else underwhelmed by the fact

that the 'Age of Ultron' lasted 3 maybe 4 days tops.  The 'Age of Dinosaurs' lasted millions of years and the 'Age of the Sailing Ship' lasted about a few thousand years.  More like 'Long Weekend of Ultron'.

 

Presumably the "Age of Ultron" is what the Avengers were preventing when they stopped Ultron's master plan, not something that had already begun.

[Cranberry]

Untagged spoilers are fine now that the movie has opened in North America!

[kennyab]

Saw the Avengers last night and really enjoyed it, but was pretty horrified by the way Black Widow was handled. I'd get into why here, but that would probably be considered off topic. But I'm so glad Jed and Maurissa are doing a better job with their Marvel women than the elder Whedon

 

 

I'm going to guess the way her dialogue knowingly kept referencing her as the girl of the group and how her dark place was tied to her reproductive system. Yeah, you're not alone on that one. I don't begrudge all of the love that's been bestowed on Whedon for his status as a feminist champion, I do think he deserves props for creating multifaceted, interesting female characters who aren't defined solely by their gender but who embrace their gender as well. But his attempts at actually addressing big women's issues can be pretty cringe-inducing. Yes, forced sterilization is a horrible, real thing. But an Avengers movie probably isn't the place to bring it up, and don't have your sole female team member be the only one whose nightmare is about the choices others made for her instead of the results of her own agency. It was squicky, indeed.

 

And you're right, AoS has done a much better job. The closest we've come is the Cavalry origin story, and that was about how May's own actions changed and defined her. Unhealthy attitudes towards women *cough*Ward*cough* have all been presented as unhealthy and not romantic. And best of all, in my opinion, has been the Fitz/Simmons fallout after the end of last season. She's never felt guilty about not reciprocating his feelings or felt that she owes him that. And Fitz hasn't tried to guilt her about it -- he did address with Mack and Hunter some hurt feelings about it, which is understandable, but it was the abandonment he felt that caused his issues with her, not her rejection. And he hasn't gone the "I'm going to break you down" route, instead accepting that she doesn't feel the same way. Honestly, most shows could learn something from how they've handled this.

 

So, yeah, you definitely weren't the only one who had some issues with how Natasha was handled. I mean, I think Whedon does mean well with this type of misstep, cause like I said, forced sterilization is bad. But totally tone-deaf, and way to victimize the female lead. She has a dark enough past with her own deeds to mine for a brain melt, which would have been thematically much more appropriate and much less squicky.

[Raja]

I'm going to guess the way her dialogue knowingly kept referencing her as the girl of the group and how her dark place was tied to her reproductive system. Yeah, you're not alone on that one. I don't begrudge all of the love that's been bestowed on Whedon for his status as a feminist champion, I do think he deserves props for creating multifaceted, interesting female characters who aren't defined solely by their gender but who embrace their gender as well. But his attempts at actually addressing big women's issues can be pretty cringe-inducing. Yes, forced sterilization is a horrible, real thing. But an Avengers movie probably isn't the place to bring it up, and don't have your sole female team member be the only one whose nightmare is about the choices others made for her instead of the results of her own agency. It was squicky, indeed.

 

And you're right, AoS has done a much better job. The closest we've come is the Cavalry origin story, and that was about how May's own actions changed and defined her. Unhealthy attitudes towards women *cough*Ward*cough* have all been presented as unhealthy and not romantic. And best of all, in my opinion, has been the Fitz/Simmons fallout after the end of last season. She's never felt guilty about not reciprocating his feelings or felt that she owes him that. And Fitz hasn't tried to guilt her about it -- he did address with Mack and Hunter some hurt feelings about it, which is understandable, but it was the abandonment he felt that caused his issues with her, not her rejection. And he hasn't gone the "I'm going to break you down" route, instead accepting that she doesn't feel the same way. Honestly, most shows could learn something from how they've handled this.

 

So, yeah, you definitely weren't the only one who had some issues with how Natasha was handled. I mean, I think Whedon does mean well with this type of misstep, cause like I said, forced sterilization is bad. But totally tone-deaf, and way to victimize the female lead. She has a dark enough past with her own deeds to mine for a brain melt, which would have been thematically much more appropriate and much less squicky.

