-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Avengers: Age of Ultron | Production Thread
- Thread starter George Oscar Bluth II
- Start date
- Status
That staff isn't an infinity gem.
They've gone out of their way to identify the existing gems in Thor 2. In interviews after Thor 2, it was said that we would see the third gem in Guardians. That means the Tessaract, the Aether and the Orb are the only three gems we've seen.
I doubt Thanos has any of them (he doesn't even have the gauntlet either).
BlackNMild2k1
Member
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
The other option for the "color" issue is that similar to how the Orb contains the gem within it it might be that the Space Gem is actually white and its just contained within the blue filtered container.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I can't believe studios have now got people buying into this bullshit practice of splitting movies in half. I've been shaking my head ever since I saw people clamoring that TDKR needed to be two movies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvEYgR9vr6U#t=56s
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah TDKR just needed to be good
Yup, my current theory is that Thanos has the mind gem already and put a fraction of its power into the staff.
Who says it has a prominent role and is more than a plot device to get stuff going? For all we know Baron got a hold of it and simply will try to control QS and SW like Loki tried with Hawkeye, not knowing its limitations (or perhaps knowing them and trying to get what he needs to get done before he loses them).
Still surprised anyone is even entertaining this possibility. Unless it's a complete switcheroo, there's only evidence that it's not an infinity stone:
- Thanos wouldn't give it away, especially considering he is in active pursuit of these stones.
- The colour does not match up; just because it glows and has powers does not necessarily mean it is that powerful. Every confirmed stone carries it's colour in its natural state.
- Likewise, it did not appear in
the Collector's presentation
- Every other confirmed Infinity Stone caused a physical transformation and acclimation to the power when it was placed in their possession (either directly or into their weapon). This did not occur for when we see Loki get the Sceptre at the start of Avengers.
- Thor didn't really care for securing the Sceptre either
BlackNMild2k1
Member
Here's am expansion on that theory.
Thanos has the mind gem. He used it on Loki and bestowed upon him a staff that has a limited power of the stone. Thanos also used this Mind Gem on Ronan, and the reason he sent them to complete the task is because he knew that if either of them completed their task, there would be bodies going cold, and Thanos could offer all those souls to Death as a gift from him w/o ever getting up or getting his hands dirty.
Down the line, several failures later, Thanos decided to GTFOff his ass and go handle his own business, because 'good help is hard to find' and he didn't want Death to wait any longer for this present that he said he would be delivering to her.
Memento Mori
Member
I would put money on Strange's Eye of Agamotto being one. Probably the soul gem.
Yes. Maybe Cyclops can actually be involved in a X-Men film for a change.
alexandros
Banned
Well, why not? It's more of the good stuff, I'm all for it.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I've yet to see a film where posters have said 'They should have split the film in half' and actually thought it would result in better films.
Gun Animal
Member
Instead of splitting Avengers 3 into two movies outright, they could make GOTG2 and Avengers 3 heavily related to the point that Thanos picks up in Avengers 3 right where he leaves off in GOTG2. Because Thanos himself definitely deserves more than one film in the spotlight, but for both of his films to be 'Avengers' films is unnecessary.
Hell, you could make Thanos the main antagonist of Thor 3 as well for an informal 'Thanos Trilogy.' Just a thought. All I know is that the MCU definately needs more 'The Empire Strikes Back' moments, where the movie ends in less than ideal circumstances to be resolved in the next film.
Hell, you could make Thanos the main antagonist of Thor 3 as well for an informal 'Thanos Trilogy.' Just a thought. All I know is that the MCU definately needs more 'The Empire Strikes Back' moments, where the movie ends in less than ideal circumstances to be resolved in the next film.
BlackNMild2k1
Member
He said after his contract is up (A3), he might take a break from acting and pursue his desire to direct more films.
But I also believe he alluded to continuing to work with Marvel from time to time, but didn't make anything definitive. So maybe he takes a sabbatical in the movies (goes to meditate in china somewhere) and just makes a few cameos here and there for a Phase or 2, does his directorial thing, and if it doesn't work out, makes a return to the big screen as Steve Rogers, retrieving his shield from Bucky or Falcon, or whoever took over the mantle.
alexandros
Banned
That's because the end film is a finished product and cuts were already made. If you end cutting a movie's worth of content from the script then I would rather they split the film in two.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I'm genuinely interested in which film you think would have been better split into two.
Originally I didn't think the sceptre would be a gem as (already stated above) why would Thanos just give it away.
