The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[katie9918]

Still trying to figure out how a mind rapist managed to get herself a Disney+ series that is about a mind rapist and what she’s up to while a lot of people are being mind-raped around her.

 

if Wanda was male, he would have been dusted in Endgame with the rest of Thanos’ army as the villain he deserved to be remembered as. 

[Kel Varnsen]

16 hours ago, katie9918 said:

Still trying to figure out how a mind rapist managed to get herself a Disney+ series that is about a mind rapist and what she’s up to while a lot of people are being mind-raped around her.

 

if Wanda was male, he would have been dusted in Endgame with the rest of Thanos’ army as the villain he deserved to be remembered as. 

But Loki is getting a Disney+ series too and he is also a villian/mind rapist.

Edited February 14, 2021 by Kel Varnsen

[Raja]

Eventually the X-Men will reboot to the MCU and the Mouse will release a major motion picture where their leader Professor X conducts the occasional mind rape, for what he alone thinks are good reasons at the time.

[JessePinkman]

On 2/11/2021 at 10:54 PM, Danny Franks said:

I've already pointed out in another thread that I doubt Whedon displayed much toxic behaviour on the Avengers set, simply because Jon Favreau and RDJ had already established the expectations for anyone working on an MCU movie, and the rest of the cast and crew probably followed their example.

Plus it's easier to be toxic when your entire cast isn't full of already famous people. Notice how Ray Fischer is the one actor speaking out against him from JL, he was the only one without an established career. 

6 hours ago, katie9918 said:

Still trying to figure out how a mind rapist managed to get herself a Disney+ series that is about a mind rapist and what she’s up to while a lot of people are being mind-raped around her.

if Wanda was male, he would have been dusted in Endgame with the rest of Thanos’ army as the villain he deserved to be remembered as. 

Oh no Wandavision is turning me into a simp for Wanda but I have to say she's clearly dealing with some severe mental issues and trauma. She spent two years happily ensconced with Vision not bothering anybody. I'd hardly call her an out and out villain even with the little info we have about how she ended up where she is.

[ShadowHunter]

16 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

It's funny my daughters are super into Wandavision so on their last PD day I stayed home with them and we watched Civil War (because my 7 year old loves spider man). It was actually better than I remembered and other than the Avengers reaction to the accords it was a decent movie.

Today they had another PD day and we decided to watch Age of Ultron. And disappointingly it has the same issues I remember if not more. The whole middle part at the farm drags on and kills the momentum. Plus as bad as Natasha's scenes are there is a scene with Hawkeye and his wife and the dialogue that Linda Cardilini has is even worse. Plus as mentioned many times Thor's vision makes no sense. The final battle is a mess too and super anti-climactic. And the fight scenes, especially the last one looked super bad especially when they are all in the church fighting 100's of CG robots. The fight in Seoul was cool though.

Plus even my 10 year old wondered why Sam wasn't part of the final fight. She thought maybe he just shows up for the parties.

Also Ultron's Whedon style quips and attempts at humour were very lame.

I tried to watch Age of Ultron again a few months but kept getting bored lol. I hate to keep staring and stopping it lol.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Raja said:

Eventually the X-Men will reboot to the MCU and the Mouse will release a major motion picture where their leader Professor X conducts the occasional mind rape, for what he alone thinks are good reasons at the time.

Plus every single Jedi is guilty of mind rape. If anything Wanda has faced more consequences based on her actions in Age of Ultron than most with mind control abilities. She lost her brother and entire country. It’s still to soon to know exactly what her role is in WandaVision but they’re not shying away from the consequences of her abilities. 

Edited February 13, 2021 by Guest

[swanpride]

We don't even know if Wanda started this all. Her confusion about the notion to be able to control that many people seems real....

[Morrigan2575]

10 hours ago, swanpride said:

We don't even know if Wanda started this all. Her confusion about the notion to be able to control that many people seems real....

I don't think it matters how it started she's the one that keeps the show going on every "episode".

[Danny Franks]

I hope Wanda did start it all and is in control of everything that's happening, even if only subconsciously. The cop-out of it being some evil manipulator is weak, just as it was in the comics when they absolved Wanda of her guilt over Avengers: Disassembled and the Mutant Decimation.

