That bit with Falcon they could have done, but it also depends on if he was following another TWS lead or not as mentioned during the dinner party. Considering the military confiscated the SHIELD tech when it was mothballed though, I'm leaning on it was Rhodes who helped Fury get to it and the war machine armor. Which is why no Falcon. Or in simpler terms, during the rush, they may not have had his number or remembered to call him. Rhodes is Air Force after all, now with a much higher clearance thanks to his Iron Patriot days.

Then you also have to consider would his classic TWS suit be more of a liability in such a scenario. No real offensive or defensive measures against that kind of threat, and even with saving people, those Ultron drones are firing lasers and other high powered weaponry at anything that looks like a threat that's trying to stop them. So would he have been a benefit or one more person to watch out for? Especially with 0 training in team-work with the team. Even Rhodes was lacking actual teamwork, but his suits offensive capabilities might outweigh that(plus his suit runs on the same network as Tony's so it's easier for Stark to navigate around as we saw in the film). I'm not looking at this from a film-maker's point of view though on Falcon's lack of usage. I'm looking at that from a strategy point of view and circumstance.

From a film-maker's point of view, the amount of material that's ripe with Falcon getting new gear that needs to be field tested would yield at least 10 minutes of content you wouldn't want to cut, which with the overabundant run time as it is, would be best served to use elsewhere. Especially so it's not overshadowed by everything else or coming randomly out of the blue from nowhere. At that point you'd be throwing stuff randomly at the audience and then wondering why they got lost with everything happening on screen. As it was, there already are complaints of favorite team characters not having enough screen time. Black Widow especially has been getting an abnormal amount of flack for her appearance in the movie as being mostly superfluous outside of 2 scenes. There are also complaints of her being relegated to love interest and damsel in distress. Not saying I agree with the complaints considering she was the pivotal character at key points of the movie, but the screen time is spread pretty thin among them all, making it hard to fit more in. Even Vision's characterization was hastened up by using Mjolnir as a plot device to show he was worthy and a hero. The film was pretty packed as it was, and honestly may have been served better with a longer run time. Maybe we'll get an extended cut when it hits DVD.

As for BW's suit. It's her avengers suit. Not her spec-ops stealth suit. Also there's a scene during the truck chase that kind of shows how that comes in handy. The only reason she could see in the back of the truck to get the chamber out to the quinjet(the RvB nod!) was because of her suit. You'd think it would have a light adjuster on it though so she can turn it off when on mission if stealth is needed.

Personally, I kind of view it like cap's two suits. He has his shield spy suit that's more dark blues, and then he has his bright red, white and blue suit for the avengers. Widow seems to follow a similar pattern. A more flashy suit for when with the team to essentially show 'hey, I'm a hero trying to save people, look for the bright colors!' and a more subdued stealth costume when it's needed for those kinds of missions. The team missions use the bright neon suit to show that element of she's part of a team to strike fear in others or so that those needing to be rescued can see her, whereas the stealth suit is when she doesn't want to be noticed at all. The Hydra assault for example was kind of a media statement by the Avengers after the fall of SHIELD. So a more flashy appearance would be needed.

Her original suit was also one of the many shield uniforms more or less too. So they kinda did need to give her a slightly more original look in comparison, but they can't exactly drift far from her costume because that pretty much is widow's costume. I'm guessing director/designer-wise that was the easiest way to provide that difference in a blatant manner.

On the other complaints front:
This is a major one that I can't find any argument against that makes sense.
Why two characters with Romani-Jewish heritage would be working for a group that was formerly Nazis. Even considering propaganda and other American foreign affairs involvement scenarios/symbolism. That really does seem like something that's highly questionable.

they never spacifically mention that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are Jewish. We know this from the comic books thanks to Erick Lensharr's Bloodline being Jewish. As for siding with Nazi remember Adolf Hitler himself was part Jewish and Leader of the Nazi Party so it's not unheard of for them to side with Nazi's. But Baron Strucker was a number 2 to Red Skull and acting leader of HYDRA so they were working for HYDRA not the Nazi. We know HYDRA had it's own goals as it included Berlin, Rome, and Tokyo as targets. We also know when Hitler took over areas he enslaved children. In Captain America 2 we see them in a prison.

They weren't held prisoner though. Remember they volunteered to be Hydra experiments.

with Hydra volunteered is subjective. Like Volunteering in the Army

It's still highly questionable that the characters who are of Romani-Jewish descent would work for a Nazi organization. Whether their origins are changed in the movie is moot. It still is two characters in the comics who were directly impacted by the Holocaust now portrayed on film as working with a Nazi group. Also the Romani ancestry is as much of an issue because the Holocaust did include gypsy bloodlines too. So either way you look at it, it's problematic. The Hitler rationale doesn't fly either. That's a loaded statement with far too much to argue that doesn't fit this same situation.