But like he said he ignored the TV for the movie audience. We, or most of us, had the Red Room story advantage by knowing Dottie's story from Agent Carter where in the movie we see a dream sequence so we filled in more gaps where as in Age of Ultron he had to go for the throat to get the Widow back story in play.

[Sakura12]

Yeah, I think they should've dropped the mention of what happened to Nat. Why were they even talking about that, they barely acknowledged that they like each other, why were they talking about having kids? 

 

I know the movies have nothing to do with the tv show, but I am interested to see how this movie affects Shield. Gonzales is going to be more gung ho about the Inhumans now. They are Alien created weapons and from the cover art for the episode it looks like we'll be learning more about Jiaying. 

Edited May 2, 2015 by Sakura12

[Boundary]

I liked that the last episode set up nicely the beginning of AoU, Coulson's intel allowed the Avengers to attack the Hydra base. And I bet the next few episodes will tell us what happened next to von Strucker and List. But what annoys me a bit is that clearly the tv show changes shape to accommodate the movies but the movies don't seem ready to accommodate the changes the tv show has made. Wouldn't it be awesome to see Simmons or Fitz helping out Banner or Stark? Not in this movie obviously, but in future it shouldn't be hard to incorporate some tv characters purely as easter eggs. At the moment, the relationship is too one-way.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Boundary

[Cranberry]

Yeah, I like that the movies affect the show, but it doesn't feel real when nothing from the show affects the movies. I don't think they should do anything that would require people to watch the show to understand, but they could toss a character in here and there. Fitz and Simmons are good examples; they could easily consult on something without needing much of an explanation.

[xqueenfrostine]

I'm going to guess the way her dialogue knowingly kept referencing her as the girl of the group and how her dark place was tied to her reproductive system. Yeah, you're not alone on that one.

Yes all of this plus a few other things. First off I hate that after all of the clambering for a solo Black Widow film, this was Joss and Feige's way of showing us that Natasha doesn't need her own movie because they're going to give her important story lines in other people's movies. Black Widow has a ton of rich story potential with her history as an assassin and spy, but rather than give us more of that we got a Beauty and the Beast style love story that no one really asked for and angst about infertility. I know ScarJo's pregnancy threw a wrench in the works but is it really too much to ask that they give their female superheroes stories that aren't about boyfriends and baby making?

Also can we talk about the fact that both Black Widow and the Scarlet Witch were carried from the battlefield $@%?ing bridal style to safety by would-be love interests?** I know neither has super human jumping skills or flies (well Scarlet Witch might), but that didn't stop Hawkeye from making it to the helicarrier under his own power. And was it really necessary to make Widow a captive of Ultron? There was no narrative purpose for her being there since he was in Sokovia, the first place the twins would have suggested they look for him. It also stung that apparently Natasha is crafty enough to devise a way to send coded messages using whatever was lying around her but not crafty enough to escape an unguarded cell without being rescued.

And while this probably wouldn't have bothered me if I hadn't already been stewing over the way Black Widow was being handled, but I hated that Scarlet Witch received a "stop crying and man up!" speech from Hawkeye. The language he used was infantilizing (I'm not your babysitter, I'll send your brother to take care of you) and it bothered me that the writers were again using a female hero as a means for building up a male hero.

**I know they didn't set up a romance between the Scarlet Witch and the Vision in the movie, but it exists in the comics so I'm counting it

But like he said he ignored the TV for the movie audience. We, or most of us, had the Red Room story advantage by knowing Dottie's story from Agent Carter where in the movie we see a dream sequence so we filled in more gaps where as in Age of Ultron he had to go for the throat to get the Widow back story in play.

Totally disagree with you here. There are millions of different ways they could have gone for throat that didn't involve relying on a feminized form of violence. I have problems with forced sterilization deployed as a means of story development that are similar to the ones I have about rape being used as a plot tool. I think the scene between Bruce and Natasha is kind of emblematic about the different ways female super heroes are tortured compared to the way male ones are. When Banner talks about not being able to have kids, he's not talking about shooting blanks. It's that he's so big and strong that either the act of sex would be dangerous to the woman, that bearing his children might be dangerous and/or that he'd be a danger to his children. With Natasha, it's thather body was basically raped by her handlers in the red room and now she's physically unable to conceive. Also worth noting, is that Banner's inability to start a family is an unintended byproduct of a great gift (and I mean great as in powerful/terrifying, not as in wonderful). Natasha had something stolen from her.