She used her powers to kill Ant-Man, Vision, Hawkeye (twice) then create an entire universe that she thought would fix all that was wrong with her life. When she realised that it hadn't, and blamed her father and his endless quest for Mutant supremacy for all her ills, she was then indirectly responsible for thousands of deaths, by removing the mutant powers of almost every Mutant in the world. She did all that because she was traumatised and damaged, but the initial exploration of what a good person can do with extreme powers when they aren't in their right mind ended up being just another Doctor Doom scheme.

However, I imagine the MCU will take the approach of her being manipulated by someone, because they'll worry that people won't like Wanda any more if she deals with her loss of Vision (compounding her loss of Pietro) in an unhealthy way that hurts others.

Edited February 14, 2021 by Danny Franks

[Morrigan2575]

1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

hope Wanda did start it all and is in control of everything that's happening, even if only subconsciously. The cop-out of it being some evil manipulator is weak, just as it was in the comics when they absolved Wanda of her guilt over Avengers: Disassembled and the Mutant Decimation.

And that's where I am. I want it to be her because I want it explored. It doesn't make me hate her, the cop out might.

I'm hopeful because of Monica's comment about understanding Wanda and, wanting to help her. I really hope we get a Wanda/Monica talk about grief and losing your family and feeling alone.

I know it's a comics book show so, there's got to be a fight but, I really want the resolution to be about character depth/growth. I just want for it to end with someone telling Wanda she's not alone and, for Wanda to realize her actions were wrong. 

[Ailianna]

I have a genuine question about the issue of the Sokovian accords and hero-blaming. I just watched the scene where Ross, in Civil War, goes through all the terrible horrible things the Avengers did to people. And for each one, I have to ask, would it have been better if the Avengers did nothing? The list goes:

New York-- would they rather have let Loki's invasion proceed as olanned?

Washington DC-- would they rather Hydra win and could assassinate 20 million people for something they might do (and probably mostly good things)?

Sokovia--would it be better to let Ultron kill everyone?

Even Lagos--better to let criminals have a major biological weapon?

I just truly don't understand how the Avengers are the problem when they are like firefighters being blamed for the destruction of the building when they didn't start the fire and in fact prevented it from spreading to three others.

Can anyone give me a rational argument why the death and destruction --which is horrific and I don't downplay-- is the fault of the people trying to stop it?

[Anduin]

9 minutes ago, Ailianna said:

I have a genuine question about the issue of the Sokovian accords and hero-blaming. I just watched the scene where Ross, in Civil War, goes through all the terrible horrible things the Avengers did to people. And for each one, I have to ask, would it have been better if the Avengers did nothing? The list goes:

New York-- would they rather have let Loki's invasion proceed as olanned?

Washington DC-- would they rather Hydra win and could assassinate 20 million people for something they might do (and probably mostly good things)?

Sokovia--would it be better to let Ultron kill everyone?

Even Lagos--better to let criminals have a major biological weapon?

I just truly don't understand how the Avengers are the problem when they are like firefighters being blamed for the destruction of the building when they didn't start the fire and in fact prevented it from spreading to three others.

Can anyone give me a rational argument why the death and destruction --which is horrific and I don't downplay-- is the fault of the people trying to stop it?

It's not like they're particularly subtle or covert about their efforts to stop the bad guys. They cause all kinds of chaos in the attempt. Maybe the insurance companies are lobbying the government. "Get them stop breaking things we have to weasel out of paying for. We're running out of excuses. BTW, is damage caused by Thor accident? Act of god?"

And furthermore, Tony actually created Ultron. Accidentally building killer robots is a really bad look. Tony is lucky they allow him to design anything more complicated than a more efficient pencil sharpener after that.

[stealinghome]

34 minutes ago, Anduin said:

And furthermore, Tony actually created Ultron. Accidentally building killer robots is a really bad look. Tony is lucky they allow him to design anything more complicated than a more efficient pencil sharpener after that.

This I agree with...but then we'd have to hold Tony accountable for something, and other than the original Iron Man, the MCU movies are pretty allergic to doing so.

53 minutes ago, Ailianna said:

I have a genuine question about the issue of the Sokovian accords and hero-blaming. I just watched the scene where Ross, in Civil War, goes through all the terrible horrible things the Avengers did to people. And for each one, I have to ask, would it have been better if the Avengers did nothing? The list goes:

New York-- would they rather have let Loki's invasion proceed as olanned?