The eye of agamotto was shown in Asgard's vaults in Thor 1 (I think Thor 1, don't think it was Thor 2 anyway) so that clashes with the 'unwise to keep two infinity stones' line with the collector.
(edit, my bad, it's the orb of agamotto in thor's vault)
More recently it's dawned on me that they will probably go with whatever is convenient and works somewhat within what has already been established, anything that doesn't fit can be waved away with 'oh they didn't know the sceptre / eye / etc was a stone' or 'Thanos totally knew the sceptre had the mind gem, but that's just how he rolls'.
Tl;Dr
They'll just go with whatever works, and any plot holes can be explained away.
The eye of agamotto was shown in Asgard's vaults in Thor 1 (I think Thor 1, don't think it was Thor 2 anyway) so that clashes with the 'unwise to keep two infinity stones' line with the collector.
(edit, my bad, it's the orb of agamotto in thor's vault)
More recently it's dawned on me that they will probably go with whatever is convenient and works somewhat within what has already been established, anything that doesn't fit can be waved away with 'oh they didn't know the sceptre / eye / etc was a stone' or 'Thanos totally knew the sceptre had the mind gem, but that's just how he rolls'.
Tl;Dr
They'll just go with whatever works, and any plot holes can be explained away.
alexandros
Banned
The Dark Knight Rises had enough material for two films I think.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
TDKR already has too much damn FAT. It needed to lose the fat and use its runtime to its advantage. The fucking film goes for more than 2h40m and jack shit happens.
It needed to lose Catwoman. It needed to lose Blake and give Bruce the screentime his arc was badly screaming for. The film already felt bloated as is because so much of the runtime was squandered on garbage that just plain didn't matter.
Gun Animal
Member
I thought that about Watchmen when I saw it in theaters but the Director's Cut relied a lot of those issues.
Well now I am going to be really bummed out when this doesn't happen.
Thor 2: Electric Boogaloo and Gaurdians of the Galaxy were both building towards Thanos while Winter Soldier and Iron Man 3 were building more specifically to Avengers 2. I am curious to see what they do with Ant-Man and Cap 3. Those might be the first MCU films that don't build forward to the next big conflict.
eastx
Member
For me, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is the easy answer. They had to cut so much content from the books in order to squeeze the story into a single movie's run-time. The existing movie rushes by at such a fast pace that the emotional beats don't land and nobody has any real development. Had they made two separate films, each product would be a lot better than the (pretty good) single movie that we got.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Look, a film is never going to hit the same emotional beats as a book because there isn't the same time investment. Okay, so split it into two you say. Tell me where the first film ends that is satisfying for an audience and doesn't feel like they've been robbed of some kind of resolution. Because that's a very difficult thing to balance.
Kill Bill has a list of five people and that took two movies and over 4 hours to get through. Scott Pilgrim burns through a list of ten in less than 2 hours.
Discotheque
Banned
Kill Bill has a list of five people and that took two movies and over 4 hours to get through. Scott Pilgrim burns through a list of ten in less than 2 hours.
and was great for it. if it wasn't for the social network, scott pilgrim would have been the best edited film of the year. that shit was TIGHT, like seriously oscar-worthy. and the pace never slowed down either.
kill bill is the only film i see being in favor of the split argument. and that was because they were great standalone films in their own right. and with distinct styles to both.
demosthenes
Member
Kill Bill has a list of five people and that took two movies and over 4 hours to get through. Scott Pilgrim burns through a list of ten in less than 2 hours.
Scott Pilgrim was fine. It didn't need to be 2 movies.
Harry Potter, the one that started it all.
eastx
Member
Says someone who probably hasn't read the books. And are you guys honestly opposed to character development? The books aren't just one long series of fights. There's lots of great stuff for Scott and other characters (some excised from the film) to do.
There's no burden of proof here. End the first movie at the end of book three and there's your satisfying ending. It's not hard to find a good halfway point as long as you have enough story to tell.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Read what you quoted. Not films that WERE split, but films that posters have said SHOULD HAVE been split (because they obviously weren't).
Gun Animal
Member
I remember reading somewhere that Marvel has plots planned out until 2028, and I doubt they'd ever stop this hype train. I agree that Ant-Man probably won't be directly leading into a greater plot, although I'm sure it'll have a Doctor Strange teaser at the end (just as I'm sure Avengers 2 will have an Ant-Man teaser at the end)
As for Captain America 3, I have to wonder if Rogers and co. will be using the time stone to travel back in time. Considering Cap and Bucky are already characters from the past it makes sense. Then all you need is the soul gem in Doctor Strange and the mind gem in GOTG2 and we're ready for Thanos to kick some ass.