[Raja]

I liked that the last episode set up nicely the beginning of AoU, Coulson's intel allowed the Avengers to attack the Hydra base. And I bet the next few episodes will tell us what happened next to von Strucker and List. But what annoys me a bit is that clearly the tv show changes shape to accommodate the movies but the movies don't seem ready to accommodate the changes the tv show has made. Wouldn't it be awesome to see Simmons or Fitz helping out Banner or Stark? Not in this movie obviously, but in future it shouldn't be hard to incorporate some tv characters purely as easter eggs. At the moment, the relationship is too one-way.

Von Strucker was the movie character, List the TV show. They made a point of Ultron's taking out von Strucker with List moving on.. Right after we were told there were only two senior Hydra leaders left. I figure Hydra goes underground again. Perhaps someone pops up on occasion as a wild card.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Raja

[kennyab]

Black Widow has a ton of rich story potential with her history as an assassin and spy, but rather than give us more of that we got a Beauty and the Beast style love story that no one really asked for and angst about infertility.

 

I pretty much agree with you across the board, but especially about this, and it points out whey they REALLY need more women in the Avengers (and the Marvel line in general). I don't have a problem with there being love stories in the Avengers. If we're being honest, the book has been a spandex soap opera for most of its history, so it's kind of to be expected. But there are enough guys that not every one of them is drawn into a romance. Unless they fulfill the fantasies of many a slasher and get Steven and Tony together. But really, you shouldn't have so few women that romances are the primary stories told for them.

 

That said, I would be pissed if they didn't do one for Wanda and Vision, because of my childhood. All the more reason to round out the team some more. I can't totally blame Joss for this one, though. I can understand not wanting to introduce too many new characters in one film, which means drawing on characters from other parts of the franchise. But those have all been guys. I love Rhodey and Sam, but let's graduate May up and get Hope van Dyne in her mom's suit ASAP.

Edited May 2, 2015 by kennyab

[scarynikki12]

after all of the clambering for a solo Black Widow film, this was Joss and Feige's way of showing us that Natasha doesn't need her own movie because they're going to give her important story lines in other people's movies

 

I see it as this being the only way we're going to get any story about Black Widow.  For some reason, Marvel, Disney, or both seem completely against giving her her own movie*.  I think the other directors know, or at least suspect, that she won't get her own and are trying to pick up the slack out of respect for the character.  The way they're doing it may be cause for alarm, but I think this truly is the only way we're going to get any Black Widow story unless Marvel/Disney change their minds.

 

*I've seen the argument that ScarJo may not want to do a solo movie, but I remember a few interviews where she expressly said that she'd do it if offered and her movie Lucy felt like she was auditioning for a solo BW movie.  She may have changed her mind since she got pregnant/had the baby but I think that Marvel/Disney would point to her contract if they wanted this movie and she resisted, so this decision lies only with them.

 

I do agree that it would be nice if one or more of the movies would bring in something more explicit from the show.  I'm personally hoping they can figure out a way to bring in Mockingbird, even if just for a scene, because she is an actual Avenger in the comics.  Fitz and Simmons would probably make more sense, though, since their presence wouldn't need a lot of explanation for movie audiences and they can geek out about working with the Avengers in the follow up episode.

[HistoryGirl]

In case anyone wanted an accurate ordering of the MCU films, one shots and TV programs, this article organizes them all nicely. 

[xqueenfrostine]

I pretty much agree with you across the board, but especially about this, and it points out whey they REALLY need more women in the Avengers (and the Marvel line in general). I don't have a problem with there being love stories in the Avengers. If we're being honest, the book has been a spandex soap opera for most of its history, so it's kind of to be expected. But there are enough guys that not every one of them is drawn into a romance. Unless they fulfill the fantasies of many a slasher and get Steven and Tony together. But really, you shouldn't have so few women that romances are the primary stories told for them.

 

Exactly.  Like I don't begrudge Tony, Steve, Thor and Bruce their.romances, because there's nothing inherently wrong with romantic subplots and those plots are a pretty small portion of the story that's been given to them.  But with Black Widow it's different because not only has she not had a story to herself to balance out it out with something more substantive, she's been the only woman in the sausage fest that is the Avengers.  So it feels like she's given a romantic subplot because if there's 5 guys and 1 girl in a group (or now 8 guys and 2 girls!) the girl HAS to end up becoming someone's girlfriend so the writers can justify her being there.  That's just what you get when you only have 1 top billing female character whose primary purpose wasn't to serve as the lead male's love interest.