Washington DC-- would they rather Hydra win and could assassinate 20 million people for something they might do (and probably mostly good things)?

Sokovia--would it be better to let Ultron kill everyone?

Even Lagos--better to let criminals have a major biological weapon?

I just truly don't understand how the Avengers are the problem when they are like firefighters being blamed for the destruction of the building when they didn't start the fire and in fact prevented it from spreading to three others.

Can anyone give me a rational argument why the death and destruction --which is horrific and I don't downplay-- is the fault of the people trying to stop it?

Because then we wouldn't have a movie?

In all seriousness, the case that Civil War presents for the Accords has always been anemic at best and the "justification" is a huge part of it. I do absolutely think there's an argument to be made that the Avengers need to have some sort of brake/check on them (and for all its flaws, Age of Ultron teed that argument up perfectly)--but Civil War doesn't truly make the argument, probably because TPTB figured it would be too dense/complicated/"talk"-y for the general audience who come to superhero movies to see shit blow up and don't necessarily really want to think about our heroes critically.

Which is really too bad, because Civil War as it is is a fundamentally dumb movie and to my mind pretty average, and a truly nuanced and thoughtful take on the Avengers' responsibility could have resulted in one of the MCU's better movies.

Edited February 15, 2021 by stealinghome

[Kel Varnsen]

11 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

In all seriousness, the case that Civil War presents for the Accords has always been anemic at best and the "justification" is a huge part of it. I do absolutely think there's an argument to be made that the Avengers need to have some sort of brake/check on them (and for all its flaws, Age of Ultron teed that argument up perfectly)--but Civil War doesn't truly make the argument, probably because TPTB figured it would be too dense/complicated/"talk"-y for the general audience who come to superhero movies to see shit blow up and don't necessarily really want to think about our heroes critically.

Which is really too bad, because Civil War as it is is a fundamentally dumb movie and to my mind pretty average, and a truly nuanced and thoughtful take on the Avengers' responsibility could have resulted in one of the MCU's better movies.

The way the accords are presented and argued over is the most annoying part of Civil War. If they had found a way to make that better it could have been a great movie. 

 

1 hour ago, Ailianna said:

Even Lagos--better to let criminals have a major biological weapon?

Well as for Lagos, you have to wonder how much training Wanda had before that mission. Maybe coordinating with th local cops would have meant less people dying.

1 hour ago, Ailianna said:

just truly don't understand how the Avengers are the problem when they are like firefighters being blamed for the destruction of the building when they didn't start the fire and in fact prevented it from spreading to three others.

The big difference is fire fighters have rules and conduct codes they have to follow. They can't just show up at my house kick in the door and spray water everywhere because they feel like it. And if they did they would be accountable to someone. The fact that Tony is still rich after Age of Ultron is kind of weird since you think the number of lawsuits from people of Sokovia would be insane. Not to mention how many people were surely killed or injured when he had to fight the Hulk.

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, Ailianna said:

I just watched the scene where Ross, in Civil War, goes through all the terrible horrible things the Avengers did to people. And for each one, I have to ask, would it have been better if the Avengers did nothing?

This is why I hate Ross with the fire of a thousand suns. Let’s leave aside the debatable issue of how much accountability the Avengers should have for a moment, because for the most part (other than Ultron, since Tony did create him), their actions were all for defending the planet. But Ross?! Did everyone magically forget all the shit he caused framing Bruce and creating Abomination?! How much accountability did he get?! Zero. The fucker wound up the new Secretary just so he could control the Avengers the way he tried to control Bruce because he wanted the power.

Why he got to stand at Tony’s funeral in Endgame instead of getting a much-deserved beat down from Professor Hulk still sticks in my craw to this day. Nice job tying up loose ends from Civil War, Russos—NOT!!!!!!!

[Raja]

1 hour ago, Ailianna said:

I have a genuine question about the issue of the Sokovian accords and hero-blaming. I just watched the scene where Ross, in Civil War, goes through all the terrible horrible things the Avengers did to people. And for each one, I have to ask, would it have been better if the Avengers did nothing? The list goes:

New York-- would they rather have let Loki's invasion proceed as olanned?