They said themselves that they volunteered per AoU. They weren't prisoners. Granted their motives for volunteering were due to American/Stark attacks that killed their family. It still seems highly problematic that they'd then join a group that's no better and would very well wipe out the Maximoff's people or use them as fodder for protection. There is a propaganda angle that can be made, but it is highly questionable. Especially considering Strucker spoke of using the people as human shields right in front of the twins and then there's also Scarlet Witch's powers that would have let her read Strucker's intentions. There is story potential within there to further explain it, but the scenario is rather rushed and lacking that depth outside of quick one liners due to time constraints.

Overall, as the scene is setup now, they knowingly worked for a group that actively didn't care if they lived or died nor cared if their people lived or died. There is an argument that it was to get their powers, but then why didn't they themselves turn on Hydra once they had their powers? Even with the anger at Stark/America, Hydra was as much a danger to their people and should have had equal amounts of hatred directed at them.

It's a pretty big plot hole honestly. Factoring in the blind hatred because of American interference and foreign policy, it's still highly wtf. They traded one problem for another that's likely to be worse and in theory did so knowingly without any plans to deal with that threat later. Though there is an argument for the naivete of youth and how revenge blinds actions, the narrative is lacking in those departments to make that clear.

Then there's also the fact that many are pointing out that Stark made a rape joke in the film. Which honestly has no defense nor can be debated as it's poor taste period. Even factoring in Stark's arrogance, that one's a bit much.

On the positive side though, the exposition and expanding on Natasha and Clint's friendship was pretty freaking awesome. It also did dive headlong into that area of a man and woman can be platonic friends and still have a very deep bond and appreciation for each other without romantic connotations.

well I never heard a Rape joke about the only sexual things I heard were...

Clint Barton: (Flying a Quinn Jet) Nat where do you want it?


Tony Stark: (Flying over the City) If Romanaoff and Banner are done playing Hide the Zuchinni, we could sure use them.

While yes these are rather Risqué they aren't Rape jokes they are Inuendos and considering that Banner and Nat were flirting heavily and most of the team knew and she did want to join him in the Shower there is no real Rape joke.

I've seen the film twice and I don't recall either time where Tony made a rape joke. If we're talking about the one-liner that CMIII mentioned, I just thought of it as a crude reference to Nat and Bruce's relationship. No implications of coercion or force.

As for the Romanoffs, blind anger and thoughts of revenge can cloud anyone's mind. Even to the point that logic is no longer a factor. I find it entirely believable that Piotr and Wanda wanted to get revenge on Tony and the Avengers so badly, they didn't care what they had to go through or who they had to work with to accomplish that goal. They also probably didn't care about anyone else by that point (civilians, Hydra personnel, etc).

Hold it wait a second. Trebleshot and I agreed on something. :eek: Next thing you know everything from the Song 1999 will start happening. Yeah I watched it in theaters and a not so legal version (yes I know but I did pay to see it once) and still cannot find a rape joke. The only hero movie thats had a Rape joke would be the Toby Maguire Spiderman

The "rape joke" is in the party scene when they're all trying to lift Thor's hammer. Tony something like "if I lift it, i get to rule asgard, right?" thor says "yes" then tony says "well I'm reinstating Prima Nocta"... Prima Nocta was something old kings supposedly enacted that let them have sex with every bride on their wedding night before the husband did. That's the rape joke.

I'm not saying pro/con or whatever, just explaining the joke so you guys know what it is.

Well considering who Tony Stark is saying that is hardly out of character.

That doesn't really seem like a rape joke to me. Just Stark being the usual smartass that he is.

I think thats why not many noticed it. It was Tony Stark being Tony Stark. You actually think he could lift the Hammer? Considering how many women he has wronged. The Hammer can only be lifted by someone Selfless and Tony was Selfish most of his life. Focusing on that one liner is a bit like taking something someone says in a Police station and arresting them for it because it resembles a confession.

The only times Prima Nocta was used was the Roman's. I know that Braveheart had Long Shanks order it but there is no proof the British did this. Personally that's one order Stark would regret quickly.

I knew about Prima Nocte, but dismissed it for the same reason that others have already mentioned. Tony was a notorious womanizer and they all know it. More importantly Odin and Mjolnir know it. Even still, he's committed to Pepper at this point in the MCU timeline, so the line was probably meant to be a bit of self-depreciating humour.

I'd also add that Braveheart is a heavily fictionalized account of Wallace's life.

Twice in the same thread, no less.

"...Dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!"

;)

who gets hooked to a rope and lowered to the River of Slime? Besides it's not Feb 14, 2016 YET (the date the woman in Ghostbusters 2 said the would would end) Valentines Day Bummer.

Maybe Wesa being Friends.