 

It probably didn't help that we had Chris Evans and Jeremy Renner demonstrating that sexist movie logic during the Avengers press tour, when they called Black Widow a slut and a whore for being shipped with 3 different members of the team. Their answers were horrifying, but the question itself was troubling too because it shows that Black Widow's is deemed more interesting as half of a 'ship' than she is as a badass spy.

 

I see it as this being the only way we're going to get any story about Black Widow.  For some reason, Marvel, Disney, or both seem completely against giving her her own movie*.  I think the other directors know, or at least suspect, that she won't get her own and are trying to pick up the slack out of respect for the character.  The way they're doing it may be cause for alarm, but I think this truly is the only way we're going to get any Black Widow story unless Marvel/Disney change their minds.

 

I have less of a problem with Disney/Marvel not doing a solo Black Widow movie as I do with telling us that they're going to give her "important stories" in the group movies and then giving us this.  That's what that paragraph of my post was about.  Not complaining that there's no Black Widow movie (though, yes clearly I'd welcome one), but that they think that turning her into someone's love interest in a movie counts as giving us an important story in absence of other material for her.  Both Kevin Feige and Joss Whedon boasted about Black Widow having a big role in Avengers 2, and it's pretty pathetic that this is what they meant.

 

Also, ScarJo has definitely said yes she'd be up for doing a Black Widow solo film as recently as two weeks ago, so actor unwillingness definitely isn't what's standing in the way of seeing a Black Widow movie.  

[Malbec]

 Also worth noting, is that Banner's inability to start a family is an unintended byproduct of a great gift (and I mean great as in powerful/terrifying, not as in wonderful). Natasha had something stolen from her.

 

I totally get the point you're making and I don't disagree.  But I would point out that "The Incredible Hulk" establishes that Bruce's "great gift" was forced on him without his consent.  He did test an experiment on himself -- but he believed that he was creating a formula to make soldiers immune to radiation.  General Ross tampered with the formula, creating the Hulk.  

 

Joss Whedon either decided to retcon that or deliberately had Coulson lie/misunderstand in Avengers 1 when he described Banner as one of the many people who tried and failed to recreate Steve's gift.  (Side note, I actually thought Coulson's description of Hulk as "that thing" and his apparent belief that Bruce knowingly tried to make himself a supersoldier made for an interesting potential anti-Hulk character beat, but I'm clearly assigning that moment more importance than anyone responsible for MCU storytelling!).

 

While it isn't equivalent to forced sterilization for all the reasons you mention, overall, I really don't have a problem with the Bruce/Natasha relationship in theory. A connection between two people who were made weapons against their will has the potential for some really rich, interesting stuff.  It's also not implausible to me that Natasha might latch onto that connection in the wake of everything she lost in CA:TWS.  And, I thought Ruffalo and Johansson had really interesting chemistry in Avengers 1, so for me it did make sense for Whedon to try to build on that.

 

Key words, though: "In theory," "potential," "try"...  while there are things I like about the idea of Bruce/Natasha, the actual execution was really unsatisfying.  It relied way too much on "telling" rather than "showing," which is a real crime when the actors have already shown they're capable of generating chemistry when the scene makes sense.  Steve's speech pushing them together was just sort of painful.  

 

For all the talk of the storyline cheapening Natasha's character, actually, I thought it was Bruce whose characterization really suffered in the movie; he was subordinate to Tony during all of the "mad scientist" decisions and was a mostly passive participant in the romantic arc with Natasha.  Even his final decision was an anti-climax.  I also think it's an unforgiveable missed opportunity that they did not show OR tell what Scarlet Witch showed Bruce.  In a way, the one redeeming feature of Bruce and Natasha's romance was that they traded the normal male/female roles -- she was the active fighter, the pursuer and the one who had an idealized view of what Bruce represented; and in the end, it was her that we saw dealing with the fallout of their quasi-relationship, albeit briefly.  Although it's not my ideal storyline for either one of them, mind you.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Malbec

[crystalwearer]

For all the talk of the storyline cheapening Natasha's character, actually, I thought it was Bruce whose characterization really suffered in the movie; he was subordinate to Tony during all of the "mad scientist" decisions and was a mostly passive participant in the romantic arc with Natasha.  Even his final decision was an anti-climax.