Washington DC-- would they rather Hydra win and could assassinate 20 million people for something they might do (and probably mostly good things)?

Sokovia--would it be better to let Ultron kill everyone?

Even Lagos--better to let criminals have a major biological weapon?

I just truly don't understand how the Avengers are the problem when they are like firefighters being blamed for the destruction of the building when they didn't start the fire and in fact prevented it from spreading to three others.

Can anyone give me a rational argument why the death and destruction --which is horrific and I don't downplay-- is the fault of the people trying to stop it?

Well The Avengers were a creation of the discredited S.H.I.E.L.D.  while General Ross was a soldier and their experiments led to New York.

After the fall of S.H.I.E.L.D.  they became vigilantes. Lagos was going their own way without coordinating with the local security services.

[swanpride]

Well, Sokovia would have never happened if not for Tony playing around with the mind stone, creating Ultron in the first place. Otherwise though, yeah, the outcome would have been worse without the Avengers.

[anna0852]

Can we please remember that it was Tony AND BRUCE that created Ultron? Tony was not alone in that endeavor. 

 

[Mulva]

The only reason Iron Man fought Hulk in South Africa is because Wanda set the Hulk off, and he only created Ultron after Wanda gave him that vision of everyone dying.  Lagos was a disaster because Wanda chucked a bomb into a building.  H'm, I'm sensing a common theme here.

[Starfish35]

22 minutes ago, Mulva said:

Lagos was a disaster because Wanda chucked a bomb into a building.  H'm, I'm sensing a common theme here.

And Wanda only had to do that because Steve messed up.  I mean...I’m a huge Cap fan, but one of many things that always annoyed me about Civil War was how they only barely acknowledged that it was Steve’s mistake that caused the whole thing in the first place.  Steve got distracted when Rumlow started talking about Bucky, which allowed Rumlow to trigger the bomb.  While the casualties in the hotel were tragic, who knows how many people would have died on the street if Wanda hadn’t at least been able to get it up and away from the crowd on the ground.  But no one ever talks about that.  

[Starfish35]

30 minutes ago, Mulva said:

and he only created Ultron after Wanda gave him that vision of everyone dying. 

I always had the impression that Ultron was already a work-in-progress.  They just couldn’t make it work until they got their hands on Loki’s staff.  The vision that Wanda gave Tony probably caused him to disregard any concerns/reservations about using it, but I don’t think it was the reason for Ultron’s creation in the first place.  

[stealinghome]

23 minutes ago, Mulva said:

The only reason Iron Man fought Hulk in South Africa is because Wanda set the Hulk off, and he only created Ultron after Wanda gave him that vision of everyone dying.  Lagos was a disaster because Wanda chucked a bomb into a building.  H'm, I'm sensing a common theme here.

And Wanda gave Tony the vision of everyone dying because she's a young woman who was deeply traumatized by Tony's involvement in the military-industrial complex. You're right, I do sense a common theme here! (Also, I'm just saying: Steve and Thor and Natasha got mind-whammied by Wanda too, but their visions didn't lead them to create a murderbot who wanted to take over the world. The worst things they did were split a log in half, go sit in a sauna, and make an ill-advised pass at Bruce. Though that was almost as bad a life choice as Ultron on Natasha's part....)

In all seriousness, I do think Age of Ultron teed up so perfectly so many issues related to Tony and Wanda and the responsible use of power, and Civil War could even have explored these issues further by making it pretty clear that Tony escaped the Ultron debacle scott-free in large part precisely because he's a rich white man who sits at the head of a huge, profitable international company. Such a wasted opportunity that Civil War touched exactly none of this in any sort of interesting, thoughtful way.

Quote

While the casualties in the hotel were tragic, who knows how many people would have died on the street if Wanda hadn’t at least been able to get it up and away from the crowd on the ground.  But no one ever talks about that.  

Agreed. I've never understood why the bomb was somehow Wanda's fault in particular. She magically did the equivalent of picking up a bomb and throwing it away from a crowd. If a real person did exactly that but didn't manage to throw it far enough away to prevent all casualties, we wouldn't be piling onto that person for being unable to throw like Mookie Betts or Mike Trout. We'd be applauding them for what they did manage to do and the casualties they prevented.