The real question for me is when we're gonna get a Marvel: Civil War movie, and how they could make that plot work without Spider-Man.
But they wouldn't have greenlit both films at once, and the first one would have tanked so hard the second never would have been made. It's for the best that it was made as one movie.
A few of the later books I ment to add. They just started cutting shit out left and right towards the end.
Half blood could have been 2, and maybe order but order is kinda boring.
I read the books and saw the film.
Honestly? I loved both. Didn't feel the film needed a sequel (which thank God, given it didn't do particularly well) as it was staged in a very computer game (cut scenes between fights) way.
demosthenes
Member
I've read the books probably 5 times now and they're about 10 feet away from me right now.
The only cut stuff I wish wasn't was Voldemort's memory scenes. But they didn't need 2 movies. They could have just cut the Harry/Ginny awkward as hell scenes or the attack on the Burrow (which was made up :lol). OotP was a TON OF FILLER. Stuff needed to get cut.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
The last couple of films were kinda boring. They really didn't need more crap added in. Just because stuff from the books was cut out, it doesn't mean it being there would have resulted in a better film.
eastx
Member
Nice. Why wouldn't you want to see the rest of that stuff on screen then?
Naw, of course the movie that exists doesn't need a sequel. It ends where it should end (though I liked the alternate ending better). That's the flaw in my 2-film proposal. Movies that bomb don't usually get sequels (as Gun Animal pointed out). If they didn't shoot back to back, the story never would have finished.
demosthenes
Member
Because the film we got, I thought was fantastic. If they tried to split the books and released a more packed first movie and it bombed equally as well then the end result would probably be: still a financial flop @ box office and 2nd movie never gets made.
SP could have been 20-30 minutes longer to fit in a lot of extra stuff (Knive's dad, longer arcs for the other characters, etc) but I'm genuinely happy in what we got.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I don't think anybody that isn't receiving a paycheck for those films will argue with you.
demosthenes
Member
:lol
Gun Animal
Member
i'm just waiting for all three to come out so i can edit them down to a single 1:40:00 film myself and watch that instead.
demosthenes
Member
I'm sure we'll be seeing a bunch of projects like this.
Alcoremortis
Member
I can see why they'd want more time for the Hobbit. I mean, the book is short, but J.R.R. Tolkien kinda brushed over a lot of really lengthy parts in the book. Like, the bit with the goblins capturing everyone takes less than a chapter and that was a good half hour of film time. Add to that Tolkien had very little down time in the original book, not to mention he just got rid of Gandalf for a huge chunk with a vague explanation of where he went, which really wouldn't work for a movie (the only reason it worked for the book was because there was a promise that you'd find out eventually).
Three movies is crazy, especially since they haven't really left much stuff for the third one, but two movies were totally essential for keeping the thing from being a total clusterfuck.
Three movies is crazy, especially since they haven't really left much stuff for the third one, but two movies were totally essential for keeping the thing from being a total clusterfuck.
So you can have about 20 mins of the first, maybe 30 to 40 mins of the 2nd, then likely a good chunk of the 3rd. Likely all you need.
But my point is one SPVTW film didn't make money. Shoot them back to back, six months apart release wise, and chances are the minimal success would mean Part 2 either never gets releasd or gets bumped straight to DVD.
eastx
Member
If they bothered to shoot it, I think it would very likely be released at least on home video. You're right that even one Scott Pilgrim movie bombing is a problem though. IMO splitting it into two movies would have improved the quality. But the movie we got was good so quality wasn't the real problem. I wish they had marketed it better.
Doalateralus
Neo Member
Really wish they'd tone down the Ultimate and do a bit more 616 Thor.
Hell, the weirdest thing to me is that Thor is pretty great in Earth's Mightiest Heroes, and those guys (specially Yost) wrote Thor 2, where somehow he is a whole lot less powerful, although Thor 2 does a bit better in showcasing his strength.
I have issues with how the Avengers in general are structured in the movieverse, because one of my favorite things about the team in general is that there is actual clear "tiers" of power but they all come together and work to each other's strengths to beat stuff.
Of course, we are talking about a MCU that for some reason had Thor powered down in the Avengers due to "Dark magic", wonder if Marvel even remembers they did that.
(I don't want to sound like I'm only complaining about Thor, I have the same "character" issues with Cap, Hawkeye and Iron Man in Avengers and I'm praying they do Ms. Marvel justice when they get around to her)
Edit: They could actually solve Thor quite a bit by just giving him his belt and explaining it properly in the movies
- Status