I was waiting for him to stand up to Stark too, since he obviously wasn't on board with the lab work. For what it's worth, I saw it as more evidence of Banner's fear: he's so afraid of a personal confrontation getting out of control that he backs down even when he doesn't want to. Stark and Romanoff each point this out to him, sort of.

[Racj82]

Every single person in the Avengers (from Phase 1) has a romantic entanglement. But it's an issue with Black Widow because she's a woman? I don't care. I don't care that's she a female character in anything that she does. All I want is a well written character. A good character. Black Widow has been written better than most of her team members. You know so much about her without having to explore her full backstory in a movie, etc. She is a very dynamic character that you never question in this universe. While people are constantly making fun of how exactly Hawkeye exists in this world, most people don't give her a second thought. She's that great. Her and Bruce make sense in that they seem to both seem to be outsiders that feel they don't exactly fit in the world. They also seem to mentally punish themselves for their past misdeeds (whether in their control or not). We weren't even supposed to have Widow in these movies. Whedon wanted The Wasp (who pretty already has a built in romantic pairing). It was vetoed by the studio. Instead we got a kick ass female character that is far from defined by who she dates. No issue for me here.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Racj82

[xqueenfrostine]

Every single person in the Avengers (from Phase 1) has a romantic entanglement. But it's an issue with Black Widow because she's a woman? I don't care. I don't care that's she a female character in anything that she does. All I want is a well written character. A good character. Black Widow has been written better than most of her team members. You know so much about her without having to explore her full backstory in a movie, etc. She is a very dynamic character that you never question in this universe. 

 

Everyone else in phase 1 has their own movies in which a romantic entanglement is but a small part.  They are fully rounded characters whose back stories, ambitions and vocations are fully explored.  That's different from Black Widow, who while being a well written character has never been given the opportunity to lead and whose past life and present motivations are largely left unexplored.   Black Widow's romantic plot line is a problem not because she's a woman, but because a romantic entanglement seems to be the only plot line of her own that they're willing to give to her.  She deserves more than that.

 

And as both kennyab and I said before, if Marvel had a wealth of female characters in leading roles this wouldn't be such a big deal.  It's that this seems to be the best they can give to the most prominent female member of the MCU that makes it troublesome.

 

I totally get the point you're making and I don't disagree.  But I would point out that "The Incredible Hulk" establishes that Bruce's "great gift" was forced on him without his consent.  He did test an experiment on himself -- but he believed that he was creating a formula to make soldiers immune to radiation.  General Ross tampered with the formula, creating the Hulk.  

 

Admittedly, the Incredible Hulk is the only Marvel movie I haven’t seen in its entirety.  What was done to Banner was terrible, but it wasn't about controlling, dominating and breaking him down as character the way the Black Widow "graduation" was.  Male characters’ torment is just generally more likely to come in the form of unwanted power that is as destructive and isolating as it could be empowering, whereas female characters torment tends to be just destructive and isolating.

 

As for Banner's weakness, I agree that was certainly his theme for the entire movie.  He was definitely more timid and cowed in this movie than he was in the previous Avengers film.  And while I thought the bromance between Stark and Banner was cute in Avengers and in the end credit scene for Iron Man 3, I agree that it was pretty pathetic in Age of Ultron.  I couldn't believe how much he allowed himself to be bullied by Tony.  The first time they worked on Ultron, you could chalk it up to intellectual curiosity and not fully understanding the dangers of what they were doing but I couldn't believe he allowed Tony to rope him into creating the Vision.  Sure it turned out okay, but after Banner's clear regret for his part in creating the first "murder bot" giving into Tony was definitely one of his lowest moments.

 

Speaking of, the conversation between Tony and Banner before the creation of Ultron definitely echoed a lot of the conflict between Coulson’s top-down style of leadership and New SHIELD’s more democratic method of decision making.  Tony said he didn’t want to have to deal with the hand wringing of “the town hall” by going to the team with the idea of using the scepter to build AI powered defensive capabilities.  Coulson and Hill may snark about voting, but Stark is a prime example of what horror can be wrought when well-intentioned people with a lot of power are able to make unilateral decisions.