(Alternately, Civil War could have been presented with the Accords being flat-out corrupt and a clear example of a corrupt governmental figure using an international tragedy for his own ends, and the Avengers having to figure out how to resist being subsumed under the command of someone they shouldn't be under the command of even as they respond to other threats.... Gosh, the ways that Civil War could have been a much better movie just write themselves.)

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, Mulva said:

The only reason Iron Man fought Hulk in South Africa is because Wanda set the Hulk off, and he only created Ultron after Wanda gave him that vision of everyone dying.  Lagos was a disaster because Wanda chucked a bomb into a building.  H'm, I'm sensing a common theme here.

Or maybe Banner/Hulk shouldn't have been there in the first place if it was that close to a highly populated city. Same with Wanda in Lagos who decided she was trained enough? Ideally the Lagos situation would be Avengers contact the military who either provides support, clears the general public from the area or says no don't do that, let Crossbones steal what he wants then track him to a less populated area.

29 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

Alternately, Civil War could have been presented with the Accords being flat-out corrupt and a clear example of a corrupt governmental figure using an international tragedy for his own ends, and the Avengers having to figure out how to resist being subsumed under the command of someone they shouldn't be under the command of even as they respond to other threats.... Gosh, the ways that Civil War could have been a much better movie just write themselves.)

You wouldn't even need to go corrupt just make the government official a bad person. Like change any real life anti-immigration debate to anti-enhanced people. Make it a super decisive issue among the population (rather than the entire UN agreeing) and make a couple of heads of state of major countries win election by campaigning on super hero regulation. You could even take it a step further so that any enhanced person has to register even if they aren't a super hero. Make it something that people could logically debate and make them choose sides and it could be interesting. Because I am if the issue is just was just whether or not Steve should have absolute power over the Avengers as the leader that he would fight his friends over it.

Edited February 15, 2021 by Kel Varnsen

[Spartan Girl]

36 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

Alternately, Civil War could have been presented with the Accords being flat-out corrupt and a clear example of a corrupt governmental figure using an international tragedy for his own ends, and the Avengers having to figure out how to resist being subsumed under the command of someone they shouldn't be under the command of even as they respond to other threats.... Gosh, the ways that Civil War could have been a much better movie just write themselves.)

That would have been great, and we could have skipped all the Bucky/Zemo crap completely! And it would have made it a priority to give Ross comeuppance!

[anna0852]

I'm still convinced that it was Wanda's mind-whammy on Tony that caused Ultron to go so badly in the first place. As far as the MCU goes (cause I don't read the comics) Tony has never before or since messed up his tech that badly. JARVIS was perfectly functioning AI for years.  And the second time around produced Vision, who again was created by both Tony and Bruce. And condoned by Thor, who at that point knew more about the Infinty Stones than anyone else at that point.

[Starfish35]

I don’t think it was that.  Tony was messing with stuff he didn’t really understand.  It was throwing the Mind Stone into the mix that caused the problem, which Bruce warned him about, but Tony ignored (and that part, yes, may have been because of Wanda’s vision).  As for Vision himself, it took a judicious application of Mjolnir to the Mind Stone to bring Vision to life.  😄  Tony doesn’t get all the credit for that working.

[benteen]

Yes most of the Sokovia Accords stuff is ridiculous.  The Avengers prevented an alien invasion in the first movie.  Started when Shield was messing around with an alien artifact. Not to mention they kept NYC from being niked by the bizarre World Council or whatever they were called.  You know, the mysterious shadow group that the the world apparently thought it was a good idea to give all this power too?  Complaining about crashing the hellicarrier was also ridiculous.  In the MCU, Shield allowed themselves to be infiltered by a long dead Nazi terrorist cell, assumed all this power and created a weapon that was about to wipe out 20 million people.  I think it's okay to blow that thing up before it kills those people. 

The issues involving Sokovia and Lagos are fair but still, given the governments own track record and Ross's as well, it was a ridiculous argument.  Made more foolish by now having anyone push back during Ross's little video presentation.

 

[Morrigan2575]

2 hours ago, Starfish35 said:

always had the impression that Ultron was already a work-in-progress.

That was my impression as well, he had the Iron Army and was working on a "General" Ultron to lead. I think Ultron connects directly back to IM3 and Tony's PTSD.

