Avengers: Age of Ultron
 

Discussion thread for the movie Avengers: Age of Ultron, premiering in the US on May 1, 2015.

*** WARNING ***

As this is a discussion/speculation thread for an upcoming movie (as of this post), there is a 99.9% chance that spoilers will be mentioned here. After the movie is released, I'm sure that number will hit 100%.

If you do not wish to have your viewing experience of the film ruined, then I suggest that you stop reading this thread now, close it and forget it existed until after you see the movie.

Still here? Good. Let's get to it!

First topic: the origin of the movie-verse Ultron. Go.

I think Tony creates Ultron because he, and pepper, don't want him to be in the suit as much anymore, so why not build a robot with an AI. He goes Rogue and "frees" Jarvis and turns him into Vision.

I think a great question is whether or not Vision will survive this movie. I think Ultron will use Vision to fight the Avengers, but will Vision turn and fight Ultron WITH the Avengers?

I'm thinking the same thing as far as the origins of both Ultron and Vision are concerned. Ultron will most likely be destroyed in the film with a teaser showing a back-up system of some sort, since that's part of his character - always coming back after being seemingly destroyed.

Vision is a lot more fuzzy. It's possible the version that appears in AoU may be destroyed, but Tony may salvage the remains and rebuild him later (possibly to join the Avengers as a replacement for Iron Man when the group goes up against Thanos in the third Avengers film).

personally I think the Ultron is going to come from a combination of Tony Stark and Bruce Banner as a way to nuteralize the Hulk if he ever loses control and Xtremis will be programmed into the suite and insanity wil ensue when the Ultron is taken over by an unseen force

After the credits in Captain America: Winter Solider.. A full show of Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch... Also Sitwel mentioned Dr. Strange

Extremis is gene manipulation. Wouldn't make any sense for a robot.



I don't like the idea of them being science experiments instead of mutants. Would rather have no origin for them or simply say they were born that way. I guess I'll just try to think of it as them activating their latent talents. If only Marvel owned the rights to all their own stuff.

I would be fine with "meta-human" as a substitute for "mutant" - at least until Marvel gets the rights to the X-franchise back from Fox.

I'm a little surprised with Quicksilver appearing Captain America 2, Xmen (DoFP), and Avengers 2 theres not a form of a deal in place... How is Disney going to avoid the Liniage of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver? they are Lenshers children (though making them science does avoid that)

With Marvel getting the movie rights soon to XMEN Im so hoping that they will be referred to as mutants. Though seeing them in WS doesn't seem to imply that.

They aren't likely to mention it at all. I sort of just hope all that is as vague as possible so I can at least pretend they are who we've always known then to be. Just maybe them orphans that don't know their parents, father for sure, and call it a day. Say the experiments worked on them for some unexplained reason or say they something in their blood triggered blah blah blah. I don't know the legal issues but I know there are a lot of things they can't do and maybe hinting that they are mutants could be grounds for a lawsuit or something.




Where have you seen this? Everything I've read says that Marvel is not likely to get that stuff back in out lifetimes. Fox keeps making movies and they keep it forever. It's a dumb deal but not uncommon and Marvel wasn't too far away from their bankruptcy at that time (I think).

the deal Fox was made back in 1998 who knew 10 years later Disney would end up parenting Marvel and that the Avenger would be coming down the pipe. Im sure after the Ang Lee Hulk failure it never seemed likely

Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are far more associated with the Avengers than they are with X-Men, regardless of their lineage (and the licensing for those characters appears to support that theory).

Of course, without knowing the specifics of the licensing deal itself, this is all just speculation. It's entirely possible that a specific list of characters and details was written into the contract, leaving anything not explicitly mentioned still under the control of Marvel regardless of its ties to anything on that list.

I don't think so. As I understand the licensing agreement between Marvel and Fox, Fox must continue to put out X-related movies every few years to keep the license in perpetuity. If they don't, the film rights revert back to Marvel. Same thing with Sony and Spider-Man. IIRC, I believe it's supposed to be every 3-5 years or something like that.

Exactly. Marvel really needed any income they could get and starting their own movie studio was not in their thoughts, much less Disney buying them.