Edited May 3, 2015 by xqueenfrostine

[Racj82]

 

Everyone else in phase 1 has their own movies in which a romantic entanglement is but a small part.  They are fully rounded characters whose back stories, ambitions and vocations are fully explored.  That's different from Black Widow, who while being a well written character has never been given the opportunity to lead and whose past life and present motivations are largely left unexplored.   Black Widow's romantic plot line is a problem not because she's a woman, but because a romantic entanglement seems to be the only plot line of her own that they're willing to give to her.  She deserves more than that.

 

And as both kennyab and I said before, if Marvel had a wealth of female characters in leading roles this wouldn't be such a big deal.  It's that this seems to be the best they can give to the most prominent female member of the MCU that makes it troublesome.

No offense intended but I'm just kind of tired of female characters not being able to exist without them being a representation of something great. If a female characters dies on a tv show, that woman is being fridged. It can't just be a character death. Now, we have this kind of situation. Black Widow is in the same position as Hawkeye. They were designed to work within the Avengers stories. Not on their own. That's how I view them. I don't view them differently because one is a woman.

 

Part of Black Widow's character, by design, is that she's a mystery. We get bits and pieces as time goes on but we aren't supposed to know much about her. It is also a constant debate as to if a Black Widow standalone in necessary. A lot people think not, therefore, all of her journey is done in other movies.

 

And, this is a business. Whedon and co. wrote out most of the characters significant others because they didn't have time for it but audiences do love romance and things of that nature in movies and tv.

 

But, this just isn't an issue that bothers me anyway. One of the most kickass characters in movies today happens to be a woman. That's great. It also hasn't changed because she's romantically linked to someone else. We have Antman (who will eventually bring Wasp), Captain Marvel, Scarlett Witch, Saldana on Guardians, Maria Hill and others on the way. Great female characters will not be a problem going forward and I'm sure they will be all great in their own right.

[Raja]

Yeah, I like that the movies affect the show, but it doesn't feel real when nothing from the show affects the movies. I don't think they should do anything that would require people to watch the show to understand, but they could toss a character in here and there. Fitz and Simmons are good examples; they could easily consult on something without needing much of an explanation.

It just occurred to me that the movie left the impression that the Avengers, not Coulson and SHIELD have been assembling on a regular basis to hit Hydra bases and that scene looked just like a Howling Commando with SSR back up raid by Captain America in The First Avenger. So much so that Captain America notices the "enhanced" on the battlefield and as a well drilled unit they go into immediate action. And in getting Loki's scepter the war was over? So I guess the Avengers ordinary troops  were ex SHIELD and national military veterans or maybe mercenaries like Hunter

[xqueenfrostine]

 

No offense intended but I'm just kind of tired of female characters not being able to exist without them being a representation of something great. If a female characters dies on a tv show, that woman is being fridged. It can't just be a character death. Now, we have this kind of situation. Black Widow is in the same position as Hawkeye. They were designed to work within the Avengers stories. Not on their own. That's how I view them. I don't view them differently because one is a woman.

 

Ok.... But do you not realize that the reason leading female TV and movie characters have so many expectations on them is because there's so relatively few of them?  Male characters get to be all sorts of different things, both exceptional and mundane, because there are so many of them that it's impossible for them to all get stuck with the exact same sets of roles and tropes.  Marvel has used characters like Black Widow to shield them from criticism against their lack of gender diversity, so then why is it a surprise that they'd get criticized for falling back on more cliched feminine story lines like romance or family for them rather than expanding on what makes those characters so rich or that they keep most of them as relatively small players?  It seems silly to me to be more upset with people who have different expectations for our female heroes than with the people who make us fight over this by having so few of them to begin with.  

 

It just occurred to me that the movie left the impression that the Avengers, not Coulson and SHIELD have been assembling on a regular basis to hit Hydra bases and that scene looked just like a Howling Commando with SSR back up raid by Captain America in The First Avenger. 

 

I mentioned this in the Clearance 10 spoilers topic, but SHIELD has so little presence in the movie that it would seem that Whedon decided that SHIELD, like Coulson, needed to remain dead as far as the movies are concerned.   The name SHIELD was only mentioned 2-3 times in the movie, and none of the mentions were particularly significant.  If I were only watching the movies and knew nothing about the show (or that there even was a show), I think I'd assume that SHIELD ceased to exist at the end of CA2, and that Fury brought whatever assets he could salvage as well as some of his loyal personnel to the newly expanded Avengers organization.