[swanpride]

Quote

And Wanda only had to do that because Steve messed up.

Wanda only had to do that because Crossbone is a suicide bombing a...hole and the choice was that it goes off in a crowded market place or anywhere else. let's not do victim blaming here.

[Mulva]

Steve and Wanda shouldn't have been there to begin with.  There's no reason they couldn't have notified local law enforcement and let them handle it, or at least evacuate the area instead of going to a foreign country and performing an unauthorized paramilitary raid.  I thought it was insane that Steve actually said, "The safest hands are our own" after causing the deaths of all those innocent civilians.

As for Wanda blaming Tony for her parents' death, if you got shot who would you blame, the person who fired the gun or the CEO of the company that made the bullet?  If the bomb had been one of Justin Hammer's, would she have blamed him?  IIRC, Tony only sold weapons to the US military, so it's not his fault if someone stole them and sold them on the black market.

[swanpride]

...sure, let local law enforcement handle an ex-hydra operativ who has already escaped local law enforcement in multiple countries in similar attacks….

[Ohiopirate02]

10 minutes ago, Mulva said:

 

As for Wanda blaming Tony for her parents' death, if you got shot who would you blame, the person who fired the gun or the CEO of the company that made the bullet?  If the bomb had been one of Justin Hammer's, would she have blamed him?  IIRC, Tony only sold weapons to the US military, so it's not his fault if someone stole them and sold them on the black market.

Wanda was a child trapped in a bombed-out building staring at a Stark bomb that did not detonate for days.  She didn't have the time or emotional bandwidth to consider who actually dropped the bomb.  And yes, if it said Hammer on the side, she would have developed a deep hatred of Justin Hammer.  

[Starfish35]

I think there are some legitimate discussions to be had about the authority of a super-powered vigilante group to waltz in and extradite people on their own say-so.  There are even some good discussions to be had about blindly entrusting global security to said group, or whether said group even has the authority to take that responsibility upon themselves.  However, if you’re going to have that discussion, you also need to look at the other side of the issue.  The major organization that had been entrusted with those issues just turned out to be infiltrated and controlled by Hydra just two years prior to Civil War, and a massacre of millions was only very narrowly prevented by Cap and his team.  And as was pointed out, the other major world organization that we know of in the MCU was responsible for the decision to drop a nuclear bomb on NYC.  Not to mention the destruction caused by General Ross himself and his issues with the Hulk.    So there are a lot of good in-universe reasons for the Avengers to be wary of governmental oversight.  

Unfortunately the movie didn’t seem to want to have that discussion fairly.   😕

[swanpride]

It did...it laid all the arguments out in one scene and then demonstrated that all the arguments were right.

[Mulva]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Wanda was a child trapped in a bombed-out building staring at a Stark bomb that did not detonate for days.  She didn't have the time or emotional bandwidth to consider who actually dropped the bomb.  And yes, if it said Hammer on the side, she would have developed a deep hatred of Justin Hammer.  

According to Wandavision, she was born in 1989, which would have made her 26 years old in AOU.  That's 16 years to "consider who actually dropped the bomb".  You'd think that Tony personally dropped the bomb on her house the way everyone in the MCU acts.

And let's not forget Steve telling Wanda not to feel bad about the completely preventable civilian casualties.

Edited February 15, 2021 by Mulva

[xaxat]

On a lighter note. The financial podcast Planet Money examined the political economy of the intellectual property rights covering super hero characters. We Buy A Superhero: Origins. Marvel alone owns the rights to almost seven thousand characters.

Warning, contains major spoilers for the super hero the Paperhanger. And yes, his power is what you think it is.

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, swanpride said:

...sure, let local law enforcement handle an ex-hydra operativ who has already escaped local law enforcement in multiple countries in similar attacks….

Still should be their call. Maybe after they were notified they advised their visitors from Wakanda and they sent Okoye and a few Dora Milage to sort things out for them.

A completely unrelated thing I watched Thor last week basically to have something on while playing with my phone. The weird thing at the end is that the Bifrost gets destroyed and Thor is all sad he can't see Jane. But we know from Ragnarok and IW that a space ship can fly from Asgard to Titan to Earth. So why wouldn't Thor just hop in a space ship and fly to earth?