I never read Avengers so I associate them more with being Magneto's kids than anything else. It will be weird and they could have just not used them I guess. Fox making their own Quicksilver was a pretty clear ’'screw you" to Marvel.

I never knew about the licensing agreement between Marvel and Fox. Is it possible if Fox don't put out X-related movies their film rights will revert back to Marvel?

To which Marvel would probably reply, "Whatever, Fox. Go on and 'screw us over' by making us more money. Yeah, you sure showed us."

;)

There has to be a certain length of time between the two events, but that is my understanding. Granted, that agreement was made over 10 years ago, so I'm going off some fuzzy memories.

Yeah, I don't know how many years can do by without a movie in production before Marvel gets it back.

I do wonder how the profit sharing works. Does Marvel get a cut of the gross or does the film have to make a profit? If this article is to be believed the movies themselves don't make money more often than not.

The Tentpole Strategy Explained: How Studios Can Lose Billions On Blockbusters And Still Make Money

http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content...ast-Covers.jpg

Days of Futures Past Physical

Google Image Result for

the Age of Ultron Concept art

My understanding is it is all a timing issue. Way back before X-Men came out Fox bought the rights to X-Men (most related), Fantastic 4 (most related), Spiderman (most related), Ghost Rider (most related), Daredevil (most related), Silver Surfer and Glactus. Over time Fox has a certain amount of time to produce movies with these and that cruch grew when ABC/Disney came into the picture. I do know that Fox released the Hulk (prior to 2005 after the Ang Lee flop) and that Silver Surfer and Daredevil were let go a few in the last few years. It takes 2 years for a Movie to go from Production to Release (unless your Peter Jackson and you make them all at once and release them every year).

If that's the case all but the X-Men and GR should be going back to Marvel then? I know Fox was trying to do FF, but that got scraped. So hopefully Marvel will get all of them back. What about Sony owning Spider-Man? Obviously that one may end up staying with Sony for quite some time.

Sony and Fox are one and the same. Just like ABC/Disney/ESPN/ Marvel, or Warner Brother/DC. It's possible that Sony/Fox loses FF the end of the year. As long a Spiderman has a movie coming they will keep it and there are 3 more Spider Franchise movies in the works (Amazing Spiderman 3, Venom, and Sinister Six)

No, they are NOT the same. Sony Pictures Entertainment and 20th Century Fox are two entirely separate movie studios that are owned by separate conglomerates (Sony Corporation and 21st Century Fox, respectively).

EDIT: Also, Fox is planning on rebooting the Fantastic Four (this time in the same universe as the X-films). So it doesn't look like they will be reverting back to Marvel any time soon, either.

I know Fox keeps putting out press released about that new FF movie but I really hope it doesn't get made. The cast and everything involved with it just seem like a terrible mess. The more I hear the more it reminds of me of that Justice League movie from 4-5 years ago. They had tons of casting news and it was in production, then not, several times. It finally died because the timing wasn't right. The whole making the cast young and 'hip', changing the origin, rumors about crazy changes to villains. No thanks.

If memory serves me before Marvel got Daredevil back they offered Fox more time to make the movie if they gave them rights to use Galactus and the Surfer. That never happened and they kept the rights but gave back Daredevil. I think they also were trying to get Sony to allow them to use Spider-Man for Avengers but that feel through as well.

If Marvel got FF back it would be amazing. I imagine they would get a new movie out in short order and we'd get some crossover with other films, even if minor. One can dream...

Personally, I'd love for Marvel to get them all back. Then we could finally have a proper MCU. As it stands, we'll just have to accept that there are 3 separate MCUs and try to enjoy them on their own merits.

Back on topic, how do you think Marvel will portray Ultron?

A. Human-looking android, sort of like Bishop from Aliens or the T-800 from the Terminator films (if the T-800 looked like James Spader).
B. Go totally CGI, with Spader providing only the voice.
C. Man-in-a-suit w/Spader overdubbing (a la Darth Vader).
D. "Mixed-mode" with Spader in a partial CGI suit.
E. No physical body. He's like a mix of Jobe from Lawnmower Man, Will from Transcendance and HAL9000 from 2001.
...or Jarvis.

I'm thinking more like Data from Star Trek: TNG human looking but still a robot (Android). Or possibly something like C-3PO