 

In that light, Agents of SHIELD seems more like an AU fanfiction where everything that dies in the movie universe has a chance to live on in the hearts of the MCU's most obsessed fanbase than it does like a legitimate part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.    

[Raja]

 

I mentioned this in the Clearance 10 spoilers topic, but SHIELD has so little presence in the movie that it would seem that Whedon decided that SHIELD, like Coulson, needed to remain dead as far as the movies are concerned.   The name SHIELD was only mentioned 2-3 times in the movie, and none of the mentions were particularly significant.  If I were only watching the movies and knew nothing about the show (or that there even was a show), I think I'd assume that SHIELD ceased to exist at the end of CA2, and that Fury brought whatever assets he could salvage as well as some of his loyal personnel to the newly expanded Avengers organization.

 

In that light, Agents of SHIELD seems more like an AU fanfiction where everything that dies in the movie universe has a chance to live on in the hearts of the MCU's most obsessed fanbase than it does like a legitimate part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.    

If I remember right the mention of this is what SHIELD really does as the helicarrier started the evacuation could be seen as a nod to the TV fans

[xqueenfrostine]

If I remember right the mention of this is what SHIELD really does as the helicarrier started the evacuation could be seen as a nod to the TV fans

 

Yes that's definitely the most relevant mention (I think the other two mentions come from Baron von Strucker as he's surrendering saying he's a SHIELD thug not a HYDRA thug and a throwaway line from Tony about SHIELD's collapse), but it's funny because it almost makes no sense in the context of the movie OR the show.  That conversation is between Quicksilver and Captain America, with Quicksilver making the reference to SHIELD first which seems pretty out of place since there's no clear reason why he'd see the helicarrier as SHIELD coming to the rescue.  And on the show, we've never seen Coulson have access to that level of resources.  I mean they had to steal their Quinjet earlier this season, so I'm guessing Fury's toolbox didn't give them access to a small fleet of planes, ships and helicarriers.  And Coulson didn't seem like a guy who had a ton of resources or personnel at his disposal during his time on the run with Hunter from New SHIELD.  Unless next week we see New SHIELD and Old SHIELD pool their resources to send reinforcements to the Avengers, I don't know what we're supposed to make of that scene.

[VCRTracking]

 

In each of the movies where Black Widow has had a prominent part, different aspects of her life were explored. In the first Avengers, it was friendship, her's with Barton(which we now know is definitely just friendship and not romance as previously thought). In Captain America: The Winter Soldier it was family, and hers was SHIELD with Nick Fury being her father figure.  In Age of Ultron, it was the possibility of love with Banner. I posted it in the AoU thread in the movies section but the relationship is mostly from her POV.

 

And while this probably wouldn't have bothered me if I hadn't already been stewing over the way Black Widow was being handled, but I hated that Scarlet Witch received a "stop crying and man up!" speech from Hawkeye. The language he used was infantilizing (I'm not your babysitter, I'll send your brother to take care of you) and it bothered me that the writers were again using a female hero as a means for building up a male hero.

 

Well up to that point she was a "villain" although she had turned after finding out Ultron's insane plan. I don't think she was freaking out because she was scared. This is a girl who took on Earth's mightiest heroes. She didn't lack bravery. What she was feeling guilt because she had not only helped Ultron but she had let Stark take the sceptre knowing it would lead him down a dark path. Now her country was suffering because of it. She had become what she hated in Stark. And Hawkeye had called both Wand and Pietro "kids" and "punks" earlier so it was more an ageist thing than sexist.

[kennyab]

Yes that's definitely the most relevant mention (I think the other two mentions come from Baron von Strucker as he's surrendering saying he's a SHIELD thug not a HYDRA thug and a throwaway line from Tony about SHIELD's collapse), but it's funny because it almost makes no sense in the context of the movie OR the show.

 

Actually, I'd say that the most prominent mention doesn't even use the world SHIELD. It's when Fury and the team are discussing their plan at Hawkeye's place and Fury mentions his men on the ground who are gathering intel. Coulson's a key part of Fury's network. If you only watch the movie, you know that Fury's got a team together who put together the Helicarrier staff and new Avengers facility. If you also watch the TV show, you know who it is. I don't see it as a case of pretending the TV show doesn't exist. In most movies, you'd just accept that it's all happened in the background. The TV show fills in those blanks, so it's a richer world if you know both, being able to see the bigger tapestry of Fury's machinations.