Edited February 15, 2021 by Kel Varnsen

[kiddo82]

That also occurred to me during my most recent rewatch.  How did Thor get to Earth in the Avengers?  Or back to Jane in the Dark World?  In Ultron he just flew back and forth using his hammer but in the original Thor the destruction of the bifrost was a big deal.  Maybe at the time of the original Thor he didn't know he could do that, but I don't think it's ever mentioned again.

Edited February 16, 2021 by kiddo82

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

That also occurred to me during my most recent rewatch.  How did Thor get to Earth in the Avengers?  Or back to Jane in the Dark World?  In Ultron he just flew back and forth using his hammer but in the original Thor the destruction of the bifrost was a big deal.  Maybe at the time of the original Thor he didn't know he could do that, but I don't think it's ever mentioned again.

It’s explained in a comic. Odin sent Thor to Earth in the Avengers using dark energy (Loki mentions it) to retrieve the Tesseract. It’s the same way Heimdall sends Hulk to Earth in Infinity War. The Tesseract was then used to repair the bifrost before Dark World. In The Dark World and Ultron he uses the bifrost to get to Earth. 

[Kel Varnsen]

19 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

That also occurred to me during my most recent rewatch.  How did Thor get to Earth in the Avengers?  Or back to Jane in the Dark World?  In Ultron he just flew back and forth using his hammer but in the original Thor the destruction of the bifrost was a big deal.  Maybe at the time of the original Thor he didn't know he could do that, but I don't think it's ever mentioned again.

Not sure about the Dark World but in Avengers Loki has a line where he asks Thor what kind of dark magic Odin used to get him to earth. As for Ultron, at that point the Bifrost is back working again because when Thor leaves at the end Tony has a line about how he has no respect for lawn maintenance (because the Bifrost wrecked the lawn).

Speaking of the Bifrost, in the first Thor movie Loki tries to use it as a weapon to destroy the frost giants. In Infinity War the Storm breaker axe can summon it. So why does Thor never use it as a weapon against Thanos and his forces.

[kiddo82]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

As for Ultron, at that point the Bifrost is back working again because when Thor leaves at the end Tony has a line about how he has no respect for lawn maintenance (because the Bifrost wrecked the lawn).

Stupid me never realized that that *was* the bifrost.  I always just picture it as the literal rainbow bridge.

[FnkyChkn34]

20 hours ago, Starfish35 said:

And Wanda only had to do that because Steve messed up.  I mean...I’m a huge Cap fan, but one of many things that always annoyed me about Civil War was how they only barely acknowledged that it was Steve’s mistake that caused the whole thing in the first place.  Steve got distracted when Rumlow started talking about Bucky, which allowed Rumlow to trigger the bomb.  While the casualties in the hotel were tragic, who knows how many people would have died on the street if Wanda hadn’t at least been able to get it up and away from the crowd on the ground.  But no one ever talks about that.  

I just watched this movie again yesterday.... Steve himself acknowledges that it was his fault and that he froze when Rumlow said "Bucky."  It's talked about, but only briefly.  He tries to console Wanda by taking the blame himself.

[swanpride]

Naturally he does. But at the end of the day Cap is only human and he is not some sort of clairvoyant. He could hardly predict that Crossbones would go suicide bomber on him. His "mistake" isn't worse than someone making a wrong move in a fight.

[Starfish35]

1 hour ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I just watched this movie again yesterday.... Steve himself acknowledges that it was his fault and that he froze when Rumlow said "Bucky."  It's talked about, but only briefly.  He tries to console Wanda by taking the blame himself.

Yes, that was the scene I was referring to when I said they only barely acknowledged it.  Outside of that one scene, the focus all switches to how dangerous Wanda is, and there’s no further acknowledgement of it by Steve or anyone else anywhere else in the movie   As much as I am, as I’ve said, a huge Cap fan, I would liked to have seen Steve take some responsibility beyond just that one scene - perhaps maybe in the scene with Ross - and not just have it all on Wanda.  

*shrugs* But then there’s a lot about this movie that I would have liked to have seen handled differently.  This is by no means even my biggest complaint. 😄

And yes, it was just a mistake on Steve’s part - it doesn’t make him a horrible person at all.  Everyone makes mistakes.  The problem I have is that Wanda is pilloried for her mistake throughout the movie, and there’s a lot of focus on how dangerous she is, when she was doing no more than attempting to contain the damage.  And beyond that, Steve is team leader.  I would like to think that he’s the type of team leader that takes responsibility for his team’s mistakes, especially when in this case, it was his mistake.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Starfish35

[Raja]

It is not so much that Wanda's actions were not perfect but unlike with the suit wearers and super soldiers the politicians, and Thanos, can see her potential to initiate an extinction level event. Being the most powerful, even if she could not survive the Hulk grabbing her by the ankles, has a cost. The fear others will have of her.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Raja

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, Starfish35 said:

Yes, that was the scene I was referring to when I said they only barely acknowledged it.  Outside of that one scene, the focus all switches to how dangerous Wanda is, and there’s no further acknowledgement of it by Steve or anyone else anywhere else in the movie   As much as I am, as I’ve said, a huge Cap fan, I would liked to have seen Steve take some responsibility beyond just that one scene - perhaps maybe in the scene with Ross - and not just have it all on Wanda.  

*shrugs* But then there’s a lot about this movie that I would have liked to have seen handled differently.  This is by no means even my biggest complaint. 😄

And yes, it was just a mistake on Steve’s part - it doesn’t make him a horrible person at all.  Everyone makes mistakes.  The problem I have is that Wanda is pilloried for her mistake throughout the movie, and there’s a lot of focus on how dangerous she is, when she was doing no more than attempting to contain the damage.  And beyond that, Steve is team leader.  I would like to think that he’s the type of team leader that takes responsibility for his team’s mistakes, especially when in this case, it was his mistake.

I guess I interpreted it a little bit differently.  Yes, people think Wanda is dangerous - but Wanda also thinks Wanda is dangerous.  So while Wanda is wallowing, guilt ridden, and unsure of herself - and her powers - it probably is best to contain her temporarily.  She needs to regain her confidence, but with Ross coming in and blowing the whole thing up, she doesn't get the chance and no one gets the chance to help her.  Vision interrupts her conversation with Cap to say that Tony and Ross are downstairs, so who knows what else Cap would have done or said if they didn't show up just then.  (Obviously, the movie wouldn't have been as interesting if they didn't show up just then. 😉 )  I kind of think the whole rest of the movie is Cap taking responsibility and being the team leader, but I can definitely see the other side, too, since he refused to sign the accords.  But then again, the whole point of the movie is that none of them take responsibility for anything...  I'm pretty sure I could talk in circles about this one. 😂

[swanpride]

Cap refuses to sign the accord because he doesn't want to shift the responsibility. If something goes wrong on HIS watch, he doesn't want a get out of jail free card, he wants to shoulder it. While Tony would like to get rid of it...that is what most of his actions are about, from creating Ultron to signing the accord, to supporting Peter. He is looking for someone who can shoulder the burden for him because he feels inadequate to do so himself.

[Kel Varnsen]

16 minutes ago, swanpride said:

Cap refuses to sign the accord because he doesn't want to shift the responsibility. If something goes wrong on HIS watch, he doesn't want a get out of jail free card, he wants to shoulder it. While Tony would like to get rid of it...that is what most of his actions are about, from creating Ultron to signing the accord, to supporting Peter. He is looking for someone who can shoulder the burden for him because he feels inadequate to do so himself.

The funny thing is that Steve's super hero name is Captain America, not General America, not Commander in Chief America. His name literally implies that he will be taking director from someone higher up. And even he should know that a soldier or even a unit operation on their own is not a great way to do things.

[Ohiopirate02]

11 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

The funny thing is that Steve's super hero name is Captain America, not General America, not Commander in Chief America. His name literally implies that he will be taking director from someone higher up. And even he should know that a soldier or even a unit operation on their own is not a great way to do things.

Yes, and that is why Steve is against the accords.  He knows he is duty-bound to follow direct orders.  He is wary to lock himself into a situation where he must follow an unjust order, and rightfully so after the evens in WS.  Tony, on the other hand, is wired differently.  No one can force Tony to do something Tony does not want to do.  Tony's wealth gives him power no one else has--those orders are merely suggestions for him.  

[stealinghome]

As Tony proves by going rogue a hot 60 seconds after he signs the Accords!