[ottoDbusdriver]

Remember back during the AoS episode following the release of Thor: The Dark World when SHIELD was doing cleanup in London after the events of the movie.

 

That implies that SHIELD probably did the same thing after the events of the Battle of New York by gathering up all the alien tech and sequestering it away some where.  Coulson's team was surprised when they found that Chitauri helmet at the fire station in one of the early episodes of Season 1, so I could see Hydra making off with a helmet or a hand weapon, but how did Hydra get a hold of an intact Chitauri personnel carrier and manage to move it to Sokovia ? That seemed like one of the bigger WTFs in Age of Ultron.

[anna0852]

Remember back during the AoS episode following the release of Thor: The Dark World when SHIELD was doing cleanup in London after the events of the movie.

 

That implies that SHIELD probably did the same thing after the events of the Battle of New York by gathering up all the alien tech and sequestering it away some where.  Coulson's team was surprised when they found that Chitauri helmet at the fire station in one of the early episodes of Season 1, so I could see Hydra making off with a helmet or a hand weapon, but how did Hydra get a hold of an intact Chitauri personnel carrier and manage to move it to Sokovia ? That seemed like one of the bigger WTFs in Age of Ultron.

Well remember during the clean up after the Battle of New York, HYDRA was still deep-cover within SHIELD. They probably snitched the Leviathan during/after Winter Soldier, when HYDRA stepped out of the shadows and into the light. Remember the Sandbox got raided pretty good? Not to mention with folks fairly high-up the food chain (like Alexander Pierce) it wouldn't have been too difficult to funnel certain tech to certain places. I'm assuming that is how Strucker got his hands on Loki's staff, since the last time we saw it, Nat was using it to close the Chitauri portal.

Edited May 3, 2015 by anna0852

[HistoryGirl]

Remember back during the AoS episode following the release of Thor: The Dark World when SHIELD was doing cleanup in London after the events of the movie.

 

That implies that SHIELD probably did the same thing after the events of the Battle of New York by gathering up all the alien tech and sequestering it away some where.  Coulson's team was surprised when they found that Chitauri helmet at the fire station in one of the early episodes of Season 1, so I could see Hydra making off with a helmet or a hand weapon, but how did Hydra get a hold of an intact Chitauri personnel carrier and manage to move it to Sokovia ? That seemed like one of the bigger WTFs in Age of Ultron.

 

And don't forget in the one shot, Item 47, Sitwell is sent to collect a rogue gun.  Who's to say that rogue gun ended up with SHIELD?  Also, it is entirely plausible and possible that stuff was littered everywhere and people were taking souvenirs before SHIELD could clean it up. 

[ottoDbusdriver]

And don't forget in the one shot, Item 47, Sitwell is sent to collect a rogue gun.  Who's to say that rogue gun ended up with SHIELD?  Also, it is entirely plausible and possible that stuff was littered everywhere and people were taking souvenirs before SHIELD could clean it up.

 

Completely agree, but I would think that someone would notice if one of the Leviathans went missing -- just the sheer manpower and resources to disassemble and move something that size would be huge.

Edited May 3, 2015 by ottoDbusdriver

[xqueenfrostine]

Well up to that point she was a "villain" although she had turned after finding out Ultron's insane plan. I don't think she was freaking out because she was scared. This is a girl who took on Earth's mightiest heroes. She didn't lack bravery. What she was feeling guilt because she had not only helped Ultron but she had let Stark take the sceptre knowing it would lead him down a dark path. Now her country was suffering because of it. She had become what she hated in Stark. And Hawkeye had called both Wand and Pietro "kids" and "punks" earlier so it was more an ageist thing than sexist.

As I said when I first brought it up, if it hadn't been for all of the other ways in which the film's handling of female characters, this one probably wouldn't have bothered me. It's not that the moment doesn't make sense story wise, it's that the writers decided to have a moment where their only other female Avenger is shown as too emotional for combat and has to get coached by Hawkeye with infantilizing (not ageist, this isn't about Wanda's age, but the implication that she was acting like a child) language, and it's only then that she's able to do as her brother had already been doing and stand up and fight. If this had just been one moment in a movie, it wouldn't have been a big deal. But when you already have your female characters out numbered by at least a factor of 4:1 you need to be a little more conscious about how you're using them. And that you avoid the common sexist tropes of the genre.